1
lllL 00409 758 3
103
H7
I^O^/lO
LZ
Al
4
9-10 EDWARD VII.
APPENDIX No. 4
A. 1910
PROCEEDINGS
OP THE
Special Committee on Bill TNUo. 21
“AN ACT RESPECTING HOURS OF LABOUR
ON PUBLIC WORKS”
COMPRISING
REPORTS, EVIDENCE AND CORRESPONDENCE
DECEMBER 9, 1909-MAY 3, 1910
PRINTED BY ORDER OF PARLIAMENT
OTTAWA
PRINTED BY C, H. PARMELEE, PRINTER TO THE KING’S MOST
EXCELLENT MAJESTY
19 10
4-D
I
9-10 EDWARD VII.
APPENDIX No. 4
A. 1910
CONTENTS.
PART I.
Page.
The Committee 11
The Committee’s Reports to the House 13
Copy of Bill No. 21, referred to Committee 15
Prefatory Note 16
Minutes of Proceedings 17 to 381
Letter of Witness re Naturalization 381
Appendix — (Exhibits A to LI) 385 to 421
PART II.
Copy of Circular-letter ordered by the Committee to be addressed to Boards
of Trade, Farmers’ Institutes, &c., &c
427
Communications received from: —
Boards of Trade
Dominion Grange
Farmers’ Institutes and Breeders’ Associations
Manufacturers
Marine
Trades and Labour Councils and Unions
Transportation Companies
Special
Index to Communications
Index to Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence. . . .
427
441
446
457
602
604
691
692
695
719
SUBJECTS OF PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCE.
Professor Skelton, p. 17 (Jan. 21). — Scope of research re Hours of Labour
legislation in various countries, 17. Scope of provisions of Bill No. 21, 19.
Federal legislation of the Government of the United States; the Ten-hour
standard of 1840, reduced to Eight in 1868, 22. Scope of United States
eight-hour Act of 1892; the United States Federal Act of 1892, 23. Sup-
plementary legislation; United States Federal Law re Telegraphers, 24.
Bill No. 21, extent of its application to contracts, 26. The New York Bill
and Bill No. 21, compared, 27. Further legislation aimed at in United
States, 30. Provisions of Bills of 1898 and 1906 (U.S.), 31. Objections
to Bill of 1906, 32. (See also Exhibit C)
: 5
6
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Page.
Professor Skelton, p. 33 (Jan. 26).- — Scope of existing Federal Law in United
States, 33. Three classes of Government work defined; Seamen not
labourers, workmen or mechanics, 34. Classification of State Laws, 35.
Scope of various labour laws; Non-observance of; enforcement of, in cer
tain States. 38-39. Labour Law of Wisconsin (June 14, 1909), 39. The
Oklahoma Act of 1908; Kansas Law of 1891, enforced in 1898; Hours of
Labour on Saturdays, 41. Massachusetts’ regulation re 48 hours per week,
43. Scope of Kansas Act, 44. Exemption clause in Massachusetts and
Minnesota Acts; the New York Law, 45. Amendments proposed in 1902
to Bill reported on in 1900; Opinion of the United States Senate Com
mittee, 48. Provisions of Federal and State Laws defined, 49. Extent of
application of New York Law; Court’s decision thereon, 51. Law as to
Mail Carriers, 54. Federal and certain State Laws compared, 55. (See
also Exhibits B2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7)
Professor Skelton, p. 58 (Feb. 2). — Scope of Federal and State Laws limited
to public works and printing; In New York State; Scope of operations
under Bill No. 21, 59. Employers involved on Eight -hour basis; Opinion
of law officers in 1904, 60. Contracts let outside of Canada; Workmen,
law would affect, 62. Bill of 1898, essential part of ; Committee on labour
Bills appointed ; Bill of 1902, its exceptions, 65. Bills killed in the Senate
(U.S.) ; Penalties provided in the Bills; Two main features of Federal
Act of 1892, 66. Thirteen Bills introduced since 1897 ; Law enforced, inspec-
tor reports ; Effect on foreign competitors, 67. Effect of Eight-hour Law on
Productivity, 68. Overtime prohibited, 70. Limit of duty of Inspector;
Enforcement of law in New York State, 71. Additional cost under the
Eight-hour system, 72. Attitude of the Committee on proposed measure;
Shorter day, its moral and physical effect, 73. Difficulties re Eight-hour
day contracts with Ten-hour manufacturers, 74. Effect of law on wages
per day; Important cases cited re meaning of law, 75 -
Mr. Victor DuBreuil, p. 77 (Feb. 16). — Duties of the Fair-wage officer, 77.
How Fair-wage schedules are prepared, 78. When disputes arise; Minimum
rate of pay in schedules, 79. Complaints investigated, affidavits necessary,
80. Underpaid workmen, how remedied, 81. Total of wage schedules pre-
pared; Basis of schedule preparation, 82. Wage schedules subject to re-
vision, 83. How Fair-wage officers proceed; Conditions in Prince Edward
Island, 84. Statement re Hours for building trades in various provinces,
85-91 — (See also Exhibit D) — Prevailing hours for bricklayers and masons in
various provinces, 93. Shorter hours, higher wages, 94. Organized labour,
effect of, on wages and hours, 95. Shorter hours, effect of, on building,
cost and productivity, 97. Conditions in Ontario, 98. Will Eight-hour
measure cut down wages, 100. (See Exhibits Dl, &c., and HI, 2 and 3) . .
Mr. Victor DuBreuil, p. 102 (Feb. 23). — Agitation of organized labour for
shorter hours, 103. Position of unskilled workmen; Opinion of union men re
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
7
APPENDIX No. 4
Page.
wages, 104. Shorter hours re Railroads, dredging and engine men, 105.
Eight-hour law re Government contracts, 106. Garment workers, shoe-
makers; Stone and brick supplies; Button-makers, 107. Cement and paint
factories; How working people would view shorter hours, 108. Percent-
age of working classes in organizations, 109. The question of hours and
wages inseparable, 111. Yearly earning power in building trades, 112. . . .
Mr. James D. McNtven, p. 112 (Feb. 23). — Duties of, and previous experience,
112. Is Fair-wage* clause respected?, 113. Practice followed in protection
to workingmen, 114. How law re Fair wages is enforced, 115. Fair-wages
clause applied to subsidized railways, 116. How information is secured for
preparation of schedules, 117. Schedules furnished in last fiscal year;
Agitation for shorter hours; Conditions in British Columbia, 118. Eight-
hour union law re stonecutters and printers, 120. Productivity of Eight
and Ten hours compared, 122
Mr. James D. McNtven, p. 124 (March 2). — The Half-holiday, 124. Climatic
conditions, effect on operations ; Immediate and ultimate effects of an
Eight-hour a day law, 125. The desirability of a shorter day, 127. Feasi-
bility of an Eight-hour day in factory work, 128. Government contracts
in factories, 129. Ten-hour factory re Eight-hour government contracts,
130. Federal and Provincial jurisdiction re hours of labour, 132
Mr. John Armstrong, p. 133 (March 2). — Duties and experience; Four lab-
our bureaus in Ontario, 133. Printers’ Eight-hour union law, 134.
Printers’ wages under eight and nine hours’ basis; Printers’ short life, its
cause, 135. Machinery, output, hours of labour, 136. Prevailing extent of
the Eight -hour day, 137. Shorter hours, how best obtained; Incorrect scale
of wages made right, 138. Pattern-makers and moulders, 139. Civilian
and military boots and saddles, 140. Ontario government regulations re
hours and wages; Meaning of Bill No. 21, 141. Applicability of Bill No.
21 to materials furnished, 144. Applicability of Bill No. 21 to sub-con-
tracts, 145. Hours and wages, 146. Labour measure workingmen would
welcome; Ontario’s feeling re Bill No. 21, 147. Acceptability of eight
hours’ pay, 148. Volume of work produced under eight, nine and ten
hoursf systems, 150
Mr. Louis Guyon, p. 151 (March 2). — Workingman, employer, government offi-
cial, 151. Reasons favouring an Eight-hour day, 152. Opinion re mean-
ing of Bill No. 21, 153. Government contracts in factories; The piece-
workers, 154. Extent of government work in factories, 155. Effectiveness
of a provincial measure, 156. Hours and wages, problem; Scope of Bill
No. 21 re contracts in factories, 158. Other governments would legislate,
159. Long hours re accidents in factories; Textile workers, women,
children, 160
Mr. E. B. McKune, p, 162 (March 9). — Reasons for objections to Bill No. 21;
Difficulties under an Eight-hour regulation, 163. Working hours, meal
8
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Page.
hours, wages, 164. Cost of production under two and three shifts, 165.
Management and discipline, 167. Long hours in similar establishments;
Hours at work, hours at home, 168. Steady work; Short hours as opposed to
long hours, 170. Moral and material gain under basis of short hours, 173.
Moral gain under basis of long hours, 174. Sleep and meals, 175. Factory and
continuous process labour, 176. Wages paid per hour, effect on cost of
production, 177. Hours in other competitive plants, 178. Competitive
producers re labour conditions, 180. Pittsburg prices, 182
Mr. Daniel W. Evans, p. 184 (March 9). — Occupation; Opinion of Bill, 184.
Wages, tonnage basis, 185. Practicability of the Eight-hour day, 186.
Union hours, wages, 189. Habits of Boiling-mill men, 190
Mr. Justus Post, p. 193 (March 9). — Experience re Twelve hours a day of
labour, 194. Long hours, a necessity for support, 196. Wages, hours,
health, 198
Mr. Phelphs Johnston, p. 200 (March 9). — Cost of production, 200. Govern-
ment and private contract work, 201. Interpretation of Bill; Effect on
hours and charges, 202. Prevailing conditions, 203. Competitors, 204.
Quality of work, a determining factor, 206. Emergency cases; Effect of
long hours on the men, 207
Mr. Charles Marshall Doolittle, p. 208 (March 9). — Stripping in quarrying,
209. Private and Government contracts, 210. Effect of Bill on Labour con-
ditions, 212. Explosives, assidents, 214. Crushed stone, Three-year con-
tracts, 215. Efficiency period in a day’s work, 216. Cheap labour, 217. .
Mr. G. M. Murray, p. 219 (March 9). — Explanation re circulars, 219
Mr. G. M. Murray, p. 220 (March 16). — Circular to members of the Canadian
Manufacturers’ Association re compulsory Eight-Hour Bill, 220. Memorial
in behalf of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association. 221. Manufac-
turers, Boards of Trade, 239. Action following circulars received, 241.
Operation of Bill on construction, 243. Influenced by circular; Benefits
of legislation re labour, 244. Unopposed to principle of the proposed
measure, 248
Mr. J. H. Lauer, p. 248 (April 6). — Objects of Employers’ Unions, 248. Be-
solutions adopted by Employers’ Unions, 249. Exceptions re Nine-hour
day, 252. Objections to unincorporated unions, 254. The Bricklayers’
Union, 255. The British Eight-hour Act, comments, 257. Quarrymen;
shop mechanics, 261. Alberta Government contract; Eight-hour con-
ditions, 262. Further reasons for opposing Bill, 263. Profit-making and
production, 264. Climatic conditions and labour, 265
Mr. E. T. Nesbitt, p. 269 (April 6). — Hours, winter and summer, 271. Out-
put, winter and summer, 272. Overtime; skilled labour, 273. Union
labour; objection, 275. Agreements, operations, hours, wages, 276.
Building, building trades, 277. Labour conditions at port of Quebec, 278.
Employers’ objections to Bill summarized, 279
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OE LABOUR
9
APPENDIX No. 4
Page.
Mr. John Tweed, p. 281 (April 6.) — Carpenters in Ontario, 281. Conditions
prevalent re Hours for carpenters; Effect of climatic conditions, 282.
sufficiency of skilled mechanics, apprentices. 283. Organization, Wages
per hour, 284. Increase of wages; cost of living, 286. Factory and farm
labour, 287. Percentage, eight and nine-hour basis; Better hours, how
obtainable for effectiveness, 288. General application of law re hours,
preferred, 289. Hours and wages in Toronto, 290
Mr. William Watkins, p. 291 (April 13). — Effect of Bill on mining operations,
291. Miners’ hours; Miners and the Eight-hour day, 292. Hours of
work not uniform in Springhill mines; Interpretation of Bill re Coal-
mining contracts, 293. Hours, out, expense, 295. Steps to enact a pro-
vincial eight-hour law, 296. Miners’ wages at Springhill, 297
Mr Joseph Ainey, p. 299 (April 13).— Experience, organized labour, building
trades; Bill No. 21, its practicability, its scope, 299. Hours and wages in
Montreal building trades, 301. Machinery, devices, time saved, 303. City
contracts, stipulations re hours, 304. Fair-wage clause in city contracts,
205. Builders’ Exchange, mail contract, 306
Mr. Edward J. Stephenson, p. 307 (April 13).— Short hours, a necessary re-
form, 307. Scope of United States labour law and Bill No. 21, 308. Pro-
vincial and Federal power to legislate, 310. Relative conditions in pro-
vincial and federal contracts; Cycle of Labour enactments, how influenced,
311. Production not decreased; Conservation of the workingman’s vitality,
314- Hours and wages, 316. Alternative measures re hours of labour,
318
Mr. Patrick Martin Draper, p. 322 (April 20).— Memorial in behalf of the
Trades and Labour Congress, 324. Amend the Bill; Interpretation re
scope of Bill, 340. Title of Bill, 343. Applicability of Bill, 344. An
Eight-Hour measure without a wage stipulation, 346. Extent of approval
of Bill, 347. Necessity of a workable measure, 349
Mr. Gustave Francq, p. 351 (April 20). — A journeyman, 24 years; An em-
ployer of labour, 8 years, 351. Interpretation of Bill, 352. Advantages of
the Eight-hour day, 353. Production and shorter hours, 356
Professor Skelton, p. 358 (April 28).- — Legislation in Great Britain re hours
and wages, 359. Hours of work in coal mines, dockyards, ordnance fac-
tories and military clothing establishments, 361. The War Office. 362
Legislation in France; Decree of 1848, 363. Specific legislation re specific
trades, 364. In naval establishments, 365. In Germany; In Australia and
New Zealand, 366. Social and cultural effects of shorter hours, 368.
Shorter hours re effect on production, 369. Trade unions; Legislative in-
tervention, 371. Fair hours, where applicable, 373.
Mr. Thomas Robb, p. 375 (April 28).— Applicability of Bill to navigation com-
panies, 376
10
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Page.
Professor Skelton, p. 379 (April 28, afternoon sitting). — Betterment of work-
ing classes in Lancashire and Australia under shorter hours, 380
Mr. F. B. McKune, p. 381 (June 2). — Letters of witness to clerk of com-
OQ1
mittee re Naturalization *
SUBJECTS OF THE APPENDIX.
United States Federal Laws re Hours of Labour on Public Works:
Exhibit ‘A’ (1) — Law of 1868, superseded by Act of 1892 385
(2) — Act of 1892 (August 1) 385
(3) — Supplementary legislation 38^
(4) — Decisions and opinions re scope of Act, 1892 386
Exhibit ‘B’ (1) — United States State Laws re Hours of Labour 387-8-9
(2) — Kansas law, 1891 391
(3) — Oklahoma law, 1907 391
(4) — Minnesota law, 1901 391
New York law, re-enacted in 1906 393
(6) — Massachusetts, as amended in 1907. . 394
(7) — Wisconsin, approved in 1909 395
Exhibit ‘ C ’ (1)— Bill introduced in United States Congress, 1898.. .. 396
(2) — Bill introduced in House of Representatives, 1901-2.. 39 1
(3) - — Bill embodying amendments by the Senate Committee,
re-introduced 398
(4) — An Alternative measure, 1910 399
Exhibit ‘ D ’ — Tabulated statement re Rates of wages and Hours of labour
for certain localities in Canada, (submitted by Officers
of the Department of Labour, Ottawa) 400-410
Exhibit ‘ E ’ — Address delivered by Professor Magill, Halifax, N.S., on
February 19, 1910, before the Canadian Club, Ottawa, . 410
Exhibit ‘ F ’• — --Circular of the Parliamentary Committee, C.M.A., to Boards
of Trade (submitted by Mr. G. M. Murray) 417
Exhibit 1 G ’ — Circular of the Parliamentary Committee, C.M.A., to mem-
bers of the association (submitted by Mr. G. M.
Murray) 418
Exhibit ‘H’ (1)- — Fair Wages Resolution 420
(2) — Copy of Order in Council re Payments of Fair wages,
&c 420
(3) — Fair Wages — General clause 421
9-10 EDWARD VII.
APPENDIX No. 4
A. 1910
House of Commons,
Thursday, December 9, 1909.
Resolved, That Bill No. 21, An Act respecting Hours of Labour on Public Works,
be referred to a Select Committee composed of Messieurs Mackenzie King, Mac-
donell. Marshal], Prowse, Smith (Nanaimo), Staples and Verville, with power to
send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses on oath or affirmation and
to report from time to time.
Attest.
THOMAS B. FLINT,
Clerk of the House.
House of Commons,
’ Friday, December 17, 1909.
Ordered, That the following Members be added to the said Committee: Messrs.
Broder, Knowles, S/tanfield amd Turcotte (Nicolet).
Attest.
THOMAS B. FLINT,
Clerk of the House.
1
9-10 EDWARD VII.
APPENDIX No. 4
A. 1910
THE COMMITTEE’S REPORTS.
First Report.
Thursday, December, 16, 1909.
Mr. King, from the Special Committee to whom was referred Bill Ho. 21, An
Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, presented the First Report of
the said 'Committee, which fis as follows: —
Your Committee recommend that leave be granted to them to have their pro-
ceedings rrd ti e rviceince taken by them, printed from day to day, and that Rule 72
be suspended in reference thereto.
Cm motion of Mr. King, the foregoing Report was concurred in.
Second Report.
Wednesday, January 26, 1910.
Mr. King, from the Special Committee to whom was referred Bill No. 21, An Act
respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, presented the Second Report of
the said Committee, which is as follows : —
Your Committee recommend that leave be granted to them to employ the services
of a specialist to assist the Committee in its researches into legislation respecting
hours of labour existing in other countries.
On motion of Mr. King, the foregoing Report was concurred in.
Third Report.
Wednesday, February 23, 1910,
Mr. King, from the Special Committee to whom was referred Bill No. 21, An
Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, presented the Third Report of
the said Committee, which is as follows : —
Your Committee recommend that leave be granted to them to isit while the House
is in session.
On motion of Mr. King, the foregoing Report was concurred in.
Fourth Report.
Tuesday, May 3, 1910.
Mr. King, from the Special Committee to whom was referred Bill No. 21, An
Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, presented the Fourth Report of
the said Committee, which is as follows : —
Your Committee since its appointment on the 9th day of December, 1909, has
held 19 meetings, all of which were open to the public, and heard a large number of
witnesses, representing interests specially affected by the proposed legislation. The
Dominion Trades and Labour Congress and the Canadian Manufacturers’ Associa-
tion were represented by their respective secretaries, each of whom presented the views
13
14
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
of the members of these bodies in carefully prepared and comprehensive memorials.
The views of the Shipping Federation of Canada were given by its secretary. In-
dividual employers of labour and leading trade union officials representing special in
dustries and trades in different parts of Canada gave testimony from the point of
view of labour and capital respectively, whilst information of an official nature as
well as expressions of opinion were obtained from the Fair Wages Officers of the
Department of Labour, Ottawa, the Secretary of the Ontario Bureau of Labour,
Toronto, and the Chief Factory Inspector of the Province of Quebec. An exhaustive
analysis of the nature and administration of the legislation of other countries re-
specting the hours of labour on public works was given by Professor Skelton, of
Queen’s University.
2. In addition to the evidence of witnesses, the Committee obtained by corre-
spondence, in reply to 3,600 communications sent out, expressions of opinion from
721 different persons. Of the replies received, approximately 80 per cent contain valu-
able suggestions and arguments respecting the Bill. Of these replies 304 were from
officers of labour unions; 302 from manufacturers, including the Employers’ Asso-
ciation of Toronto; 65 from Farmers’ Institutes and the Dominion Grange; 39 from
Boards of Trade, and 11 from Transportation companies, including the Marine
Association.
3. The evidence taken, together with the proceedings of the Committee, hut not
including communications sent or received, covers some 400 pages of printed matter.
4. Owing to the number of persons who expressed a desire to give testimony the
Committee has been obliged to continue its sittings for the taking of evidence up to
the present time, but notwithstanding, has been unable to hear all persons who have
asked to he allowed to give testimony. Owing to the volume of evidence taken the
Committee has not had opportunity of giving to the evidence and the large number
of communications which have been received, the careful consideration which their
importance demands. The Committee think that the communications should he care-
fully classified, and together with the evidence, duly printed, and rendered available
for distribution, in order that the members of the House of Commons and of the
Senate, and those who may be especially interested in or affected by the proposed
legislation, may have an opportunity of becoming fully informed on the many im-
portant bearings of the proposed measure.
5. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Clerk of the Committee he
directed to classify the correspondence which has been received and prepare an index
in detail of the evidence and correspondence; also that Rule 72 of the House be
suspended and that the reports of the Committee, the proceedings, evidence and com-
munications be printed in one volume available for distribution to the numbei of
5,000 copies in English and 1,000 copies in French.
6. The Committee also recommend that the reports, proceedings, evidence and
correspondence be printed as an appendix to the Journals.
(For the Evidence, &c., see Appendix No. ^ to the Journals.)
On motion of Mr. King, it was ordered, That the recommendations contained in
the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on Bill Ho. 21, An Act respecting the
Hours of Labour on Public Works, he concurred in.
9-10 EDWARD VII.
APPENDIX No. 4
A. 1910
2nd Session, Mill Parliament, 9-10 Kdivard VII., 1909-10.
(Copy of Bill referred to Committee.)
THE HOUSE OE COMMONS OF CANADA.
BILL 21.
An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
W orks.
HIS Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as
follows : —
4 1. Every contract to which the Government of Canada is a
party, which may involve the employment of labourers, work-
0 men or mechanics, shall contain a stipulation that no labourer,
workman or mechanic in the employ of the contractor or sub-
8 contractor, or other person doing or contracting to do the
whole or a part of the work contemplated by the contract, shall
10 be permitted or required to work more than eight hours in any
one calendar day, except in cases of extraordinary emergency
12 caused by fire, flood or danger to life or property.
2. Every such contract hereafter made shall contain a pro-
14 vision that unless the person or corporation making or per-
forming it complies with the provisions of this Act, the con-
10 tract shall be void, and the person or corporation shall not be
entitled to receive any sum, nor shall any officer, agent or
18 employee of the Government of Canada pay or authorize pay-
ment from the funds under his charge or control to the person
20 or corporation, for work done upon or in connection with the
contract which in its form or manner of performance violates
22 the provisions of this Act.
3. This Act shall apply to work undertaken by the Govern-
24 ment of Canada by day labour.
15
16
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Prefatory Note.
By resolution of the House of Commons of Thursday, December 9, 1909, Bill No.
21, ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public W orks,’ introduced by Mr. A.
Verville, M.P., was referred to the following Select Committee of the House of Com-
mons : —
Messieurs: Mackenzie King, Macdonell, Marshall, Prowse, Smith (Nanaimo),
Staples, and Verville.
The Committee met for purposes of organization on December 13, 1909. The
Hon. Mackenzie King, Minister of Labour, was chosen Chairman. At this meeting
the Committee decided to give to all persons, who so desired, opportunity to offer ar-
guments in favour of, or against the provisions of the measure.
A second meeting of the Committee was held on Thursday, December 16. At this
meeting it was decided to ask for leave to increase the number of members on the
Committee, and by resolution of the House of December 17, the total number of the
Committee was enlarged from seven to eleven members, Messieurs Broder,
Knowles, Stanfield, and Turcotte (Nicolet) being added to the original committee.
To assist the Committee in obtaining special opinions it was decided that copies
of the Bill should be mailed to the several Boards of Trades, Farmers’ Institutes,
Dominion Grange, Trades and Labour Unions, Navigation and Transportation Com-
panies, Manufacturers and other associations, with a circular-letter expressing the de-
sire of the Committee to have the views of all parties interested in the proposed legis-
lation. It was also decided to obtain the services of an expert fo conduct researches
into the legislation of other countries respecting hours of labour on public works, the
steps by which enactments had been brought about and the degree of success which
had attended their enforcement. Professor Skelton, of Queen’s University, was sub-
sequently retained by the Committee for this purpose. The taking of evidence was
commenced at the meeting on Friday, January 21, 1910. At this meeting* Professor
Skelton appeared as the first witness.
9-10 EDWARD VII.
APPENDIX No. 4
A. 1910
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
House of Commons, Room 34,
Friday, January 21, 1910.
The Committee met at eleven o clock a.m., the Chairman, Hon. Mr. King, pre-
siding.
Professor O. D. Skelton, Queen’s University, was present by invitation and ad-
dressed the Committee as follows: —
Scope of Research re Hours of Labour Legislation in Various Countries.
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen. What I have gathered I was to do, mainly, was to
endeavour to find out what had been done in other countries in introducing the eight-
hour day on public works. I should not like at this step to give a definite report on
the European or Australasian situation because while I have gone pretty diligently
thiough what material there is to be had in this country, there are a great many de-
tails which cannot be obtained except through direct communication, and it will be
probably some few weeks before I get complete data on that matter. I might say in
general that on the Continent of Europe there is not, so far as I am aware, any legis-
lation covering public contracts. There is, particularly in France, some legislation
regarding work done in government establishments such as arsenals and navy yards.
Mr. Macdonell. — On government works ?
Prof. Skelton. "Within government establishments, not as a rule on government
works of the public works kind. In Great Britain the conditions are largely the same.
Theie are no provisions, so far as I have yet been able to gather, for public contracts,
but there are provisions for an eight-hour day in government establishments of one
kind and another. But I shall be able to report on that more definitely later. It is
of course in the United States that most of this legislation has taken place. While
there has been a certain amount of legislation in Australia and Hew Zealand which I
shall place before you definitely, if desired, it is of minor importance because the atti-
tude of the government .has been rather dwarfed by the fact that the eight-hour day
is so generally observed in private, establishments.
Mr. Macdonell. — Are you speaking of Australasia?
Prof.. Skelton. — Yes. It is, I suppose, to the experience of the United States
that we will turn chiefly for information, both because of the close parallel between in-
dustrial and labour conditions there and here, and because it is in the United States,
that most of the legislation of this character has been passed. I have examined into what
has been done both by the federal and by the various state governments, and have
tried to compile all the legislation in the two jurisdictions, and am endeavouring also to
get some light on the experience of the actual working of the legislation so far as it
can be determined. I am prepared to outline briefly, if the Committee so desires, the
legislation at present existing both in the federal government and in the various state
governments. I thought that possibly might do for a start.
The Chairman.— Before proceeding, Mr. Skelton, I wish you would inform the
Committee of the conversation you had with Dr. Flint and myself when the arrange-
ment was made as to the scope of your inquiry.
Prof. Skelton. — As I gathered from a letter that was sent me by Dr. Flint, as
well as by conversation, it would chiefly bear on the experience of other' countries
along this line.
4—2
17
18 COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
The Chairman. — Do you remember the date at which Dr. Flint communicated
with you? ,
Prof. Skelton. — It was about the 31st December, I think, that I receivec oima
notification.
The Chairman. — And when did you begin on this work?
Prof. Skelton.— Well I had actually done two or three days’ work before tnat,
because I had communication by telephone regarding it, but it has been c ie 5 anc
the 1st of January. I worked for about a week at it before the college session began at
Queen’s and some odd times since then. I have been corresponding wit e c ie
sources of information in Europe and with sources of information in t e . me
States — the various labour bureaus, and of course manufacturing an a curing or
ganizations — and am comparing whatever experience they have been a e o o er.
The Chairman.— Then what you are doing at the present time is taking up the
different countries and classifying their legislation in regard to hours of a our con
nected with public works?
Prof. Skelton. — Yes. , , ,
The Chairman.— Whether by the federal governments or the state governments .
Prof. Skelton.— Yes. . . , _ , .. .
The Chairman. — That I understand is what the committee wish Prof. Skelton to
do in the first instance. What steps are you taking to ascertain how any such legis-
lation is working out in practice?
Prof. Skelton. — It is rather difficult to get hold of unbiassed and definite infor-
mation in that regard. I have sent a circular to the bureaus of labour in every state
which had legislation of this sort specifying eight or ten points upon which I would
like information. In the first place, as to the scope of the law, and what employments
or trades were included. In the next place, to what extent, if at all, the hours of
labour observed' on public works in those employments differed from private works.
Another query is what, if any, complications had resulted from this discrepancy where
it was found to exist. Another query as to the wages paid as compared with private
work in these lines. Again a query as to the observance of the law and the definition
of the exception as to emergency which is usually included in such laws. . Also a
query as to the effect, if any, exercised on private employment by the public work
law. These are, generally, the lines which I have followed. Then I have also gone
to some extent — into some of the hearings which were held before various commit-
tees of the United States Congress on the subject.
The Chairman. — Are you prepared to give that information?
Prof. Skelton.: — I am trying to synopsize that so far as I can. There is a very
great deal of repetition, of course, and some of the arguments have now been render-
ed obsolete by later laws, but I have been trying to synopsize the available infor-
mation. I have not yet obtained all the data desired, and I have not yet been able to
wade through all the material I have obtained.
The Chairman.— Will you be able to give us the results of your investigations, not
necessarily to-day, but at some later sitting, into the sittings of the different commit-
tees that have been appointed to look into these matters ?
Prof. Skelton. — Yes. I have a general idea of the various committees that have
been appointed, and I thought I might perhaps in that connection give an abstract
of the arguments of both sides, and not merely the arguments but any important data
brought forward in support of the arguments.
The Chairman. — That would be part of the memorandum, so to speak, which you
have prepared.
Prof. Skelton.— I would think so, if the committee wish to hear it.
The Chairman. — I think it would be very desirable that Prof. Skelton should give
us in brief form the essence of the evidence given before these several committees in
other countries. The evidence is voluminous but I should say that one with a trained
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
13)
APPENDIX No. 4
mind as lie has, could go through the material and bring out the arguments pro and
con. What do you think of that, Mr. Verville?
Mr. Verville. — I think the committee would be very glad to receive the informa-
tion.
Mr. Macdonell. — I think it would be useful to have Prof. Skelton’s report in
such a shape that we could have it printed. I think it would he a useful document-
useful not only to the country at large, but to this committee in connection with the
particular matter that we are engaged in.
The Chairman. — Certainly.
Mr. Macdonell. — It would be well, as Prof. Skelton has indicated to cut out much
that is now obsolete. We all know that evidence taken ten years ago on this same
matter is practically obsolete now. There is an immense quantity of most voluminous
evidence and a lot of it is just repetition. What is needed is to boil down the essen-
tials, bring them up to date and apply them to present day conditions. That would
take a good deal of time but it would be very useful and well worth the time spent
on it.
The Chairman. — Certainly.
Mr. Macdonell. — If Prof. Skelton could weave that all in and make a report on
the basis of a more or less comprehensive view of the situation, cutting down obsolete
or voluminous material and getting the essentials applicable to present day conditions
it would be very useful indeed. I think he knows pretty well what we are aiming at.
The Chairman. It might be well at this stage, before Prof. Skelton begins to
outline any research he has already undertaken, for the members of the committee
to express their opinion as to the sketch he has already given, as to whether he is
proceeding in the desired direction and whether there are any other matters to which
they think he ought to give special attention.
Mr. \ erville. — Would you also deal in your report with the effect eight-hour day
legislation would have upon production?
Prof. Skelton. — It is rather a large question, but if desired, I shall of course
endeavour to give a brief report.
Mr. Smith (Nanaimo). — Is there any country in the world that has enacted this
law ?
Prof. Skelton. — Nothing precisely the same.
Mr. Smith. — I mean is there any country in the world that has legislative pro-
visions for hours of labour on public contracts?
Prof, Skelton. — Yes, the federal government in the United States and nearly one-
half of the states have laws more or less similar.
Mr. Smith.— Providing for eight hours a day?
Prof. Skelton. — Providing for eight hours a day on public works or public
contracts.
The Chairman. — You will be able to give us a chronological statement of the time
at which those measures were passed?
Mr. Macdonell. — Take for instance any law in existence that has fixed the hours
of labour; begin with that as a basis and then see to what extent that restriction
prevails and how far it extends, and see how far other countries have restricted the
hours of labour.
The Chairman. — Would you take the general question? You see there are two
questions. There is the restriction of the hours of labour on all industries -
Scope of Provisions of Bill No. 21.
Mr. Macdonell. — The Bill now before the House refers to both classes. It refers
to government contracts and also necessarily refers to other contracts because of its
comprehensive character.
The Chairman. — Does it?
4— 2i
20
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Mr. Macdonell. — It refers to work done in factories all through Canada.
The Chairman.— If it is government work?
Prof. Skelton.— If they are engaged partly on government work.
Mr. Macdonell— That is true, but it necessarily means the addition because t e
factory cannot have two complete outfits.
The Chairman. — That is one of the points involved in the inquiry. It seems to
me there are two distinct inquiries: the question of an eight-hour day generally and
the question of an eight hour day on government contract work.
Mr. Macdonell. — Yes.
The Chairman. — As I understand it Mr. Verville’s Bill is limited to the question
of government work. It does not take up the question of eight hours on industries
generally which would be a terrific question.
Mr. Macdonell. — Practically in working it out that would be the result. That
will be the claim of many who will be heard here, that it means practically the im-
position of eight hours a day on all factory work because of the impossibility of
separating government work from other work.
The Chairman. — That is a point I think the committee ought to decide, whether
it will mean that.
Mr. Macdonell. — We can hear the evidence of the public and see how they are
affected.
Mr. Stanfield. — How will the Bill affect departments like the Marine, Mounted
Police and Militia departments that give contracts for clothing? Take the case of a
manufacturer who is filling contracts of that kind. Supposing Mr. Woods, for example,
had a contract for government supplies. I assume the employees of his factory work
ten hours a day. Well, if he were carrying out a contract for the government and
this Bill goes into effect some of his employees will be working eight hours and others
ten hours a day.
The Chairman.— That is one of the questions we would have to deal with. The
point co be considered just now, as Mr. Macdonell has said, is as to the scope of Prof.
Skelton’s inquiry. We can give it a very wide range and make it an inquiry into
the question of the eight-hour day wherever it exists. For example, in Yew Zealand
and some of the states of Australia they have enacted a straight eight -hour day law.
In British Columbia there is an eight-hour day law applicable to the mines. That
takes in the whole question of provincial legislation on the question of hours for em-
ployment, which is a terrific subject, I say a terrific subject, I mean it is enor-
mous and vast in its extent. On the other hand, the measure which has been referred
to this committee is a Bill respecting hours of labour on public works.
Mr. Macdonell. — It says that, but it is not in effect.
Prof. Skelton. — It is really much broader than the titles indicates.
Mr. Macdonell. — The title is not a correct synopsis of the Bill.
The Chairman.— Whatever the contents of the Bill are I suppose the inquiry
should be as broad.
Mr. Macdonell. — Necessarily.
Mr. Smith. — When you are making an inquiry systematically into the operation
of eight hours a day on public works in the different countries it will be a good oppor-
tunity to learn exactly what these countries do in the matter of hours of labour on
private works. It would not involve very much extra effort to ascertain exactly what
has been done in all those countries in regard to hours of labour generally.
The Chairman. — That is a good thing but it will mean a very extensive investiga-
tion.
Mr. Macdonell. — That would involve going into the factory laws would it not?
The Chairman. — Yes.
Mr. Marshall. — That is the strong objection to this Bill. While the meaning of
the Bill, so far as I understand it, is just to cover government contracts, it will fie
PKOF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
21
APPENDIX No. 4
far reaching m effect and in time all mechanics will be insisting on an eight-hour
day. That is the strong objection I see to it. I would like to ask Prof. Skelton
how eight hours a day has affected other work, outside of government contracts, where
it is in operation. You mentioned a few minutes ago that the eight-hour day law
is in operation in quite a number of places, particularly in the United States.
Prof. Skelton. — Yes.
Mr. Marshall. — Can you tell us how that affects other work outside of govern-
ment contracts?
Prof. Skelton. — That is one thing I am trying to find out.
Mr. Marshall. — I would like to know that.
The Chairman. — You were going to make a suggestion, Prof Skelton.
Prof. Skelton.— It was this, Mr. Chairman, I think that obviously one of the
things which I for my own information and I suppose members of the committee would
like to determine, is what is the scope of the Bill as it at present stands. I
understand also that it will be important to look into what has been done by other
countries regarding public works and public contracts. I imagine that it will be
possible incidentally to do as Mr. Marshall and Mr. Smith suggested, give some state-
ment as to the general condition of eight-hour legislation in other than these limited
spheres, but it would have to be pretty general and condensed if given at all.
Mr. Smith. — Yes.
Mr. Verville. — You will find this legislation is pretty similar to the New York
law, it is almost the same.
Prof. Skelton. — Precisely, with one exception.
Mr. Macdonell. — I think perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we cannot do other than this:
Prof. Skelton has the Bill before him and it is before us. That is the Bill we are
bound to consider and that he is bound to investigate and in anything else he will have
to get the best light he can along the lines of similar legislation to what is proposed
here.
The Chairman. — Prof. Skelton will get as much information as he can.
Mr. Macdonell. — Get as much as he can. I quite agree with Mr. Smith as to
the wisdom of inquiring into the effects of the eight-hour day movement — the resutls
upon extra work and upon workmen working on other contracts side by side, and
what effect the law had in time on the other works — all that arises out of this Bill,
and that would naturally arise out of it, matters of that nature.
The Chairman. — Certainly.
Mr. Macdonell. — Prof. Skelton should investigate this Bill and the experience that
other countries have had with similar legislation, and in connection with that should
obtain all the extra information spoken of that he can obtain and he knows pretty
well now what we need. In the course of his general research he can get much of it.
I suppose beyond that he can not go.
Mr. Smith. — I suppose that the authorities to whom Prof. Skelton writes for in-
formation about the application of this principle will send a description of their laws
regulating the hours of labour. You will get a good deal of information that way.
The Chairman. — Have you any suggestion to make, Mr. Prowse?
Mr. Prowse. — I would suggest that Prof. Skelton ascertain the extra cost of
production.
The Chairman.— You have an abstract, Prof. Skelton, which you wish to give the
Committee ?
Prof. Skelton. — What I have prepared for this morning is chiefly a summary
of the legislation that has been enacted in the United States by the federal govern-
ment and in the separate states.
The Chairman. — I think it would be well if you could give us that.
Prof. Skelton. — Shall I go on with it?
The Chairman. — Yes.
Mr. Macdonell. — It would he very useful to us.
22
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Federal Legislation of the Government of the United States.
Prof: Skelton. — In the division of powers between the federal and state gov
ermnents, it is to the states that the general power of legislating on the jec o
conditions of employment is assigned. Would the Committee prefer that ' ou 1
begin with the experience of the federal government or with that of the states .
The Chairman. — Whichever you think best. _
Prof. Skelton. — Well, perhaps that of the federal government is more easi y
covered.
Mr. Macdonell. — Because of the smaller field?
Prof. Skelton. — And the more continuous action. The labour legislation of the
federal government of the United States may be considered under three heads,
classified according to the constitutional source of the power invoked. I might say that
tile first two heads to which I am going to refer do not bear directly on our inquiry
and I would mention them for a moment or two to clear them out of the way.
(1) As the supreme legislative authority in the District of Columbia and in the
several territories, the federal government has, of course, full power of regulating
the conditions of employment within these regions just as each state government
may do within its own state jurisdiction. For example, the federl government has
passed laws regulating the hours of employment of children in the district of Colum-
bia. It has passed other laws regulating the conditions of employment in coal mines
in the territories, such as- Alaska, and the use of safety appliances on railroads that
are wholly within the district of Columbia or the territories.
(2) In virtue of its power to regulate Interstate Commerce that clause under
which the federal government has swept into its net so much legislation, Congress
may enact laws regulating conditions of employment by common carriers engaged in
interstate traffic. For example, in 1907, it passed a law prohibiting continuous duty
by any employee engaged in transportation on a common carrier doing interstate
business for more than sixteen hours without a rest, and at the same time limited to
nine hours a day the work that could be demanded from telegraphers and train
despatchers. That law was attacked in the courts but was upheld as constitutional
last year and is now in force.
(3) As the largest single direct employer of labour in the United States and as
the source of still more indirect employment through contracts for the construction
of public works the federal government is obviously in a position to determine
labour conditions to an important extent.
An instance of the legislation derived from this power is afforded by the Work-
men’s Compensation Act of 1908, providing for compensation to be paid to employees
injured or to the heirs of employees killed in the arsenals, navy yards, manufacturing
establishments, irrigation works, &c., of the United States.
The Ten-hour Standard of 1840. — Keduced to Eight in 1868.
To come, however* to the point more directly concerned. The regulation of the
■ hours of labour in Government employment has been a matter of long and varied
discussion and enactment. For seventy years the federal government has been a
pioneer in reducing hours. In 1840 the President established ten hours as the stand-
ard in all public employment, so far as workmen, labourers and mechanics were
concerned, the regular hours of private establishments then being eleven, or twelve as
a rule. In 1868 Congress, after the hours in private establishments had fallen to
about ten on the average or a little more, reduced the hours for public employment of
this class to eight. (See Exhibit A. (1).
Mr. Macdonell. — From ten to eight hours straight?
Prof. Skelton. — From ten to eight hours straight. The law was not very strictly
enforced, or very clearly understood. It was passed just before an election and was
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
23
APPENDIX No. 4
not enforced after the election apparently. In 1869 President Grant found it necess-
ary to issue a proclamation tha ‘no reduction shall be made in the wages paid bj
the government by the day to such labourers, workmen, and mechanics on account of
any such reduction of hours of labour.’ This proclamation apparently did not a to
gether bring about the desired results as it was necessary to re-issue the proclamation
in exactly the same form three years later. In the same year an opinion o t ie
Atorney General declared that the terms ‘ labourers, workmen and mechanics ’ should
be broadly construed to include all persons employed and paid by the day. Marc
1888, another Act was passed explicitly directing the public printer to apply the
provisions of this law to all the employees in his department. By an Act of May -8,
1888, eight hours was declared to be a day’s work for letter-carriers in cities, but
overtime was not forbidden.
Scope of Eight-hour Act of 1892.
The next step was taken in 1892 when the main Act which is now in force was
passed, this extended the eight-hour provision to contractors and sub-contractors on
public works. Up to this time it had applied on paper only to those in the immediate
and direct employ of the government. It also extended the scope of the law to in-
clude the District of Columbia and its contracts as well as the federal government
proper, and made provision for effective enforcement by imposing penalties. No
workman, mechanic, or labourer within the scope of the Act could be required, or
permitted to work more than eight hours a day, except in extraordinary emergencies.
The Chairman. — Mafk the Act as an exhibit and it can be printed along with the
evidence. (See Exhibit A. (2).
Mr. Macdonell. — Have you got in handy form the last Act of which you have
spoken by which the government restricted labour on their own public works to eight
hours ?
The Federal Act of 1892.
Prof. Skelton. — Yes, that is the one to which I referred. I have it here. It is
very brief and I will read the essential parts of it.
The Chairman. — Bead the whole of it.
Prof. Skelton.— I will read the whole of it then ; it is quite brief. (Reads) :
‘ Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,— That the service and employment of all
labourers and mechanics who are now, or may be hereafter employed, by the govern-
ment of the United States, by the District of Columbia or by any contractor or sub-
contractor, upon any of the public works of the United States or of said District of
Columbia is hereby limited and restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day ;
and it shall be unlawful for any officer of the United States government or of. the
District of Columbia, or any contractor or sub-contractor whose duty it shall be to
employ, direct, or control the services of such labourer and mechanic, to require or
permit any such labourer or mechanic to work more than eight hours in any calendar
day, except in cases of extraordinary emergency.
‘ gec. 2. That any officer or agent of the government of the United States or of
the District of Columbia, or any contractor, or sub-contractor, whose duty it shall
be to employ, direct, or control any labourer or mechanic employed upon any of the
public works of the United States or of the District of Columbia who shall intention-
ally violate any provision of this Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour and for
each and every offence, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not to exceed one thou-
sand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both, such fine
and imprisonment in the discretion of the court having jurisdiction thereof.
The third section of the Act declares that it shall not apply to pending contracts.
Mr. Macdonell— Is there any other exception than the emergency exception?
24
COMMITTEE EE BILL No. 21—EOUES OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Prof. Skelton. Xo exception. I shall mention later on what scope the courts
have given this Act in their construction of it.
To continue the chronology of legislation. In 1900 letter-carriers were given an
eight -hour day, or rather a fifty-six hour week, without as before the permission of
overtime. (See Exhibit A. (8).
The Chairman. — Read the Act please, let us get everything we can.
Prof. Skelton. — (Reads) :
Supplementary Legislation.
‘ Letter-carriers may be required to work as nearly as practicable only eight
hours on each working day, but not in any event exceeding forty-eight hours during
the six working days of each week; and such number of hours on Sunday, not exceed-
ing eight, as may be required by the needs of the service; and if a legal holiday shall
occur on any working day the service performed on such day, if less than eight hours,
shall be counted as eight hours without regard to the time actually employed.’
This Act was passed in 1901. The following year, that is in the session of 1901-2,
the eight-hour law was explicitly declared to apply to all irrigation works undertaken
b^ the Secretary of the Interior. In 1905-1906 when the Panama Canal was being
planned it was enacted that the provisions of the Act of 1892, the long one which I
lead, should not apply to unskilled alien labourers and to the foremen and superinten-
dents of such labourers employed in the construction of the Isthmian Canal within the
canal zone. Perhaps I might summarize briefly what the present position of legisla-
tion by the federal government is.
The Chairman. — Is that the last Act?
Prof. Skelton. I think I have included all the legislation that has been passed
by the federal government.
The Chairman.— -Have you the Bill of 1904 together with the evidence taken?
Prof. Skelton. Yes, I have that. I have a reference later to the different sup-
plementary Bills that have been proposed, but this is all the legislation that has actual-
ly been put on the statute book so far. To summarize, the federal government has
provided that eight hours shall constitute the limit that may be required or permitted
of any workman, mechanic, or labourer in its own immediate employment whether
engaged m erecting public buildings or fortifications — public works in the ordinary
sense— constructing the vast irrigation works which are now being undertaken in the
semi-arid west, or if they are citizens or skilled aliens, employed on the Panama canal;
they are all m direct government employ. If they are employed in the government
navy yards, arsenals or ordnance factories, or in the public printing bureau or engaged
a^ letter-carriers— I should omit letter-carriers, that is a special provision— they all
have the obligatory eight-hour day.
Federal Law re Telegraphers.
Mr. Smith. — Does it apply to telegraphers too?
Prof. Skelton.— In their case it is a nine-hour day and that is by virtue of the
federal power to control interstate commerce.
Mr. Smith. — It is a federal law?
Prof. Skelton.— Yes, it is a federal law.
The Chairman.— Have they a federal law in the United States which limits the
Hours oi labour on contract work to eight hours?
Limit of Provisions of Federal Act.
Prof. Skelton.— That is just what I am coming to. In the next place it is pro-
vided that eight hours shall be the limit which may be required or permitted bv anv
contractor or sub-contractor engaged on the public works of the United States or tbl
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
25
APPENDIX No. 4
District of Columbia. In this case the scope of employment is narrower. The public
works to which it applies are, I believe, without exception, six works, characterized by
three essential attributes.
1. ' That all relate to the improvement, construction or preservation of realty,
easements or fixtures appurtenant to them.’
2. ‘ That the title to or ownership of the property described is vested in the gov-
ernment, and does not merely pass to it upon the completion of the contract, or ful-
filment of certain specifications.’
3. ‘ That all are of a fixed and permanent nature.’
For example the court has held that the law does not apply when a contractor is
building barges at his own risk and cost, even though under government inspection
and under agreement for sale to the government, in case certain specifications are lived
up to. And, by a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court decided that the law did not apply
to the dredging of a channel in an ocean harbour, declaring that that was not one of
the public works of the United States within the meaning of the title. That is per-
haps more disputable, that was a narrower position, but it is clear that in the main
the legislation of the federal government covers merely work on what we call public
works.
The Chairman. — The public works already in the possession of the government
or owned by the government?
Prof, Skelton. — Yes.
Mr. Verville. — Like the construction of public buildings?
Prof. Skelton. — The construction of public buildings, wharfs, piers, &c.
Mr. Macdonell. — For the government?
Prof. Skelton. — For the government,
Mr. Smith. — Would it not apply to a public building being put up by the govern-
ment under an absolutely independent contract?
Prof. Skelton. — Yes.
The Chairman. — If the government were calling for tenders for the erection of
a custom house or a post office, say in Dakota, and they decided to accept the tender
of a particular contract, would that contractor be bound by his law?
Prof. Skelton. — A stipulation to that effect would be inserted in the contract
and would be binding on the contractor and sub-contractor.
The Chairman. — Suppose where the government executes a contract subject to a
time limit, the building to be constructed say within two years. Let me assume that the
contractor did not complete his work in that time so that the government was released
at the expiration of two years from taking that building over altogether. They could
not foresee such a situation, the time limit for that work would have to be determined
in advance. Would the Act apply in that case?
Prof. Skelton. — Yes, I think so.
Mr. Macdonell. — It is very similar to the fair wage clause.
Prof. Skelton. — Very much the same.
Mr. Macdonell. — And would practically apply to those cases where the fair wage
clause applies. I should think so from what the professor says.
Mr. Smith. — Does the Act apply to transportation companies?
Prof. Skelton. — Mo.
Mr. Smith. — Is that specified in the Act?
_ Prof. Skelton. — Mo. The agitation has since been directed to enlarge its scope
to include
_ ^r- Smith.— I notice in reading the evidence of those committees that in drafting
their Bills they always provide against the transportation companies, but there is
no such provision in the Act in question.
Prof. Skelton. Mo, not in the Act of 1892, since it specifically applies only to
public works contracts.
26
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Mr. Macdonell.— Prof. Skelton is only dealing with enacted laws, now he is
coming to deal with the Bills that were brought in.
The Chairman. — He has been dealing with actual legislation.
Prof. Skelton. — Are there any further queries or suggestions as to oo 'ing up
further information on the scope of the actual legislation ?
Mr. Macdonell. — Bight on that point ? I can see better the very great impor
tance of as far as possible getting on definite lines.
The Chairman.— As to the extent of the application?
Mr. Macdonell. — As to the extent of the application. Take for instance a har-
bour, take Toronto or Montreal harbour, the government has its own dredging plants
and have been dredging there with a couple of their big dredges. I can understand
this Act would apply to workmen on these dredges doing that work. But supposing
a few yards away, or a mile or so away, they have let a contract for dredging another
part of the very same harbour to a contractor. The Act apparently does not apply
to him.
The Chairman, — And further the government might have let a contract for the
building of a dredge. Would it apply to that?
Mr. Macdonell. — Mo, the Act would not apply there according to the professor.
Therefore, it becomes of very great importance to explain to the committee the exact
lines the legislation has gone on. If you, Prof. Skelton, could clean cut, so to
speak, the limitations of the extent of the law, it would be most useful.
The Chairman.- — If you could get an authoritative expression of opinion from some
competent source at Washington also in that connection it would be desirable.
Prof. Skelton. — I might say that I have communicated with several authorities
at Washington and have some statements as to the limits of the law; the opinions of
the officials of the Bureau of Labour, the evidence submitted by the various members
of the other departments who carry on work and who have contracts with contractors,
and the decisions of the various federal courts
Mr. Smith. — That is very important.
Prof. Skelton. — Laying down cases to which the law should or should not apply.
If desired I can put that in as definite form if possible for the information of the
Committee later. (See Exhibit A. (1^).
Mr. Macdonell.— They may have some handy manual issued for the information
of contractors and other persons dealing with the government containing in some
brief form the effect of their legislation.
Extent of Bill No. 21, Applicable to Contracts.
Mr. Smith. — Let me put this question to you: do you think this Bill would apply
to a private party who had a contract to furnish supplies to the government.
Prof. Skelton. — You mean the Bill before us?
Mr. Smith.— Yes.
Prof. Skelton. — I should think so, because it is of much broader scope than the
American law.
Mr. Smith.— Supposing the government made a contract with a grocer to furnish
groceries. Would that compel that grocer to conduct his business generally on an
eight hour basis?
Prof. Skelton. — It would compel him to operate that part of his business which
is concerned in supplying the Government contract on the eight hour basis, I should
imagine, whether or not it would compel him to carry on all the rest of his business
in the same way. That is the point on which a great deal of evidence was submitted
before the American committee which I shall present.
Mr. Smith. — You will find that is the great, difficulty at the foundation of this
whole matter, and how impossible it will be to dissociate one part of the business
PKOF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
27
APPENDIX No. 4
from another. I just mentioned that to give to Prof. Skelton an opportunity of
thinking it over- because I think that point is the very basis of the whole matter.
Mr. Macdonell. — That is why I would like to get in a clean cut way how far they
have gone with this legislation elsewhere, in the States, for instance. I should judge
the extent which they have gone is where the government is constructing public
works, either with its own workmen or under a contract, in all these classes the work is
confined to eight hours a day.
Prof. Skelton. — I think generally speaking. There are, of course, debatable
grounds. Por example such as that work of dredging where it is difficult to say
whether it is a public work or not; but generally speaking it applies to all buildings
and constructions, including, of course, wharfs, piers and breakwaters.
The Chairman. — You could perhaps classify the field by dividing it into three
parts : the clearly applicable so to speak, the debatable and the definitely non-applicable.
Prof. Skelton. — The scope of the law, to a certain extent, will be revealed, I think,
by consideration of the further attempts made by the advocates of the measure to
have it amended. That will show of course to which it does not extend.
The Chairman. — Will there be any way of also indicating, in this connection,
what the situation was at the time this measure was enacted, so that we may be able
to know what difficulties they had to meet in this enactment? For example if the
eight-hour day were prevailing, throughout the United States, when this measure
was passed, we can see that there would not be much difficulty in applying it. On
the other hand, if there were nine or ten hours in some states, it would have given
rise to certain difficulties. Has the evidence, so far as given any place helped you to-
wards an opinion on that point?
Prof. Skelton. — I have not seen that point brought out in evidence, but I had
already thought of the advisability of considering it and have been going through the
available reports, as to hours of work in the United States which would affect this
point. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, it may be necessary for you, when the com-
mittee has discussed the possible scope of the Bill before it, to have the officials of the
Department of Labour testify as to the hours of labour prevalent in the employments
concerned. I suppose that is your intention.
The Chairman. — Any time the committee is ready to hear the fair wages officers
of the Department they will be in attendance. They have made, I think, pretty com-
prehensive investigations along that line and will be able to give a tabular statement.
Mr. Macdonell. — So, therefore, when we come to deal with this matter we shall
be ourselves practically in the position of those who have already dealt with legisla-
tion as to the hours of labour.
Mr. Verville. — According to your knowledge of the Bill, Prof. Skelton, suppos-
ing the government were giving a contract for the construction of a building. Would
all the goods furnished for that building have to be made under the eight-hour law,
stone, wood or whatever it may be?
Prof. Skelton. — I think so, if made in consequence of that contract. The ramifi-
cations of the Bill seem rather far reaching.
The Chairman. — Which Bill are you speaking of now?
Mr. Verville. — The Bill which is now before us.
The New York Bill and Bill No. 21 Compared.
Prof. Skelton. — On that point, Mr. Verville, your Bill as I understand is an
exact copy, so far as it goes of the New York law. It does not go quite so far — — ■
Mr. Verville. — As the New York Bill?
Prof. Skelton. — As the New York Bill, with one exception which I think is a
printer’s error. A comma has been put in, which rather importantly alters the mean-
ing of the Bill. That, I think, is a printer’s error.
The Chairman. — You might point that out.
28
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Prof. Skelton. — In line eight of section one of the Bill as printed a comma is
inserted after ‘contractor.’ In the New York Bill that comma is omitted. Perhaps
I had better read the section with and without the comma to make it quite clear. The
Bill as here printed reads :
‘ Every contract to which the government of Canada is a party, which may in-
volve the employment of labourers, workmen or mechanics, shall contain a stipula-
tion that no labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of the contractor or sub-
contractor, or other persons doing or contracting to do the whole or part of the work
contemplated by the contract, shall be permitted or required to work more than eight
hours in any one calendar day] except in cases of extraordinary emergency caused by
fire, flood or danger to life or property.’
It is somewhat different to the New York law which omits the comma and reads:
‘ No labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of the contractor, sub-contrac-
tor, or other person doing or contracting to do the whole or a part of the work con-
templated by contract, &c.’
In the case of the Canadian Bill the measure is made to apply both to labourers,
workmen or mechanics in the employ of the contractor and to other persons doing or
contracting to do the whole or part of the work. That might be held to extend to
principals or contractors themselves. I imagine, Mr. Verville, it is not the intention
to put a comma in there, but I just suggest that point.
Mr. Macdonell. — It is very effective.
The Chairman. — The intention was there all right, if Mr. Verville had anything
to do with it.
Prof. Skelton.— I brought the question up for my own information.
How Far Contracts Would be Affected Under Bill No. 21.
Mr. Verville. — As the Bill stands supposing we were to put up a building right
across here, would not everything that goes into the building have to be manufactured
on the footing of eight hours ?
Prof. Skelton. — I would think so myself.
Mr. Verville. — Do you mean to say that even the paint and the glass that goes
into the windows would have to be supplied on an eight-hour basis ?
Prof. Skelton. — If provided by special contract, not if purchased in the open
market. I believe this Bill applies not only to the contractor for public buildings
but to all men to whom he sublets the work, or with whom he enters into contractual
agreements for the purchase of any material, but it would, I should think, apply to no
materials which that contractor bought in the open market, for which he had not any
contract,
Mr. Macdonell. — W hy not, there is no exception for goods bought in the open
market? That is not covered in the Bill.
Prof. Skelton. — The Bill says ‘ labourers, workmen and mechanics in the employ
of the contractor or sub-contractor.’ It does not say that materials used by them must
invariably be manufactured on an eight-hour basis.
The Chairman. — A ou are right. The Bill reads : ‘ that no labourer, workman, or
mechanic, in the employ of the contractor or sub-contractor, or other person doing or
contracting to do the whole or a part of the work contemplated by the contract, shall
be permitted or required to work more than eight hours,’ &c. That is to say it ex-
tends down to all the sub-contractors until you get to the very last of them
Mr. Macdonell. — Unless exceptions are made.
The Chairman. — Yes.
Mr. Macdonell. — For instance, exception in case of goods bought in the open
market. That is one of the class of exceptions that have been contended for in the
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ho. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
29
APPENDIX No. 4
discussion of the American Bills. That is not in this Bill. The exception in the
American law is, I think, to goods bought in the open market.
Prof. Skelton. — Yes, in some Bills.
Mr. Macdonell. — Then there are transportation companies, emergency, and
several other exceptions.
Mr. Verville. — Then your idea is that the Bill would apply to everything.
Prof. Skelton.— To everything on which it was necessary to enter into a contract.
Mr. Verville.. — Exactly. Of course the construction of a building in this case
would be a contract entered into between the government and one particular man. It
would be the same way with the rest.
Prof. Skelton. — Then the contractor would find it necessary to contract for his
structural material. It would be quite possible that the person who furnished that
structural material would find it necessary to contract for it.
The Chairman. — For parts of it.
Prof. Skelton. — Some special material, or supplies, or work.
Mr. Verville. — Then according to your idea not even a nail could be put into
that building except it had been manufactured under the eight-hour law?
Mr. Skelton.- I would not say that. If that nail were purchased in the open
market I do not think the Bill would apply, but if some contractor, or some one of the
whole series of contractors, specifically made contracts for the manufacture of such
nails nails answering to certain specifications— it would apply in that case.
Mr. \ erville. — The purchase of nails in a contract I make with the hardware man,
a contract I make with him to send me twenty kegs of nails. That is a contract.
Mr. Smith. — It is not a contract.
Mi. ^ Eiii ille. It is a contract to furnish me with nails or anything else at so
much.
Pi of- Skelton. But, Mr. Verville, the Bill does not say that the measure shall
apply to all material used?
The Chairman. — There is a difference between purchase and contract.
Mr. Verville.— -I know there are a good many — and that is why I want to get
this into the evidence — who believe that everything that goes into a building or con-
tract of any kind must be manufactured on that basis.
Mr. Smith. — Supposing a contractor were putting up a building and wanted ten
keg-s of nails. He went down to a Sparks street store and purchased them in the open
market, that would not be a contract?
Prof. Skelton. — I certainly think not, in the sense in which contract is here used.
Mr. Smith.— Supposing that contractor advertised that he wanted twelve kegs
of nails and they were supplied to him, that would be a contract?
Mr. Verville. — The fact is that in the building line that is always done with a
good many contractors.
Mr. Macdonell. — I would agree with Mr. Verville. I think that Bill would cover
everything that goes into the construction of the building. The man who weighs out
those nails would have to be, I think, an eight-hour man.
The Chairman. — And the man who made those scales.
Mr. Verville. — It is a misinterpretation of the law there.
Mr. Marshall. — Take the case of a man who enters into a contract with the
government to supply canned goods. IIow are you going to specify the time in which
that man shall put up those goods. Yet that would have to be done under the Bill.
Prof. Skelton— On the face of the Bill the measure would seem to apply not
merely to the employees of the contractor or sub-contractor engaged on the actual
work intended to be given to the government, but to all their labourers, workmen or
mechanics. I should imagine, although no lawyer, the language employed in the Bill
would involve all the labourers and mechanics in their employment whether working
30
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
upon government or private work. On the other hand, I do not see that the Bill i:ias
quite the sweeping force that Mr. Macdonell gives to it. I mean that I think exception
would be made, even under this Bill, of materials purchased without any specific
contract being entered into.
Mr. Smith. — If a contractor went out and purchased goods in the open market
I do not see how you could attack it.
Prof. Skelton. — That is an important point upon which I would like to present
evidence later.
Mr. Verville. — Put that provision into the hands of the lawyers and you will
find out what they think of it.
Prof. Skelton. — It is a broad question.
The Chairman. — Perhaps we might defer discussion as to the special application
of this Bill until a later meeting. Prof. Skelton was giving us a resume of the legis-
lation on the subject of the eight-hour day. Perhaps he might now continue his re-
marks.
Further Legislation Aimed at in United States.
Prof. Skelton.— Since the Act of 1892 was passed the advocates of the eight-hour
day have directed their efforts to secure two objects, in the first place the strict en-
forcement of the Act as it stood, and in the next place its extension to include prac-
tically all contracts made by the United States. In the first place there seems to be
no doubt that in many sections of the country the law was for years rendered a dead
letter by the flexible interpretation of the emergency clause. You may remember ex-
ception was made in cases of extraordinary emergency, according, to the Act of 1892,
which is still the main law in force. At various times the difficulty of obtaining a
second shift of men or the probability of pecuniary loss have been constituted emer-
gencies.
Mr. Smith. — Is that in the law yet ?
Prof. Skelton. — No, that was not in the law, that was an interpretation. There
is no doubt that the term ‘ emergency ’ was used in a very flexible and I should think
not altogether justifiable sense. It was used as a loophole to render the law inopera-
tive. By various trade unions, demands were made for legislation to remedy this
defect, but the remedy has been provided not by the passage of fresh legislation, but
by a more rigid interpretation by the courts, particularly by the higher federal courts.
P or example, the Supreme court in the decision which is now followed by all the federal
courts, I believe, declares that, the term ‘ extraordinary emergency ’ means a grave, un-
common, exceptional happening which presents a sudden and unexpected occasion for
action. I believe that at present the law is pretty strictly enforced. Diffi-
culties in obtaining labour, mere climatic disturbances or delay in obtaining material
are held by the courts not to constitute emergencies and do not release the contractor
from the penalties of this Act.
Further than that, at nearly every session of Congress since 1897, proposals have
been made for the radical extension of the 1892 Act to cover all contracts. Bills em-
bodying these proposals have twice, at least, passed the House of ^Representatives and
have been thrown out by the Senate or not referred to the Senate by the Committee
on Education and Labour to which they had been committed. I might read as briefly
as I can the essential parts of the two most important types of these eight or ten-
measures that have been submitted to Congress. Shall I do that?
The Chairman. — Yes. Is this Bill you are giving us now likely to take up much-
time, is it beginning a new phase of the subject?
Prof. Skelton. — All that I thought I would do to-day was to just read these two-
Bills so as to indicate to the committee the tenor of the further legislation sought. I
am not prepared to go any further at the present time because that would involve a.
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
31
APPENDIX No. 4
rather lengthy statement of the evidence submitted on these different measures. There-
fore if the committee desires I will simply read these two different measures.
Mr. Macdonell. — These are the most recent Bills that have been presented and
legislation asked for?
Provisions op Bill of 1898.
Prof. Skelton. — Yes. I thought I would mention first the Bill brought forward in
1898, because while it is not now the basis of the legislation demanded, the difference
between that Bill and the later Bill brought forward is perhaps instructive. The
Bill was divided into two sections, the first section following to some extent the word-
ing of the law of 1892. ‘ Be it enacted ’ and so on. (Reads) :
‘ That the time of service of all labourers, workmen and mechanics employed upon
any public works of, or work done for the United States, or any territor5T, or the Dis-
trict of Columbia, whether said work is done by contract or otherwise, is hereby lim-
ited and restricted to eight hours ifl any one calendar day.’ ( See Exhibit C. (1).
That is the essential part, I need not inflict the rest of the section upon you.
Mr. Macdonell. — You might read the exceptions.
Prof. Skelton. — (Reads).
‘ Except in cases of extraordinary emergency caused by fire, flood, or danger to life
or property, nor to work upon public, military or naval works or defences in time of
war.’
It means ‘ nor shall this Act apply to work upon.’
The second section provides:
‘ That each and1 every contractor to which the United States, any territory, or the
District of Columbia is a party, and every contract made for or on behalf of the United
States, or any territory, or said district, which contract may involve the employment
of labourers, workmen or mechanics, shall contain a stipulation that no labourer,
workman, or mechanic in the employ of the contractor or any sub-contractor doing or
contracting to do any part of the work contemplated by the contract shall be re-
quired or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day.’
Very largely you see in the terms of the measure before us. There were no excep-
tions made to the second part regulating contracts, not even the usual flood or fire or
war, exceptions were inserted. I might say, while not attempting to go into general
evidence given, that grave objections were brought forward on the ground that this
Bill would for example apply to all transportation contracts for the conveyance of
material. Accordingly in the Bill brought forward in the 55th, 57th and 59th Con-
gresses, attempts were made by the advocates of the measure to get around these objec-
tions and to limit the Bill in certain directions. I shall read the Bill as submitted in
1906:
• Provisions of Bill of 1906.
‘ Each and every contract hereafter made to which the United States, any terri-
tory or the District of Columbia is party, and every such contract made for or on be-
half of the United States or any territory or said district, which require or involve
the employment of labourers or mechanics, shall contain a provision that no labourer
or mechanic doing any part of the work contemplated by the contract
You see that is narrower in scope than our Canadian Bill which, as I said, might
apply to workmen in the employ of a contractor whether on government work or not..
‘ In the employ of the contractor or any sub-contractor contracting for any part
of said work contemplated, shall be required or permitted to work more than eight
hours in any one calendar day;’
Then it imposes a penalty, and goes on to give certain exceptions :
32
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
‘Nothing in this Act shall apply to contracts for transportation by land and
water, nor shall the provisions and stipulations in this Act provided for so much of
any contract as is to be performed by way of transportation, or for such materials as
may usually be bought in open market, whether made to conform to particular speci-
fications or not. The proper officer on behalf of the United States, any territory or
the District of Columbia, may waive the provisions and stipulations in this Act pro-
vided for as to contracts for military or naval works or supplies during a time of Avar
or a time when war is imminent. No penalties shall be exacted for violations for such
provisions due to extraordinary emergency caused by fire or flood, or due to danger to
life or loss to property.’ (See Exhibit C. (3) and (I/.).
Thoise were the outstanding provisions of the Bills which have provided the
bone of contention before the United States Congress in the years from 1898 to the
present when at nearly every session of Congress a Bill on these general lines was up
for discussion.
Hr. Hacdonell. — Can you tell us what the objection was to the 1906 Bill? That
did not pass?
Prof. Skelton. — That did not pass.
Objection to Bill of 1906.
Hr. Hacdonell. — What was the chief objection to it?
Prof. Skelton. — I might say the chief objection was the practical one based on
the difficulty of keeping the public and the private work separated, the importance of
which has been referred to by several members of the Committee, the difficulty of hav-
ing workmen on government work working for eight hours, while workmen in the
same shop on private work were putting in ten hours a day. That was I think the
strongest objection brought against the Bill. Then a great many objections were
raised as to the wording, as to whether or not provision was made for exempting
the purchase of supplies in the open market. But the main, practical objection was
as to the effect on the shop, the internal organization.
The Chairman. — Your plan was to go on and give legislation with regard to the
several states, was it, or have you more information with regard to federal legisla-
tion?
Prof. Skelton. — The evidence that I have given covers the legislation that has
been actually enacted by the federal government and refers to the chief lines of fur-
ther legislation sought from them.
The Chairman.— What do you propose to give us after that 1
Prof. Skelton. — I had also prepared a resume of the laws in force in the several
states, nearly one-half of which ha\re passed laws, some broader and some narrower in
scope.
Hr. Verville. — The giving of that information would take a whole session of the
Committee.
Prof. Skelton. — It would take quite a while.
The Chairman. — Hy reason for asking that was I think we had better determine
the ;plan of business for our next meeting. I would like to know what the views of
others members of the committee may be as to the hearing of evidence first or con-
tinuing the hearing of Prof. Skelton until he has concluded the presentation of all
that he has to give us.
Prof. Skelton.— If you desire I shall go on next day with the endeavour to show
what steps have been taken by the federal and state governments of the United
States in the direction of the legislation which you are seeking.
Prof. Skelton retired.
Committee adjourned.
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
33
APPENDIX No. 4
House of Commons,
Committee Room No. 62,
Wednesday, January 26, 1910.
The Special Committee on Bill No. 21, repecting the hours of labour on publid
works, met at eleven o’clock, a.m., the chairman, Hon. Mr. King, presiding-
The Chairman. — At our last meeting Prof. Skelton gave a comprehensive review
of the legislation by the federal government of the United States respecting hours of
labour on government contracts, and had pretty well concluded that part of his review.
There were some questions asked him by members of the committee to which he was to
direct special attention and give us further information to-day. He might, perhaps,
take up these points first and then continue a summary of the legislation passed by
the several States.
Scope of Existing Federal Law in United States.
Prof. Skelton.- — It was requested at the last hearing that a more detailed
staterqent be given of the scope of the existing United States federal law. It will be
recalled that this law passed in 1892, as extended by later declarations, applies to the
following main classes : —
1. Labourers and mechanics in the direct employment of the United States or
District of Columbia; now including men employed in navy yards, arsenals, ordnance
factories, in printing bureaus, on construction of buildings, breakwaters, piers, fortifica-
tions, on irrigation works, and on Panama canal (except unskilled aliens). For letter-
carriers an 8-hour day or 56-hour week is prescribed. It has been ruled that messengers
and janitors are not included. 26 Op. Atty. Gen. p. 623.
2. Labourers and mechanics employed by any contractor or sub-contractor upon
any of the public works of the United States or District of Columbia. There are no
explicit exceptions, save in the provision for emergency. As stated at the last hearing,
the ruling of the courts is now strict on this point 'and makes it clear that difficulties
in obtaining labour, or delay in obtaining material cannot be held to be emergency.
Of Circulars of War Department, No. 33 and No. 62, July 30 and December 26, 1906:
‘ The law is considered to cover any extraordinary emergencies which cannot be fore-
seen, such as might be necessary for saving life or property of the United States, and
not causes which depend for their emergency solely upon economical methods of work
or importance of rapid construction Mere economical considerations do not
affect the question at all. It is to be assumed that in making the requirement Congress
knew that under many conditions the law would impose great expense on the govern-
ment.
The question of scope is thus in the main a question of the definition of the term
1 Public Works.’ It has been held by the Supreme Court that the phrase 'any of the
public works ’ is narrower than ‘ any public work ’ would be, and that it implies that
' the objects of labour referred to have some kind of permanent existence and structural
unity, and are severally capable of .being regarded as complete wholes.’ (27 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 600.) It has been held further that ‘ public works ’ implies that the title to the
property is from the start vested in the government and does not merely pass to it on
acceptance as fulfilling specifications laid down in a contract. (55 Fed. Rep. 952.)
Again, in practice it has been construed to apply only to work done on the premises
where the construction was in progress.
Recommendation of Committee on Labour re Bill of 1897.
The Committee on Labour of the House of Representatives in recommending the
passage of Bill No. 3078, in 1897, declared: —
4 — 3
34
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1810
‘ It has been found that sub-contractors do not obey the spirit of the law in
the work done elsewhere than on the actual grounds of the building in course of
erection. For example, it frequently occurs that a sub-contractor for stonework
will prepare the stone at his own quarry and there disregard the eight-hour law.
And, if much work is to be done at or near the building, he will hire a lot
adjoining the government lot, and there have the stone cut by men working more
than eight hours per day. This and kindred methods of evading the spirit of
the eight-hour law the (present (1897) Bill aims to correct and prevent.’
Whatever the spirit of the 1892 eight-hour law may be, apparently the letter does
not cover work done otf construction premises.
The Three Classes of Government Work Defined.
Following the suggestion of the chairman of this committee it may be helpful to
make three classifications of government work.
1. Work undeniably within the scope of this law — the United States federal
law — including work on public buildings, or breakwaters, or work in navy yards
or arsenals. Or, to put it in another way, work done by employees under the
immediate supervision of government officials or government contractors.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. In the employ of the government? — A. In the employ of the government?
Q. Yes, restricted to that class? — A. Yes, or in the employ of the contractor.
The Chairman. — You mean, Mr. Macdonell, all the work as restricted by law?
Mr. Macdonell. — I thought the first class would be the direct employees of the
government.
The Chairman. — I think Prof. Skelton means more than that.
Mr. Macdonell. — I understand.
Prof. Skelton. — I mean to include within the first class all those unquestionably
within the scope of the law. All mechanics and workmen in the direct employ of the
government no matter whether on public works or not; and secondly, workmen and
mechanics in the direct employ of contractors or sub-contractors on the public works.
2. Work undeniably beyond the scope of the law. For example, supplies and
materials bought in the open market, by the government or by its contractors.
Again, even where specific contracts have been made. — To take an instance on
which the courts have pronounced — barges built by contract under government in-
spection, but not becoming government property until completed and accepted, and
work on sub-contracts for building material carried on off the construction
premises, to which I referred a moment ago. All these classes are undoubtedly
beyond the scope of the law.
3. Then I might mention a few ambiguous classes of the work referred to
as to which there is a difference of opinion. For example, whether dredging a
channel in an ocean harbour comes under public works; the Supreme Court, by
a 5-3 vote, held in the negative. Or as to whether men employed on dredges and
scows were labourers or mechanics. The court, by the same majority, held they
were seamen rather than labourers or mechanics, and did not come under the
jurisdiction of the law.
Are there any questions as to the federal law of 1892, or as to its scope before I
go on to deal with the legislation of the states?
Seamen not Labourers, Workmen or Mechanics.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. With regard to this decision, if a barge, or a dredge, or anything which comes
under the class of work referred to, is being built, the workmen would not be obliged
to work eight hours during the construction? — A. No, it would not be considered one
of the public works of the United States.
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL X o. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
«
35
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Then the building of a dredge would not come under the jurisdiction of that
law ? — A. No, nor its operation, in the case of the men working on a dredge. The
court held that they were seamen.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. If that were a dredge employed by the government, or if it were a government
dredge, would the workmen not come under that Act? — A. You mean when they were
working on it?
Q. Yes, on the property of the government? — A. The point is that these men work-
ing on the dredge were held by the court not to be either labourers,- workmen or
mechanics to whom the law applied. The court held that such men were seamen.
By the Chairman:
Q. If working in an ocean harbour? — A. In an ocean harbour. If working in a
creek or a river they might be held to be workmen or mechanics, and the law would
apply there. In fact there was a difference of opinion in the court between two
classes of dredges, one in Boston harbour and another in Chelsea creek. Two of the
judges switched when it came to discussing the creek question. They held that was a
public work, and that the men employed on a government dredge in that creek were
labourers and mechanics. It is rather a subtle distinction, and perhaps would not
come up very often.
By Mr. Smith (Nanaimo):
Q. I understood you to say that all government employees came under this law ?
— A. No. All government employees who are workingmen, labourers or mechanics.
Q. That would take anybody in.
The Chairman. — The courts construed these men to be seamen and not workmen,
evidently regarding the former as not belonging to a class of workmen.
Prof. Skelton. — The Attorney General also gave an opinion on the subject. He
held that caretakers, janitors and messengers were not workmen or mechanics; and
of course clerical employees are excluded.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. The cases you are reading are pretty well all in the Supreme Court of the
United States? — A. The two most important cases were in the Supreme Court of the
United States, and they are quite authoritative.
Mr. Macdonell. — As far as possible I think it would be well to adhere to those
cases. The Supreme Court of the United States is a court that would not be binding
on us, but their decisions would be very useful to follow out. I doubt very much the
utility of following out the decisions of the Supreme Courts of the different states.
Prof. Skelton. — Two of the references I have given pertain to the Supreme
Court; I have the details here and shall insert them in the appendix. The other has
reference to a Federal Court also. None of them relate to state courts.
Classification of State Laws.
In the division of powers between the Federal and State governments, it is to the
states that the general power of legislating on the conditions of employment is as-
signed. The majority of the states have freely exercised this power by passing statutes
defining or limiting hours of labour in various ways. It may be well to classify these
statutes as concisely as possible, to clear up the distinction between legislation such
as is contemplated by the Bill under discussion and legislation covering private em-
ployment alone. These laws comprise six main classes, with the first five of which
we are clearly not here concerned.
4—34
36
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
!• Laws limiting the hours of labour of women and children. — Thirty-eight out of
forty-six states have enacted legislation of widely varying stringency covering one or
both of these classes.
2. Laws limiting the hours of labour of men engaged in railroading with the
object of safeguarding the general public. — Twenty-five states have laws providing
ihat railroad employees actively engaged in transportation may not be compelled to
work more than a certain number of continuous hours, varying from thirteen to
twenty-four, without an eight or ten hour rest, wThile eight states (Arkansas, Con-
necticut, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin) limit
to eight hours the day’s work of railroad telegraphers and train despatches.
3. Laws limiting the honours of labour in certain dangerous or exhausting indus-
tries with the object of safeguarding, not the public health, but the health and safety
of the men employed. New Jersey limits the hours of labour in bakeries to ten, while
nine states and territories — Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nevada.
Oregon, Utah and Wyoming — limit the hours of labour in mines and smelters to
eight, and Maryland to ten hours. This eight-hour law is the same type as our British
Columbia law and the enactment recently passed in Great Britain regarding mines.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Aou say it is ten hours and A. In Maryland ten hours, in the other nine
states, eight hours.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. What is it in England? — A. Eight hours.
By Mr. Smith:
%
Q. In the United Kingdom they passed the eight-hour law last session?— A. Yes.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. It is the same in Alberta is it not? — A. I believe so.
r I- I place in the next division Laws defining the hours of labour on public roads.
Twenty-one states and territories have passed laws on this subject, all, with two ex-
ceptions designating eight hours’ labour as a day’s work. They establish a minimum
rather than fix a limit beyond which labour is forbidden, and apply more particularly
to statute labour than to the employment of wage labour. They are simply laws
which the citizens of the state lay down for their own guidance when engaged in
statute labour and do not apply to wage labour.
By Mr. Staples:
Q Just, a question here as a matter of information. Is it necessary to have a
federal law before you can pass these provincial laws? The provinces have jurisdic-
tion in this matter have they not?— A. In all these cases.
Q. In all these cases which the provinces would have in Canada? A. Precisely.
r.cr ^ ^en wllat necessity is there for a federal law, because the localities are so
different throughout the Dominion of Canada? Why cannot this legislation be left
to the provinces?
Mr. Macdonell.— It is with that view the professor is eliminating by a process
0- exclusion everything but what we should consider
Professor Skelton.-I am trying, Mr. Staples, to include in this survey all that
legislation which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the states or provinces
I ne Chairman.— We considered that point at the last meeting, Mr. Staples as
owe er it would be wise for Professor Skelton in his review to go into the ques-
tion of eight hours generally or confine his remarks entirely to public work under
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE DILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
37
APPENDIX No. 4
federal contracts. It was thought that if he took a hasty survey of the wider field
it might enable us better to have a perspective of the whole. I think that is his reason
now for showing what can be done by provincial legislation as distinguished from
federal.
Mr. Staples. I see. I was not here at the last meeting.
Professor Skelton. 5. Laws defining the length of the legal working day in
the absence of special contract between the employer and workman. — Nine states have
passed measures fixing ten hours as a legal day’s work, and nine states, eight hours.
Exception is usually made of agricultural labour and of service by the week, month
or year. Working overtime is not forbidden. Several of the acts stipulate that over-
time shall be paid extra, but they have proved of little effect. The employee is usually
assumed to have impliedly contracted for a longer day, if a longer day is customary
with the trade or the employer concerned; and in any event the law can be utilized
only after the workman has left his job and is prepared to antagonize his late em-
ployer.
6. Finally laws fixing the hours of labour of workmen and mechanics employed
directly by the state government or municipalities within the state, or by private con-
tractors doing public work. That is the one class of the state legislation with which
we 'are directly concerned and I wished to run over and exclude the others because
I find that in a great deal of the discussion some confusion exists between the different
classes. Confining ourselves then to this one class of legislation, twenty-three states
and territories have passed legislation of this general character. I have here prepared
a synopsis of each of these laws stating hours, scope, wage provision, exceptions and
the penalties. I thought it would be probably exhausting your patience too much to
read them and perhaps they can be printed as a schedule attached to the minutes. I
shall simply take four or five of the most important ones. (See Exhibit B. (1).
Mr. Macdonell.- — It would be well to hear them if we can.
Mr. Staples. — Give four or five of the most important.
Prof. Skelton. I thought I would take four or five of the most important ones,
New York, Kansas, Massachusetts and so on. This synopsis of the others can be
printed for reference.
The Chairman. — Give us the essence of what is in them.
Prof. Skelton.— I shall go over each point. In the first place as to hours. In
twenty-one states and territories the legal day is fixed as eight hours.
By the Chairman:
Q. This relates now to government work?— A. This applies to workmen and
mechanics in the employment of the state or municipal government, or in the employ-
ment of contractors on public work or public works as the case may be. In twentv-
one states and territories the legal day is fixed at eight hours; in Hawaii at eight
hours on five days of the week and five hours on Saturday.
By Mr. Staples:
Q. Pardon me right there. That does not apply to the Union, that simply applies
to the respective states.
Prof. Skelton. — Each state simply legislates for its own territory.
Mr. Verville. — We had the federal legislation discussed at the last meeting.
The Chairman. — In the Secretary’s notes of the last meeting, Mr. Staples, you will
see a complete review of federal legislation and it might be worth your while to look
it over because it is really the most important part of the outline which Prof. Skelton
is giving. His present statement is really following in the wake of the other.
Prof. Skblton. — In Massachusetts, on work performed for the state and by muni-
cipalities which have by local option decided to conform to the state rule, eight hours,
or if the Saturday half holiday rules, forty-eight hours a week, and for other muni-
cipalities, nine hours. ( See Exhibit B. (6).
33
COMMITTEE RE BILL 1 Vo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Scope of Various Labour Laws.
To go on to the scope of these various laws. In the first place personal, the
character of employees affected. In fourteen states the law is declared to apply
to mechanics, workingmen and labourers ; in one, also to clerks and other employees on
.public works, and in two, also to prison guards and janitors of public institutions. In
two states it applies to manual labour engaged by the day. In seven states the word-
ing of the law is impersonal, as, ' eight hours shall constitute a day’s labour on public
works.’
As to the method of operation. In four states the law applies only to work carried
on directly by the state or municipality; in one, it applies only to work done by con-
tract; and in eighteen, both to work carried on directly by the government and to
government work done by contract. Three states apply the law to works and under-
takings aided by the state and local government. I imagine that would be something
like the fair wages’ clause in Canada. Is not that applied to railways that are sub-
sidized by the Dominion Government ?
Next as to the character of the work, what lines come within the scope of the meas-
ure. In the first place employment by the government. In one state, Nebraska the
law applies only to work on streets and in parks; in eight — California, Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming — applies to public works;
in fourteen — Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minne-
sota, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Porto Pico, Washington, West
Virginia — to all lines in which the state or municipality employs labourers, mechanics
or workingmen, with some specific exceptions. Por instance, in Indiana agricultural
or domestic work; in Maryland, employees of fire, asylum and jail departments at Bal-
timore; in Massachusetts, persons employed in government institutions on farms,
grounds, domestic service, &c.; in Minnesota, agricultural work; in New York, persons
regularly employed in state institutions, parliamentary house force, work on highways
in country; in Porto Rico, where the law covers all work paid out of municipal funds,
police, internal revenue force, telegraph operators, and clerks at the option of depart-
mental heads.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. That does not apply to manufacturers at all, does it? — A. I was speaking
first of the employees of the government.
By the Chairman:
Q. What Mr. Marshall means is that all you have been giving has no relation to
the manufacturing interests? — A. No. I shall take that up next, Mr. Marshall.
To take then the second operation, by contract. In one state (Nebraska), the law
apparently applies only to contracts for work in streets, parks, &e. In nine states it
applies to £ public works ’—California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Pennsylvania, Utah,
Wisconsin, West Virginia and Wyoming. In one (Massachusetts), it applies to
‘ every contract to which the State is a party, except contracts for the purchase of
material or supplies.’ In two, it applies to 'any work’ in city or state— Maryland
Minnesota— in one (Washington), to ‘all work’ though the title of the Act refers
only to public works; in three— New York, Delaware and Montana— to 'all contracts let
by state or municipality which may involve the employment of workmen, mechanics
or labourers ’ ; in one (Kansas), to contracts for the 'performance of any work or fur-
nishing any material manufactured in the state.” As will be shown later the actual
scope of these laws is narrower than might be supposed from these wide terms.
Non-observance of Labour Laws in Certain States.
I thought it would be probably of most service to take up a few of these laws
which were of the greatest significance. Not all the laws are of equal importance
In several cases the Act is it dead letter. In Maryland, for example, the Chief of the
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
39
APPENDIX No. 4
Bureau of Statistics reports that the law is not observed, as there are no regularly
appointed officials to enforce it, while in Pennsylvania, where an eight-hour law
including penalty clauses, was passed in 1897, and has never been repealed or
declared unconstitutional, the Chief of the Bureau of Industrial Statistics actually
writes me. ‘ The State of Pennsylvania never enacted an eight -hour law applying to
labour/ In other states, these measures have run the gauntlet of the Courts, their con-
stitutionality being attacked on the ground that they have violated the freedom of
contract and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the State and Federal con-
stitution. For example, the Ohio eight-hour law of 1900, which was almost identical
with H. R. 3076, submitted to Congress in 1902, was declared unconstitutional on
these grounds; the New York law was declared unconstitutional in 1901, but an
amendment to the constitution was sought and secured in 1906, and the law then
re-enacted has stood the test of constitutionality. So we may pass over, I think, on
one ground or another — either that they are not very strictly enforced, or that they
are in states which have not much industrial importance — the greater number of these
laws, and focus our attention on the experience of those states where the law is most
vigorously enforced and of most significance, as for example. New York, Massachu-
setts, Kansas, Oklahoma and Wisconsin, where it is very much of a reality.
Enforcement of Labour Laws in Certain States.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. In the States that you have mentioned where the law is vigorously carried
out, have you any idea how many officers it takes to enforce it? — A. I do not think;
it takes a great many beyond the staff of the Bureau of Labour to whom in the States
where it is enforced its observance usually is entrusted, though its enforcement may
necessitate enlarging that staff.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. That is the State Bureau of Labour? — A. The State Bureau of Labour. For
example in the report of the New York Commissioner of Labour two years ago com-
plaint wias made that the work of enforcing the Act was growing to such an extent
it was impossible for him to carry it on with the regular staff. I believe more
inspectors were added but how many I do not know, I could possibly find out and
it may be of use to obtain that information.
Labour Law of Wisconsin (June 14, 1909.)
To begin with Wisconsin, which has one of the clearest and also the most recent
of the enactments on the subject, the law having been passed in 1909. The Act covers
contracts for the erection or repairing of any public buildings or works. I Shave
prepared a full copy of each of these five or six most important laws which may be
I suppose, embodied in the minutes. These measures, I think, should be before the
committee when they are considering the Bill (See Exhibit B (7).
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. The last law which you referred to was that of Wisconsin?
Prof. Skelton. — I thought I would start with that.
Mr. Macdonell. — Had it not better be read, Mr. Chairman, it was only passed
in 1909? It is not long, is it?
Prof. Skelton. — No. It is more limited in scope than some of the Acts.
(Reads.)
“ Section 1. Each and every contract hereafter made for the erection, construc-
tion, remodelling or repairing of any public building or works, to which the State
or any officer or agent thereof is a party, which may involve the employment of
40
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
labourers, workmen or mechanics shall contain a stipulation that no labourer,
workman or mechanic in the employ of the contractor, sub-contractor,
agent or other person, doing or contracting to do, all or a part of the work con-
templated by the contract, shall be permitted to work more than eight hours in
any one calendar day, except in cases of extraordinary emergencies, provided,
however, that this section shall apply only to such work as is actually performed
on the premises on which such buildings or works, are being erected, constructed,
remodelled or repaired.”
Then there is a penalty clause of fine and imprisonment.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. That would seem to be the ideal Bill as drawn from the experience of the
other Bills? — A. It would depend upon what your ideal is, Mr. Macdonell.
Q. I mean that that is the latest Bill? — A. It is one of the clearest, but also
one of the most definitely limited in scope. Some of the other Bills, as you will see
later on, covers somewhat more ground in the wording.
The Chairman. — They have in the University of Wisconsin, I believe, a group
of economists who will undertake to draft any measure and furnish a brief in regard
to it to any State in the Union. I have no doubt the Bill in question has been fur-
nished by them.
Prof. Skelton. — Yes. Wisconsin is regarded as one of the most progressive
of States in all matters of legislation.
Mr. Macdonell. — I believe that Bill is about as broad as it could be drawn after
running the gauntlet of the courts.
The Chairman.— As an effective measure.
Prof. Skelton. — Some few states cover something more than is provided for in
this Bill. This Bill covers the great bulk of the work that has been done and has the
merit of being much clearer in saying what its scope actually covers. The hours of
labour in force in private employment in Wisconsin are prevailingly ten; in a very
few localities, trade unions, particularly the building trades, have been able to reduce
the hours from ten to eight. The Commissioner of Labour declares that this difference
between the hours of work on public and on private contracts does not give rise to any
serious complication. The wages paid by public contractors are at least as high as
wages paid on private contracts.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Are you speaking now of Wisconsin? — A. Yes. The law is strictly observed,
but has been too recently enacted to have produced any effect on private employment.
By the Chairman:
Q. You refer to wages, is that per hour or per day? — A. That was not explicitly .
stated, but I think it is the wage per day.
Q. Will you communicate with the authorities as to that and ascertain? — A. I am
quite sure. I did look into the matter.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. At what time last year did this Act come into effect? — A. On June 14 1909
Q. Then it would not apply to contracts that were entered into at the time the
Act was passed? — A. Mo.
Q. There has been very little application of the Act as yet?— A. Very little so far
I may say that several of the laws, ais we shall see, have an explicit wage provision
stating that the wage paid shall be the per diem wage paid in private employment.
Mr. Maconell. — A fair wage clause?
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
41
APPENDIX No. 4
Pint'. Skelton". But 'explicitly saying- it shall be the per diem wage, not the wage
per hour. &
The Oklahoma Act of 190S.
ii The 0klaboma Act passed in 1908, and recently upheld as constitutional, covers
all direct employment of labourers, workmen, and mechanics .... as well as prison
guards and janitors .... and their employment by contractors ‘for any public
work .. .which m fact means, any public works. The Commissioner of Labour
writes that ‘ the law is construed to apply to all labourers, workmen, mechanics or
other persons employed in the construction of buildings, bridges, municipal water
ligh and gas systems, street paving, sidewalk building, where it is done by the muni'
cipahty and all other work or contracts that involve the expenditure of public money.’
The last clause is rather sweeping, but so far as can be judged from tire evidence at
hand does not in practice comprise anything of importance not specifically enumerated
m the list preceding; the annual report of the Department of Labour for 1908-9 records
eighteen violations of the law, none of which concerned other than public works e g
sidewalk, paving sewer and waterworks construction and the erection of school
buildings. (See Exhibit B. (3).
The hours prescribed differ in some cases from those in force on private work, but
t lere m said to be nQ difference m the per diem wages received. The law is not always
strictly observed according to the commissioner, but it is strictly enforced and no
great trouble is found m enforcing it once the attention of the contractors has been
called to its provisions.
The Kansas Law of 1891 — Enforced in 1898.
The Kansas law, the earliest of the state enactments, was passed in 1S91 but
remained a dead letter until 1898, when the legislature placed its enforcement in the
hands of a Commissioner of Labour. It was later attacked as unconstitutional, but
WaSiaoQ d b(\th the 1Kansas Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court,
11 I 03’ “ a ^^lon which has set an important precedent. Previous to this decision
of . the United States Supreme Court the State Supreme Courts had been steadily
going agamst the constitutionality of the Act, but since then the tendency has been to
jp old them it not more extensive than the Kansas measure. (See Exhibit B. (2 ).
Hours of Labour on Saturdays.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. What about Saturdays? How do the States deal with Saturdays? Take the
Wisconsin Act for example.— A. No provision is made in any law, except that of
assachusetts for Saturday It is a very interesting point and one I was thinking
of suggesting The Massachusetts law provides that the hours of labour shall be eight
per day, while if a half holiday is given on Saturday the hours may be sufficiently
longer on the other days to make it forty-eight hours per week.
By the Chairman:
. Q- Forty-eight hours or fifty-four ?— A. Fifty-four in the case of the municipali-
ties which have not accepted the provisions of the eight-hour law.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Supposing they have a half holiday on Saturday?— A. There is no provision for
a half holiday on Saturday except in the Massachusetts case; that is the point I
thought of bringing up for the consideration of the Committee. For example in
Hamilton and in London, to take two typical cities, the building interests have a
forty-four hour week, eight hours on five days and four on Saturday. It is doubtless
42
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
not intended to compel them, or to make it possible for the contractor to compel
them, to work eight hours on Saturday. So that must be supposed to be e t as a
matter of arrangement between the men and the contractors.
By Mr. Yerville:
Q. Have you ever heard, Professor, how many large cities in Canada aie working
in that way, getting a half day’s holiday on Saturday, during the summer e^pecia y .
— A. I was just instancing those two cities.
Q. Only those two ?— A. There are a good many others of course.
The Chairman.— We will be very glad to get the fair wages officers of the depart-
ment to give that information. _ .
Mr. Yerville. — I was just asking the Professor for information. The fact is, it
is the case in most of the large cities now. In the case of Massachusetts I imagine
it applies too in the cities generally. In the summer months they go to work earlier
in the morning and then leave at one o’clock on Saturday, and have the rest of the
day off.
Prof. Skelton. — I do not think it is a matter of law, but they arrange that them-
selves.
Mr. Macdonell. — It would be useful, Mr. Chairman, to get that information from
your Bureau as to the total number of hours worked per week.
The Chairman. — And also information as to the Saturday half -holiday.
Mr. Macdonell. — Yes, how they work out the Saturday half-holiday.
Mr. Marshall. — There are some manufacturers in Hamilton that I know of, that
put in sixty hours a week. They do it by starting in early in the afternoon, taking
off half an hour at noon, and working until a quarter after six. They put in the
whole sixty hours but they have their Saturday afternoons just the same.
Mr. Yerville.— That is not shortening the day but lengthening it.
Mr. Marshall.- — They have the Saturday half-holiday. A great many manu-
facturers in Hamilton put in the sixty hours a week, but they have their Saturdaj
afternoon and it is done in that way. In these typical cities alluded to, do they get
the full day’s pay for the Saturday or are they paid per hour?
Prof. Skelton. — They are paid by the hour.
Mr. Yerville.- — That is no concession.
Mr. Smith. — Wherever the eight-hour law applies in British Columbia, that
particular place works eight hours on Saturday the same as any other establishment.
Prof. Skelton. — That is an interesting point.
Mr. Smith. — I think it can be proven that in certain instances before the eight-
hour day was enacted, they had a shorter day than they have now. Since the enact-
ment of that law it is taken to mean by the employees eight hours every day. That
is a very important point.
Mr. Macdonell — Yes, it is.
Prof. Skelton. — I might mention that in the case of the British government
workshops where, as I shall mention later on, in the navy yards and in the War office
arsenals and ordnance factories, &c., the eight-hour day, so-called, was introduced
about fifteen years ago, the arrangement is for a forty-eight hour week on the average
of the year, but no one week in the year do they work exactly forty-eight hours, and no
one day in the week do they work exactly eight hours. During the summer a good deal
more than forty-eight hours a week are worked, and in the winter less than forty-eight
hours a week. During the summer the hours of work are something like nine hours
and during the winter, something like seven hours.
By the Chairman:
Q. They average it up by the year? — A. Yes.
Mr. Macdonell. — They reverse our procedure here. We work less in the summer
and more in the winter.
PEOF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21—HOURS OF LABOUR
43
APPENDIX No. 4
Prof. Skelton.- Yes. The average is eight hours a day, but practically on no
day of the year are they working exactly that average.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. Those men are employed from year to year. In the navy yards and arsenals
men are practically permanent employees ?— A. Yes.
Mr. Smith. I would like to mention another point. In Great Britain an eight-
hour law for miners was passed at the last session of parliament, but the Northumber-
land miners worked seven hours a day for twenty years by voluntary determination.
In consequence of the eight-hour a day law they have to work eight hours a day by
compulsion. That is a very important point. I mention it for your benefit. Pro-
fessor, in making an investigation. Of course, they have trouble at the present time
within particular counties to which that applies.
Prof. Skelton. — It is eight hours from bank to bank.
Mr. Smith. Eight hours from bank to bank? Most of their associations and
unions twenty years ago provided that the men digging the coal should work
seven hours a day. Since the recent law has passed the men who worked seven hours
a day for twenty years are compelled by law to work eight hours a day.
Mr. \ ERViLLE. There is no fear of that in this country.
Mr. Macdonell. — It is a funny result, is it not?
Mr. Smith. I am mentioning this so that it may go on Tecord.
Mr. Macdonell. — Will you investigate it, Professor?
Prof. Skelton. — It should be made explicit whether eight hours is compulsory
or only a maximum limit.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. I here are places where the employees are working eight hours a day, and
during the summer — we could say for four months — they do not work on Saturday
afternoon, nor do they lose that time — A. They are on a per hour basis.
Mr. Verville. The fact is that is the way now, per hour.
The Massachusetts Regulation re 48 Hours per Week.
By the Chairman :
Q. Hid we understand from you that in Massachusetts they have this regulation
of a maximum of eight hours per day, but that it was construed that if on Saturday
they worked only four or five hours they would work longer on the other days? — A.
Precisely ; that is stipulated in the Act. I shall read the clause.
Q. Yes, read it please? — A. (Reads):
Eight hours shall constitute a day’s work for all labourers, workmen and
mechanics now or hereafter employed by or on behalf of the Commonwealth, or
of any county therein, or of any city or town, which, prior to the twenty-eighth
day of June in the year of one thousand nine hundred and seven had accepted
the provisions of section twenty of chapter one hundred and six of the Re-
vised Laws. No labourer, workman or mechanic so employed shall be requested or
required to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day or more than
forty-eight hours in any one week except in cases of extraordinary emergencies.
Only in case of danger to property, to life, to public safety or to public^ health
shall be considered a case of extraordinary emergency within the meaning of this
section. Threat of loss of employment, or threat to obstruct or prevent the obtain-
ing of employment or threat to refrain from employing in the future, shall be
considered within the meaning of this section. Engineers shall be consid-
ered mechanics within the meaning of this section. But in cases where a
44
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
weekly half holiday is given, the hours of labour upon the other working days of
the week may be increased sufficiently to make a total of forty-eight hours for a
week’s work. {See Exhibit B. (6).
Mr. Macdonell. — It is very nicely worded.
The Kansas Act, its Scope.
By the Chairman:
Q. Is it the custom in a great many trades? — A. Yes. Mow as to the Kansas Act,
which, as I said, was the earliest made and passed by any of the states. The Act
applies, in its contract section, to all public contracts ‘ for the performance of any work
or the furnishing of any material manufactured within the state.’ Here, again, the
actual interpretation seems to be somewhat narrower than might be expected from the
terms of the law. In response to the request for specific illustrations of the scope of
the Act, the Commissioner of Labour replies that the contracts ! cover only the manu-
facture of material and the delivery thereof, in connection with what you would call
“ public works,” and what we would call “ municipal contracts,” such as the quarrying
and cutting of stone for building, the manufacture of mill-work for buildings, or any
and all materials that enter into construction of municipal work.’ Its scope is in
practice wider than that of the New York law, as it includes, for example, sub-con-
tracts for sashes and doors for buildings, which I shall show in a minute are ruled out
from the scope of the Hew York Act. The ruling hours in private employment are
ten, except in some places where union organization has secured an eight-hour day in
the mechanical building trade. The law expressly provides that the current per diem
rate of wages be paid. The law is said to be strictly observed and enforced, and in the
opinion of Commissioner Johnson has led to the adoption of a shorter work day in
several trades by its example. (See Exhibit B. (2).
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. You are referring there to correspondence with the different Bureaus of
Labour?— A. Yes.
Q. That is your own recent correspondence? — A. My own correspondence in the
past few weeks.
Q. I see, personal correspondence? — A. Yes, with the men who are in each case
entrusted with the enforcement of the law.
Q. And not merely excerpts from reports? — A. Ho, I sent out about a hundred
letters to authorities in the states, some of 'whom answered and some of whom did not.
These letters I am trying to digest as I go along.
The Massachusetts law, which has frequently been revised within the last few
years, applies to ‘ every contract, except contracts for the purchase of materials or
supplies,’ or, as the following section phrases it, to all labourers engaged on any works
which are, or are intended to be, the property of the commonwealth. The provision
of the Massachusetts law is practically the same as in the federal state law which
applies to public works.
By the Chairman:
Q. And the same as the Wisconsin Act? — A. Yes, although it is phrased some-
what more differently, and somewhat more comprehensively one would think' on the
surface.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Do you know whether they have state-owned telephones in any of these states ?
A. I feel quite sure they have not in any of the states. The commissioner in Kan-
sas, for instance, pointed out in that respect that the states of the union are pro-
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
45
APPENDIX No. 4
hibited, either, by their constitutions or by the reigning public sentiment, from going
as tar in public control and operation of utilities as the provinces of the Dominion of
Canada may do, so that the laws in those states, therefore, do not have as wide applica-
tion as similar laws enacted on this side of the line would have.
The Chairman. — He is mistaken in that.
Air. Macdonell. — I rather thought that was correct.
The Chairman. Ha\e not the states the residue of power? In the union the
states have larger authority than our provinces, but our federal government has wider
control than their federal government.
Mr Macdonell.— The Interstate Commerce Commission there devours a lot of
powers that here we enjoy in the provinces.
. Professor Skelton.— And it is quite true that while the residue of power is vested
in. the states the constitution of the states frequently prohibits the legislature from
using that power. For example, there was such a wave in the thirties and forties of
public building of railways and canals, most of which resulted in financial chaos,
that a reaction spread over the whole central west, and constitutions were amended to
take away- from the legislatures the power to repeat the disastrous experiment. The
power resides, m the states, but the constitution prohibits the legislature from using
it at present in many cases.
Exemption Clause in Massachusetts’ and Minnesota Acts.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Is there any information you could get as to the application of this law to
tana labourers, as, for example, on the experimental farm?— A. In the case of Massa-
chusetts tnere happens to be a special exemption made. Perhaps I had better read it:
. Hie two preceeding sections shall apply to all labourers, workmen or me-
ciamos engaged upon any works which are, or are intended to be the property
of the commonwealth, or of any county therein, or of any citv or town which
has accepted the provisions of section 20 of chapter 106 of the Revised Laws,
or may accept the provisions of section 2 of this Act whether such labourers!
nor men. or mechanics are employed by such authority or by a contractor or
other private person. They can not apply to persons employed in any state,
county or municipal institution, on the farm or in the care of the grounds, in
the stable, m the domestic or kitchen and dining-room service or in store rooms
or offices.”
. In Minnesota the same exception is made that, the Act shall not apply to
agricultural work, but I do not know of any other states in which that exception is
made. (See Exhibit B. (4).
. . Q. The presumption is, unless there was an exemption, that it would applv to
irrigation works ?— A. Sometimes it is implied. Sometimes the provision is made
explicitly that it shall apply to irrigation works.
The Director of the Bureau of Statistics of Massachusetts states that it is im-
possible to state, definitely what correspondence there is between the stipulated hours
and those prevailing in private work because of the variations in hours of labour of
different trades in different localities; unskilled labourers generally are employed
nine or ten hours a day in private employment. There is no important difference" in
wages. The Director has ‘ no reason to believe that the law is not strictly observed,’
a statement confirmed by the chief of the district police who has charge of the en-
forcement of the labour laws, and adds that he has no data at hand to show that the
law has had any noticeable effects on the hours observed in private employment.
The Hew York Law.
As Mr. Yerville pointed out the other day the Bill now before the Committee
in one of its sections is word for word a copy of the law in force in the State of New
46
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
York, a law which was declared unconstitutional in 1901, following which the con-
stitution was amended so as to permit its re-enactment. It is now upheld as constitu-
tional. (See Exhibit B. (5).
By the Chairman:
Q. They did not uphold the law but they amended the constitution { A. They
amended the constitution.
Q. And they were somewhat thorough, were they not? — A. A campaign had to
be carried on throughout the whole state. For the constitution to be amended in
New York State it is necessary that the legislature shall pass by a majority a resolu-
tion in two successive sessions approving of the proposed measure. It has then to go
to the public to be voted on.
By Mr. Staples:
Q. Are we to understand that the Bill before us for consideration is practically
the New York law?— A. Practically the New York law.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Have you a copy of that law? — A. Yes, I have it here. It is about two or
three times as long as the Canadian Bill.
The Chairman. — You may read it.
Prof. Skelton. — I will read it and if you have your own copies of the Canadian
Bill, you will see the differences. The first two or three sentences seem preliminary,
but are essential. (Reads) :
The term employee when used in this chapter, means mechanic, working man
or labourer who works for another for hire. (Exhibit B. (5) S. 2).
‘ Eight hours shall constitute a legal day's work for all classes of employees
in this state except those engaged in farm and domestic service unless otherwise
provided by law. This section does not prevent an agreement for overwork at an
increased compensation except upon work by or for the state or a municipal
corporation, or by contractors or sub-contractors therewith. Each contract which
the state or municipal corporation is a party which may involve the employment of
labourers, workmen or mechanics shall contain a stipulation that no labourer,
workman or mechanic in the employ of the contractor, sub-contractor or other
person doing or contracting to do the whole or a part of the work contemplated
by the contract shall be permitted or required to work more than eight hours in
any one calendar day except in cases of extraordinary emergency caused by fire,
flood or danger to life or property. The wages to be paid for a legal day’s work
as hereinbefore defined to all classes of such labourers, workmen or mechanics
upon all such public works, or upon any material to be used upon or in con-
nection therewith shall not be less than the prevailing rate for a day’s work in
the same trade or occupation in the locality within the state where such public
work on, about or in connection with which such labour is performed in its final
or completed form is to be situated, erected or used. Each such contract here-
after made shall contain a stipulation that each such labourer, workman or
mechanic, employed by such contractor, sub-contractor or other person on, about
or upon such public work, shall receive such wages herein provided for.” (See
Exhibit B. (5) S. S).
The Chairman. — That is covered now by our fair wages clause. That is why I
suppose we left it out of our Bill.
Prof. Skelton. — I am not sure whether your fair wages clause stipulates whether
the wage shall be the prevailing day wage.
The Chairman. — It says the current rate of wages.
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
47
APPENDIX No. 4
Prof. Skelton. — But it does not say -whether the current hour rate or the current
day rate.
Mr. Smith. — I think that the provision with regard to wages presents a possibility
of operating against this Bill. If a contract was entered into by the government on
the basis of an eight-hour day law while the wages paid for private work were on the
basis of a ten-hour day, that would mean a reduction of the rate paid on public work.
In the !New York State law they have provided against such a possibility by enacting
that a man employed for eight hours shall have the same wages as a man who is
employed for ten hours on private work.
Prof. Skelton. — The language certainly should be made explicit as to whether it
applies to the hour or the day.
By Mr. Staples:
Q. In connection with data that you have now in your possession, did you discover
whether or not, when a Bill was before the legislature, an effort was made to include
farm labourers or agricultural labourers, and if so what representations that element
made to the committee considering the measure? — A. As far as I remember, although
I did not look up the point definitely, it was almost unanimously agreed that the excep-
tion should be made. I think there was practically no effort made to have the law in-
clude farm labour. However, I shall look the matter up, and if I find to the contrary,
I will report the fact to you on my next appearance before the committee. Now let us
resume the consideration of the New York law. (Reads) :
“ The contract for such public work hereafter made shall contain a provision
that the same shall be void and of no effect unless the person or corporation
making or performing the same shall comply with the provisions of this section;
and no such person or corporation shall be entitled to receive any sum nor shall any
officer, agent or employee of the state or of a municipal corporation pay the same
or authorize the payments from the funds under his charge or control to any such
person or corporation for work done upon any contract, which in its form or
manner of performance violates the provision of this section, but nothing in this
section shall be construed to apply to persons regularly employed in state institu-
tions, or to engineers, electricians and elevator men in the departments of public
buildings during the annual session of the legislature, nor to the construction,
maintenance and repairs of highways outside of the limits of cities and villages.”
In this connection, Mr. Chairman, partly because the hours of labour in the
country were considerably longer— it was thought that it was undesirable to have the
hours of labour of men employed through the state on country roads, as short as else-
where, so that an exception was made in view of the effect on farm labour.
The Chairman. — Mr. Smith, is the point you made, that by the inclusion of the
wages’ clause in the Bill it would have the effect of requiring the government contracts
to be paid for at a rate per hour that was existing in the state?
Mr. Smith. — At the rate per day existing in the states.
The Chairman. — That is your view of the effect of the clause?
Mr. Smith. — Yes, that unless you make provision as they have done in New York;
and it is evidently the intention of the Act to provide that the current wages in the
district based on ten hours a day shall be the same wages for an eight-hour day.
By the Chairman:
Q. Was the question discussed, Prof. Skelton, as to whether by the current rate
they meant the rate per hour or per day? — A. In New York State?
Q. Yes.— A. Yes. they explicitly stated the rate per day, and if such a Bill as
this were to pass and the fair wages’ law remained in its present form., it would be
very ambiguous as to whether the current rate of wages should be understood as the
rate per hour or the rate per day. It should be made more explicit which is intended.
48
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Knoivles:
Q. Would it be possible for a man working not more than eight hours per day
on a government contract to send his workmen home for two hours extra work that he
ciesires on a job any night ? — A. That point has come up. I think it would probably
be permitted, but as a matter of fact, it would not be possible to work it out.
By the Chairman :
Q. Tour view then is, that if the same contractor employed two groups of men on
the same street that he could pay the men working eight hours on a government work
a ten hours’ wage and then send them across the street to work for the remaining hours ?
A.— I may mention that point came up for discussion on the Federal Bill and I have a
note here embodying the opinion of the Senate Committee on the point, which I will
read in a moment, which I think will cover the point raised by Mr. Knowles.
Amendments Proposed in 1902 to Bill Reported on in 1900.
It is, however, the New York Act which is of most interest because it has provided
the model of the Bill before this committee. With the minor exceptions noticed, it
covers all workmen, mechanics and labourers directly employed by the government as
well as all contracts to which the state or municipality is a party involving th® employ-
ment of workmen, mechanics or labourers. One would infer from the text that the law
would apply to all workmen in the contractor’s employ, whether engaged on the govern-
ment work or not. This inference is supported by the fact that a committee of the House
of Representatives which reported favourably in 1900 on the Bill (H.R. 6882) em-
bodying a similar provision found it necessary to insert the phrase — it comes in in
line 7 — ‘doing any part of the work contemplated by the contract.’ Two years later
the Senate Committee on Education and Labour, considering the Bill thus amended,
in reporting it favourably to the Senate considered it necessary to add to it another
safeguard in the phrase ‘upon such work.’
By Mr. Smith:
Q. IIow would the clause read after being amended? — A. The doubly amended
clause will read as follows. (Reads) :
“ No labourer, or mechanic doing any part of the work contemplated by the
contract .”
That is the first condition in line 7
“ In the employ of the contractor or any sub-contractor contracting for any
part of said work contemplated, shall be required or permitted to work more than
eight hours in any one calendar day upon such work."
That was the second insertion.
Opinion of the United States Senate Committee.
By the Chairman:
Q. That was done by the federal government? — A. Yes, by the federal govern-
ment. I he Senate Committee made this point which bears on Mr. Knowles’ question,
They said:—
We are unanimously of the opinion that the provision that no mechanic
should be required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one day
means either one of two things. First, by a strained construction, that a citizen
should not be permitted to work more than eight hours out of twenty-four any-
where, either at his own home or in his garden, if he has already worked eight
hours upon the government contract. If it means this, such a denial of personal
liberty would be unconstitutional, such a law would be impossible and absurd.
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 49
APPENDIX No. 4
Secondly, the meaning is that no mechanic shall be required or permitted to
work under a Government contract more than eight hours in one day upon such
work.”
That is, the opinion of the United States Senate Committee was that unless these two
conditions which I have mentioned were inserted, the law might be interpreted as
piohibiting the working of more than eight hours a day, not merely on any other
contract but by a man at his own home, and these two clauses were put in to
specif} that the eight hours referred merely to the work done on government work.
If these two clauses were inserted I should imagine that it would be possible for
the contractor to ask a man to put in an hour or two on some other work if he
wanted to.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. To put him on some other work for the government if it were a contract? — A.
In the building trades it would not be feasible to have a man work on another job
for an hour or two.
idr. Vervii.le. By the time he started the work it would be too late.
Prof. Skeltqn. I do not think it would be very feasible.
Provisions of Federal and State Laws Defined.
By the Chairman:
Q. Has the Federal Committee not put in its law these sentences? — A. This was
not m the federal law. This was in the later Bill presented which has not yet been
enacted.
Q. Does their federal law apply to workmen generally in the employment of a
contractor who has a government contract, or simply those workmen working on the
contract? A. Here we have the provision that the employment of labourers and
mechanics upon any of the public works is limited and restricted to eight hours in
any one calendar day.
Q. The point I want to make clear is, supposing a contractor employs a hundred
men and. has ten of those men working on a government contract. This Bill would
seem to indicate that by virtue of the contractor having ten men working on a gov-
ernment contract the whole hundred would be bound by the eight-hour regulation.
I think myself that is the ^effect. — A. Precisely, I think that is the wav
it reads, and I think that is why the Senate and the House of Kepre-
sentatives thought it necessary to introduce these safeguards. But in actual
practice, so far as I have ascertained, the New York Act has not been invoked to
cover either of these contingencies. It has not been interpreted as one would expect
it must be interpreted to mean that a man in the employment of thfe contractor even
although not on government work, may be prohibited from working more than eight
By Mr. Smith:
Q. That has not been carried out?— A. No one has taken advantage of it, although
I think it is a possible interpretation.
By The Chairman:
Q. But as between the federal and the state governments, the state government
could pass any law it pleased regulating the hours of labour, but when it comes to
the federal government that government has only the right to restrict labourers direct-
ly or indirectly employed by it? — A. Yes.
Q. Then, these saving clauses would be a matter of some concern in a federal
Bill, whereas they may not be in a state Bill? — A. I think that is true
4—4
50
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Verville:
Q. In the case of government work or anybody taking a contract with the gov
eminent? — A. On government work.
By Tho Chairman:
Q. When the state wishes to enforce an eight-hour-day law it can either enact
a straight eight-hour-day law or pass a law in the first place applying to public works
and say that all the workmen in the employ of the contractor who engages men on any
of these public works must work only eight hours. But if the federal government at-
tempted to do that it would be invading, it seems to me, the jurisdiction of the several
states or provinces in trying to regulate the hours of others than those who were work-
ing on government work directly ? — A. I think that is probably the reason why it was
felt desirable to make the law explicit.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. By inserting the words ‘ upon such wTork ? ’ — A. Yes, 4 upon such work.
Mr. Knowles.- — I cannot agree with Mr. Verville that it will be impossible for a
contractor to put his employees at work upon two jobs. He could work them down
town in the morning up to the luncheon hour and then give them another job for five
hours on a government contract in the afternoon.
Mr. Verville.— It is not a question of what they can do, but what they are
obliged to do under existing conditions.
Mr. Knowles.— It will be a great temptation to do that if under this Bill full pay
at the rate of ten hours is to be given.
Mr. Verville. — There will be a great temptation on the part of the men only to
work for eight hours too. What you suggest would mot be businesslike.
Prof. Skelton. — The point came up in some of the hearings held by Congressional
committees to consider proposed legislation.
Mr. Murray, representing the Manufacturers’ Association. — I would like to ask
whether under the New York law piece workers are required to be paid the same
amount of wages per day or per week on the eight-hour basis as they formerly were
on a basis of ten hours. To illustrate my point, let me refer to an operation in con-
nection with the building trade. Kiveters, I understand, are paid by the piece, so
much per thousand rivets, and the union to which they belong fixes the price at which
they will be paid. Would they notv expect to receive the same compensation per day
of eight hours as they formerly did on a ten-hour basis ?
Prof. Skelton. — You mean under the New York law?
Mr. Murray. — Yes.
Prof. Skelton. — It expressly states that they shall receive the per diem rate of
tvages current in the trade, but if in a certain trade the wages are on a piece-work
basis I should certainly think the law would require them to be given the prevailing
piece-work rates.
Mr. Murray. — In that event the application of the law to riveters would result in
a reduction of wages.
Prof. Skelton. — I think that is quite conceivable.
The Chairman. — I did not ask permission of the committee in that instance in
allowing Mr. Murray the privilege of asking a question because I felt that it was
merely the one query he wished to put. I would like to know the wish of the committee
on that point in regard to any gentleman appearing before us. I suppose that in all
cases it would be by the courtesy of the committee that they should be allowed to ask
questions.
Mr. Knowles. — I should think we would be all agreeable.
Mr. Smith. — I think it is very proper.
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
51.
APPENDIX No. 4
Mr. Murray. — I shall not ask any more questions to-day. My question had refer-
ence to a point that just occurred to me.
Mr. Stanfield.— It was a very important point.
The Chairman.— The committee will be very glad to have questions asked that
will bring out light.
•Mr. Macdonell. We had better leave to the judgment of the Chairman the
matter of questions asked by any person present.
The Chairman.— I think if any gentleman comes here from a distance and feels
that he would like to ask a question we should be glad to hear him, but if there are
several persons and their questions might interrupt an examination, it might be well
to fix a special time for them.
Mr. Staples.— We had better leave it to the discretion of the chair.
Extent of Application of New York Law.
Professor Skelton.-To continue the discussion as to the scope of the New
York law. In actual practice, so far as I have ascertained, the New York Act has
Lot been invoked to cover either of these contingencies. The law applies, accord-
mg to the Mate Commissioner of Labour, ‘ to all public work paid for out of public
funds; it does not apply to supplies purchased in the open market.’ In response to
a further inquiry the commissioner replies that it is held ‘ that the law applies to all
article, us ships or uniforms, but would nM fpply
tc the manufacture of certain parts used by the contractor which are not produced
m his own shop or factory. For instance, in the building of a steam vessel marine
engines of a standard type made by some builder of such engines, would not in their
construction be subject to the law except in the matter of erection or installation
n e vessel to. be supplied therewith. This important point may be further illus-
trated by a decision of the Court of Appeals in 1908. to the effect that the law was
i-ut applicable to materials purchased by the contractor. That is, the New York
law as it stands is interpreted to exclude materials purchased by the contractor.
By Mr. Verville:
it, llhat- CkSSify aS materials Purchased by the contractor ?-A. Well
the instance m this decision is the last point I will bring up in this eormpr+'n + ’
day, and I might read that decision in some detail. ° 1 t0'
Courts’ Decision as to Application of Law,
Q. Does it mean goods purchased in the open market?— A It covers mr,™ tLo
goods purchased in the open market. It covers all sashes and doors made according
to specifications. One would imagine it would come within the scone tt, a f
Ut t e courts apparently decided to narrow the application. The Court of Anneal-
.i December 15, 1908, rendered the following judgment in the ca^e 0f Bohnen t
“The parties submit their controversy under section 1279 of the Code of
nf ",'h ''/.I L 7 8tip"l,,,ed facte show that the plaintiff is a cftLn
Met Stffite ant the /?ef!n.daiat C^y a municipal corporation, and the defendant
Metz its officer charged with the duty of authorizing the payment of any moneys
due or to become due on a contract with such municinalitv tW a + , 5
”mde. between the city and the defendant Wille for the election of a ntnnioM
flU.t'Tf r of WOW in which building there were be doors 3ow
and other manufactured woodwork. By the contract Wille agreed that he would
comply with the proyisions of chapter 415 of the laws of 1897. as amended known
as the Labour Law, and be would not permit or require any labourer
or mechanic m the employ of himself, or sub-contractor, or other prison <kd“
or contracting to do the who e or part of the work embraced in his contract to
work more than eight hours any day, except in cases of emergency, and , ha!
52
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
he would pay the rate of wages prevailing in the locality, and that the contract
should be void unless he should fully comply with such provisions of the Labour
Law. In the course of construction, doors, windows and other manufactured
woodwork required for the building and used in it were manufactured for the
special purpose at the request of Wille by a manufacturer within the State of
New York who employed workmen and mechanics more than eight hours a jlay,
and paid them less than the prevailing rate of wages in the city of iSevv York.
By the terms of the contract, $1,000 is now due, and the plaintiff, as a citizen of
the state pursuant to the right given him by section 4 of the Labour Law, (as
aind. by laws of 1899, chap. 567), challenges the right of the city and its fiscal
officer to make such payment on the ground that Wille by purchasing doors, win-
dows and woodwork for the building from a manufacturer who employed his men
more than eight hours a day and paid them less than the prevailing rate of wages,
forfeited his contract and the right to any payment thereunder. The city, through
its officers, refuses to declare the contract void and submits to the court whether
or not it is its duty so to do.
Whether section 3 of the Labour Law (laws of 1897, chap. 415, as amd. by
laws of 1899, chap. 567; laws of 1900, chap. 298, and laws of 1906, chap. 506),
providing that every contract with the state or a municipal corporation involving
the employment of labourers, workmen or mechanics, shall contain a stipulation
that no such labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of the contractor,
sub-contractor or other person doing, contracting to do, the whole or a part of the
work, embraced in the contract, shall be permitted or required to work more than
eight hours a day, or be paid less than the prevailing rate of wages of the locality
in which the work is to be done, and shall be void unless such stipulation is ob-
served, be deemed constitutional or unconstitutional, the stipulated facts do not
bring the contractor Wille within its provisions.
The manufacturer who worked his men more than eight hours and who did not
pay the prevailing rate of wages was not a ‘ sub-contractor or other person doing,
or contracting to do, the whole or a part of the work,’ within the meaning of the
statute. It was necessary that the windows and doors be made to measure, and,
therefore, it was necessary that an order for their manufacture be given. The
transaction amounted, however, to a mere purchase of material necessary for the
building.
The construction of the statute contended for by plaintiff would follow the
iron beams necessary for a building to the mines, the wood work to the logging
camp and the stone to the quarry, and would put a contractor to the hazard of
forfeiture of his contract and all payments due him in the purchase of any
material for the construction of any municipal building.
Assuming that the present law is free from the vices of the former law
pointed out in People ex rel., Cossy v. Grout (179 N.Y. 417), and People v.
Onange County Road Const. Co. (175 id. 84) and kindred cases, it cannot be held
that the legislature intended to include labour employed in the production of
raw material necessary for municipal buildings and works. Presumptively, the
legislature enacts labour laws to benefit and aid labour. If the law be held to
embrace purchased manufactured material and to work a forfeiture of the con-
tract and all payments earned if in its manufacture and preparation for use the
eight -hour law is not observed and the prevailing rate of wages of the locality
is not paid, its presumed beneficent object will be defeated, for no municipal
work will be dbne because no contractor will be foolhardy enough to enter into
any contract liable to be annulled in such a manner. Labour laws like any other
law which the legislature sees fit to enact, should be upheld by the courts where no
constitutional violation exists, but no absurd interpretation which defeats their
object should be permitted.
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
53
APPENDIX No. 4
The situation is not changed because the defendant Wille contracted th'at
he would forfeit payments if he violated the law. The material which he pur-
chased did not come within the law as we view it, because the persons employed
in the manufacture of the doors, windows and woodwork ultimately used in the
building were not employed ‘ on, about or upon such public work ’ within the
meaning of the statute, and hence it was unimportant whether they were em-
ployed more than eight hours a day or were not paid the prevailing rate of wages.
Our conclusion is that the defendant Wille did not forfeit his contract and
that he is entitled to the payment due under it.
Judgment is directed for defendant Wille, with costs.”
So far as I have been able to gather those are the main points which have been
brought out, to define the scope and applicability of the New York law as it now stands.
By Mr. Stanfield: _ —
Q. You made some statements in regard to uniforms, have you any data as to
that? — A. I asked the Commissioner of Labour of New York to say whether he thought
that law would apply to the production of ships or uniforms. He said he thought it
would.
Q. Plow do they get round it? — A. They would have to be made in an eight-hour
factory.
As a matter of fact, however, the opinion of the New York Commissioner was
purely a hypothetical one: The law is not actually interpreted to cover contracts for
uniforms, though I see nothing in the law itself, unless it be in the later phrase ‘ all
such public works,’ to exclude such contracts, and apparently the Commissioner is of
the same mind. I am 'informed, however, by the general secretary of the United Gar-
ment Workers, Mr. B, A. Larger, that the New York eight-hour law does not apply
to the contracts for uniforms for militia, nor does it apply to city contracts for police,
firemen or street cleaners’ uniforms. The law does not apply to any Work under the
jurisdiction of the New York Workers of America. None of the work that I am
aware of is done on the eight-hour basis; it is all nine and ten hours.’ This simply
confirms my previous statement that, however broad the nominal terms of the Act, in
practice, it covers only public works and printing contracts.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Is New York one of the states in which the law is pretty well enforced? — -
A. Yes. New York state enforces its law very strictly. There were a great many
violations of the Act in 1906 and 1907, but the department seemed to be quite vigorous
in the execution of the law, and now there are fewer complaints of violations. I
might say that the whole work on the Barge canal is done on an eight -hour day basis,
and at the last session of the legislature an amendment was passed making it clear
that all work — this is a point that will have to be considered in connection with
Canada — done by a commission of the state or municipality would have to be on the
eight-hour basis. Bor example, there is the huge New York State aqueduct. It is
carried on by a commission, will cost $160,000,000, and under the terms of that rider
is being constructed on an eight-hour basis.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. To the work, done by a municipality this Bill would not apply? — A. Ho you
mean the Canadian Bill?
Q. This Bill does not apply to municipal work? — A. No, but supposing such a
measure were passed in Canada, would it apply to contracts made by the Transconti-
nental Kailway Commission.
Q. It would? — A. That point was not very clear according to the construction of
the New York Act, so they passed an amendment making it very clear that it should
apply to commissions.
54
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Law as to Mail Carriers.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Would this apply to a man who was hired to drive a wagon conveying His
Majesty’s mail, if the contractor hired such man? — A. Yes, I believe it would.
Mr. Macdonell. — I should think it would without any doubt.
Mr. Staples. — Then it would apply to all city mail carriers.
Prof. Skelton.— It would probably apply to contracts with railways for transporta-
tion. I might point out in this connection that when Bills of this character were before
the Federal Congress of 1902 an express stipulation was put in that it should not apply
to contracts for transportation by land or water, or for the transmission of intelligence
or for the purchase of supplies. It was thought by the committee to be clear that the
Bill as it stood — which in essentials was much the same as the Bill here — would apply
to the contracts for the transportation of mail and would of course force the railways
to be carried on on an eight-hour basis, so the heads of various railway unions came
before the Committee in 1899 and testified that while strongly in favour of the eight-
hour system and believing it was coming, they thought it would be unworkable at the
present moment to apply it to the railways. So an exception was made, and in all the
Bills brought forth since, that exception has been preserved.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. If you have got, in some handy form, these various exceptions, I think it would
be well to give them as you go along through the different enactments, so that when we
come to consider the whole situation we will have them before us. In that way you
would not have to go through all your material again. — A. I have them here and can
put them in.
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. Coming back again to the question of uniforms, are they manufactured by the
United States, or are contracts for them sublet? — A. I think they are sublet.
Q. Would you kindly find out if possible where they are made and the regular
hours of labour for clothing factories in each particular district, and how they keep
track of work done on the eight-hour basis? — A. You mean in the case of the states,
because it is only the state law which applies to the provision of supplies and materials ?
Do you mean in the case of the State of Hew York, which buys uniforms for its
militia, how they are provided?
The Chairman.— Have you in mind, Mr. Stanfield, the federal or the state govern-
ment?
Mr. Stanfield. — Both.
I he Chairman. The federal government, as I understand it, distinctly excludes
the supplies.
1 rof. Skelton. ^ es, it applies only to public works, but the various state
governments undoubtedly have to purchase supplies such as uniforms.
Mr. Stanfield. It would be well to look into that matter.
The Chairman. — Certainly.
Prof. Skelton.— I think it would not be a bad idea to attempt to arrange, either
by inquiry from the various departments or by discussion among the members of the
Committee, what would be the natural scope of this Bill as it stands here; to what
it would apply, to what public works, what contracts for railroads, &c„ to what pur-
chases of material, to what contracts for transportation and so on.
Mr. Smith.— Do you mean the Hew York Bill, or the Canadian Bill as it stands?
Mr. Verville. — There are eleven members of this committee and there may be
eleven different ideas on those points.
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
55
APPENDIX No. 4
Mr. Macdonell. — Perhaps Prof. Skelton might in the light of his experience show
what the Bill would cover. For instance, when we come to put in our rep >rt — I am
merely suggesting this — it would seem to be the proper thing to say that with respect
to the Bill committed to us we find in our opinion it applies to so and so. and then
give a statement showing what the application of the Bill we have been considering is,
and continue from that starting point.
Federal and Certain State Laws to be Compared.
The Chairman. — I do not know how it appears to the other members of the com-
mittee but it seems to me from what Prof. Skelton has given us this morning, that if
he could take the United States federal law and compare with it the laws of Wiscon-
sin, Massachussets and Mew York, bringing these four measures together and discuss-
ing the bearing of one upon the other, it would be very instructive and enlightening —
because certainly the Wisconsin and Massachussets laws seem to be rather direct and
specific. Although the Mew York law is perhaps more far-reaching — also the applica-
tion of these laws to the federal jurisdiction, would be very helpful, I think, in
getting at just what we want here. This is practically what he has done this morning
although he has spread the work over a large field.
Mr. Macdonell. — My idea is apparently the same as yours. The legislation passed
by Mew York, Massachusetts and Wisconsin and the Federal Act are very useful.
The Chairman. — Yes.
Mr. Macdonell. — The Wisconsin Act is the latest of any one of those Bills which
are before us. The Mew York Act has gone very far and it has been a good deal
hammered out and pounded on. It is a very useful Bill and then there is the fact that
our Bill is very similar to theirs. Those four Bills will give us a good deal of in-
formation.
Mr. Staples. — What is the object of considering the details of these state laws?
We do not pretend to go that far, do we, or, to legislate beyond the scope of the
federal law which will simply cover the labour employed on federal public works ?
That is all we intend to do?
The Chairman. — I think that is so.
Mr. Staples. — Why is it necessary to go into the state laws?
The Chairman. — They help to throw light on the considerations which you have
to keep in mind in drafting a federal measure. For instance, these two limitations
which it has been found necessary to insert in the Mew Fork law, I think
it was, are litnitations which probably it would be necessary to insert in
any federal law. The same reason which would apply in the case of a state would
apply to contracts by the federal government, and it is with the view of getting the
light of as much experience as possible that we are taking up the matter of the scope
of this legislation.
Mr. Stanfield.— It is too important a Bill to rush through.
Mr. Macdonell. — Sooner or later we ought to be in touch with the J ustice Depart-
ment, as legal questions will arise as to the Federal jurisdiction and so on. Perhaps
that could be left until we have the measure pretty well matured in our minds.
Prof. Skelton. — Supposing I should present a tentative interpretation of what,
it seems to me, is comprised within the scope of this measure.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Of the Canadian Bill? — A. Yes, of the Canadian Bill.
Mr. Knowles. — I think perhaps the Professor had better give us what he has in
his mind and then we can do what we think best.
The Chairman.- — And a comparison of these other laws.
Prof. Skelton. — On the points strictly bearing on the Canadian topic.
By the Chairman:
Q. Have you been able to ascertain how far the states have gone in the matter of
legislating on hours of labour before the Federal legislation was passed? Has the
56
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Federal legislation followed in the wake of legislation of the states or it has preceded ?
— A. No and yes.
Q. Perhaps you could arrange a chronology of that? — A. To put it briefly; the
rirst important action taken by the Federal government preceeded any action by the
state, but since then some of the states have gone further, have caught up to and
gone ahead of it.
Q. You say the first important action? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you mean the first legislation enacted? — A. The first legislation, the first
hour law enacted was by the Federal government. It was at first in advance of the
states, but very little.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Before any amending laws? — A. Yes, even before the amending laws. The
amending laws were passed within the past eight or ten years, hut since then the states
have caught up and gone ahead of the Federal government.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you think you could point out the chronology? — A. Yes.
Mr. Macdonell. — The New York law was ahead of the Federal.
By the Chairman :
Q. What is the date of the Federal enactment upon the statute book at the present
time ? A. 1892. Of course in 1868 there Yvas an enactment providing for an eight
hour law for government employes directly employed. In 1892 the main Act now
in force was applied to contracts as well.
Q. It is the law that is on the statute book at the present time? — A. Yes.
Q- There have been several Bills introduced since then? — A. In practically every
session. There is a Bill before the House of Representatives at the present moment.
Q. Could you devote perhaps part of a sitting to giving us the various attempts
that have been made to introduce Bills modifying the Act of 1892 and the reasons, so
far as you have been able to gather them, why these attempts have not been successful ?
Mr. Smith. — The effect?
The Chairman. — The effect.— A. I can do that.
By the Chairman:
Q. And the Act of 1892, can you trace it up and find out when it was first in-
troduced?— A. Yes.
The Chairman— As I understand it, there have been several important Com-
mittees of the House of Representatives and of the Senate of the United States. If
you could give us just an outline of these various bodies, what they have attempted
and the line of argument presented before them. I think that would be very helpful.
Mr. 'S eryille. — I was before that Committee three years ago at Washington
when they were discussing the matter.
Prof. Skelton. — What session was that?
Mr. Verville. — I think it was 1906.
Ihe Chairman. I hat is one of the committees that was dealing with proposed
amendments.
Mr. Verville. — I was there all the forenoon hearing evidence.
The Chairman. — Did you give any evidence?
Mr. Verville. — No, I was just listening.
. ^- Staples. AH the morning we have been following — which appears to be the
object of the committee the legislation which has been passed or considered in the
United States. Why do we restrict ourselves to the United States ? Why do we not
go to other republics, or to the mother country?
' PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
57
APPENDIX No. 4
The Chairman. — I might explain, Mr. Staples, that at the last meeting of the
committee we arranged a scheme which takes in exactly what you had in mind.
We thought it better to take the United States first, because they were close to us,
and perhaps had enacted more legislation along this line. Then, Prof. Skelton was
to give us at another meeting what was done in Great Britain, Europe and Australia.
Mr. Macdonell. M e had quite a review of the Australian and Blew Zealand
laws, and we are taking a glance at the United States at the present time.
Prof. Skelton. B inety-five per cent of the legislation on the matter has been
passed by the United States. I have sent to Europe for data regarding some of the
French and Swiss measures, as well as the British which I already have, but thought
I would not bring the information in until it was complete.
By the Chairman:
Q. Are you in possession of a report of the United Kingdom?— A. I have some
data, but am not quite sure that I have the latest information available. I have
sent over to find out whether any measures were passed within the last two or three
years.
Q. And' as far as you are concerned, you want a little more time on that branch
of your investigation? — A. I think it would be better. The French government about
two years ago passed some experimental legislation for eight hours a day in their own
workshops. How it has worked out I have been unable to find out yet.
Q. In regard to Australia and Kew Zealand, do you wish to add anything to what
you said the other day ? — A. I have no further fresh data as yet.
I he Chairman. The reason I have asked Prof. Skelton these questions is to
determine whether it will be advisable to have him again at the next meeting of the
committee or begin taking the evidence of some other witness and allow him to work
out his data further.
Mr. \ erville. I think it would be better to give the Professor a chance to get
all his data together, because he has written to Europe for some further information,
and it will require a little time to obtain and prepare that.
Prof. Skelton. So far as information on European or Austrlian experience
is concerned, it will probably be some weeks before that could be presented.
As for going on with the experience of the United States in throwing any light on
the points regarding which the Chairman and others spoke, that can be done at any
time it suits the committee. I am quite prepared to go on in another (week or wait
until you have some further evidence.
Mr. Macdonell. Wouldi it not be better to complete Professor Skelton’s state-
ment on this matter rather than break in upon the narrative. Any information he
could give the committee on the point raised by Mr. Smith as to how the payment
works out per day would be useful, and also on the point as to the Saturday half-
holiday.
Mr. Smith. — And, Professor Skelton, your record of the application of this law
in the United States is very important, and the extent to which any law of this
nature in the L nited States has gone. Still we must remember that while many of
these states have passed laws, as a matter of fact not five per cent of them are
applied.
Prof. Skelton. — I confined myself to discussing the Acts which I have found out
were really enforced.
Mr. Macdonell.— Another point you might make a note of, and accentuate in
some way, is, where they have passed these laws that have become a dead letter.
Mr. Smith. — That is what I mean.
Mr. Macdonell. Eet us see how the public accept these laws.
Mr. Marshall. — And why they have become a dead letter.
58
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
The Chairman. — And also the various committees of the House of Representa-
tives and Senate that had to consider measures of this kind and the nature of repre-
sentations made before them. I think there is a lot of information embodied in the
reports if you could go through that evidence and make a digest of the nature of
the arguments pro and con. We might agree now to hear Prof. Skelton next Wed-
nesday, and a week from then begin the hearing of witnesses who desire to appear.
Mr. Smith. — What information can we have next Wednesday?
The Chairman. — Information pertaining to these various questions which the com-
mittee have been asking this morning. Prof. Skelton, you might look over the points
raised this morning and be prepared to give further information on them at the next
sitting.
Committee adjourned.
House of Commons,
Committee Room, No. 62,
Feb. 2, 1910.
The Special Committee on Bill No. 21 (An Act respecting Hours of Labour on
Public Works) met in Room 62 at 11 a.m., the Hon. Mr. King in the Chair.
The Chairman. — I desire to make an explanation in regard to my report to the
House. I think I explained to the committee at the first meeting that I had had a con-
versation with the Premier at the outset in regard to retaining Prof. Skelton by the
committee, and was informed that the best course to pursue was to see Dr. Flint,
and make such arrangments as were necessary, he being Clerk of the House. Dr.
Flint said he did not think it necessary to go before the House, that the committee
had the power itself, but later on Dr. Flint said he thought it would be better if a
formal report were presented to the House, asking permission to retain Prof. Skelton.
The report was drafted, and I presented it on the spot, feeling it was a purely formal
matter, as the committee had decided to retain Mr. Skelton. I might have given a
fuller explanation in presenting it, but I did not, and it was questioned by one or
two members of the Opposition, who seemed to think this work ought to have been
done by the Department of Labour, a point which we had discussed before. I with-
held the report, and have not asked the concurrence of the House since, as I thought
it would be better to wait until the committee met to-day, and if the committee
approved of my proposal, I would submit the report to the House. I think if the
matter were explained to those who objected, there would be no difficulty in having
the report adopted, because the objection was that it was work which the committee or
the Department of Labour could do, but I think those who listened to Prof. Skelton
must feel satisfied that what he has done was done much more thoroughly and satis-
factorily than the committee would be able to do it. He has given us the benefit of
his trained experience and knowledge, and has aided the committee in their work
greatly. We certainly would be derelict in our duty if, knowing his capacity in this
direction, we did not take advantage of it. I should be glad if members of the commit-
tee would express their views on the point.
Mr. Verville. — It has been decided by the committee to do it. We have to
abide by our decision.
Mr. Macdonell. — Since the Chairman spoke to me in regard to this matter, I
explained to the two members of the opposition who objected, to their satisfaction, the
position of the matter. I concur completely in the Chairman’s idea of the fairness
of the work, and the value of it to the committee, and therefore I shall be glad to
support the motion for the adoption of the report.
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
59
APPENDIX No. 4
The Chairman. — The objection was natural enough under the circumstances.
Has the sub-committee something to report ?
Mr. Verville. — Mot yet. We have been too busy this week.
Scope of Law Limited to Public Works and Public Printing.
Prof. Skelton. — There are two or three points I thought I would take up this
morning. In the first place, it was asked that a brief summary be made of the most
important of the American experiments, so I have prepared a memorandum, of which
I have a few copies, covering the laws enacted by the States of Massachusetts, Mew
Pork and Wisconsin, and by the Federal Government of the United States. I may
say on this point that the further I have investigated the laws of the several states,
the clearer it becomes that whatever the wording of the law may be, however wide
it may be nominally, in practice the scope is limited almost entirely to public works.
In Mew York State.
In the case of New T ork State, where the terms of the law are wide enough, one
would think, to cover every contract made by the government, as a matter of fact the
only two lines covered are public works, including buildings of all sorts, the con-
struction of canals, aqueducts, and iso on, and the letting out of public printing.
The question was brought up the last day, how is the wage provision in
the Mew Y ork law construed when the work is done on a piece basis. I am
informed by the official who has charge of enforcing the law in New York State,
that that question has never come up ; they have never had to apply the law on a piece
work basis, so that they never had to solve that question. I thought I might next,
leaving this memorandum in the hands of the committee, go on briefly to make some
suggestions as to the scope of the Billl before us. I do not pretend to bring any legal
knowledge to bear on the point. But I wish to give some suggestions in the light of
the American experiences I have gone over, as to the scope it might possibly have,
simply as a starting point for discussion by the committee. The scope of the Bill
before the committee may be considered from three view points. In the first place,
to what different lines of work would it apply ? Next, what employers in these lines
of work would be affected? That is, how far would the ramifications of sub-contract-
mg go? Would the purchasers of material, for example, be involved? And in the
third place, what workmen in the employ of contractors affected by the law would be
involved ?
Scope of Operations Under Bill Mo. 21.
Taking up the first point, as to the lines of work that would be affected, I think
it is clear the Bill before us would cover contracts for the construction and repair of
public works, including such buildings as post offices, customs houses, armouries Inter-
colonial stations, freight sheds, and so on, wharfs, piers, breakwaters, anu railroads
and canals. That is the most obvious group to which the Bill would apply.
By the Chairman :
Q. Ho you mean the construction of railways? — A. Construction or repair of
railways.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Government roads? — A. Yes, of the Government roads.
By Mr. Stanfield: .
Q. Would that include cars, locomotives, &c. ? — A. Yes, if those were specially
contracted for by the Intercolonial management. In the second place, contracts with
60
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
railroad and steamship companies for carrying mail. This was a point which came up
in the discussion on the first Bills brought up in the Federal Congress in the United
States. It was agreed by both parties that the law as first drafted would apply in
this respect.
By the Chairman:
Q. And that drafting was similar to this Bill? — A. \es. Again it would ex-
tend, I think, to contracts for the construction and repair of ships. This is the
point over which much of the controversy has turned in the proposed Federal legis-
lation in the United States. Again, it would apply to contracts. I think, for the pro-
vision of material and supplies. For instance, uniforms for the militia or perman-
ent force, locomotive equipment for the I.C.R., ordnance, rifles, ammunition, mail
bags, paper for government printing offices, and other lines not necessary to specify.
The third section provides that the Bill shall apply to work undertaken by the govern-
ment of Canada by day labour. I do not feel able to interpret that section very de-
finitely. It certainly would apply to any public works carried on by the government,
but whether or not it would extend to mechanics paid by the day in government rail-
way round-houses, or anything of that sort, I do not feel quite certain.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Does it affect the Transcontinental Railway construction between Winnipeg
and the Atlantic? — A. I should think so.
Employers Involved on Eight-hour Basis.
The second question is as to what employers within these various fields would be
involved. The test of the applicability of the Bill before us would be the presence or
absence of a contract. Wherever a contract was entered into, whether between the
government and the primary contractor, or between that contractor and a sub-con-
tractor, or even between that sub-contractor and further sub-contractors, if you want
to go that far, I should think the work would have to be done on an eight-hour basis.
But the Bill would not apply to work done on materials and supplies purchased in
open market without a contract being made.
By the Chairman:
Q. When you say the work would have to be done on an eight-hour basis, is that
the work which the contractor has contracted for, or all work done by that contractor?
‘ A. I think all work done by that contractor. I do not think the law would apply
to work done on materials and supplies purchased in the open market.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Why are you of that opinion, unless there is an exception to that effect ? — A. I
mean where no contract is expressly made.
Q. But you are assuming there is a contract expressely made ? — A. No, I say if
you go out and- purchase supplies without going through the formality of making con-
tracts, purchasing them for the work as. needed —
Q. In law that would be a formal contract? — A. I understand your argument,
but consider the contracts referred to in the Act are contracts for work yet to be done.
Opinion of Law Officers in 1904.
Q. It would seem to me that the law would cover the case you mention unless
there was an exception?— A. It is a rather difficult .question, but I think one might
contend that the interpretation of the law would be that its provisions would apply
only to work done under and in consequence of the letting of a primary contract.
PEOF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
61
APPENDIX No. 4
An opinion has been given by the law officers of the United States government which
follows exactly similar lines. I should like to read a few sentences of the opinion in
regard to it rendered in 1904 by the solicitor of the Department of Commerce and
Labour. It is as follows: —
“ A careful study of this Bill and of the statements and arguments made upon
the several hearings before the committee to which it was referred, show that it
affects only those contracts which contemplate labour to be performed after the
execution of the contract, and in fulfilment of it. Labour performed upon,
or in connection with, the subject matter of the contract, prior to the execution
of the contract, is not affected by the provisions of the Bill; hence contracts
made by the government for the purchase of articles in existence do not come
within the scope of the Bill. But all contracts which contemplate the per-
formance of labour after their execution, except in so far as the Bill expressly
excludes them, are affected by the provisions of the Bill, whether the labour be
expressly required by the terms of the contract or be necessarily involved.”
I think it might he fairly interpreted that the Bill before us would not apply to
the purchase of material already in existence.
Mr. Macdoneli,. — Matters in esse would be excepted.
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. Supposing the government called for contracts for tents. All large manu-
facturers contract ahead for cotton goods, sometimes at a certain price, and sometimes
it is the market price of the cotton at the time they take delivery of them. A man gets
his contracts. The mill would have to supply the goods on an eight-hour basis ? — A. If
the contract with the mill was made after he obtained the contract from the govern-
ment.
Q. Suppose it was six months before? — A. It would take more of a lawyer than
myself to decide.
By the Chairman:
Q. If we understand you rightly, your view is that if the government was order-
ing a thousand tents, and placed the order with a firm which had tents in stock, this
law would not apply? — A. No, it would not apply.
Q. But if the order were placed with a manufacturing concern, and they had to
manufacture the tents, it would apply? — A. Yes.
Q. But Mr. Stanfield brought up another point. Suppose the contractor for the
tents had a standing contract with a cotton-mill, then the question whether the eight-
hour day would be obligatory on the sub-contractor providing the cotton, would be
more difficult to determine.-
Q. I suppose it would apply to goods they had not in stock at the time the order
was given? — A. Yes. To take another example. If a contract were let for the con-
struction of a fishery cruiser like the Vigilant, or an ice breaker like the Montcalm,
whether let in Canada or in Great Britain, an eight-hour day would be obligatory, not
only for the caulkers, drillers, fitters, riveters, &c., employed in the shipyard, but for
the machinists employed in the manufacture of the engines or dynamos or motors
required, if these were specially contracted for, and also for the machinists employed
in manufacturing any parts or materials used by the contractor in those engines,
not made in his shop, and contracted for outside. You can go on as far as you please,
and follow the ramifications. On the other hand, I should think it would not apply
to paint or rivets, or standard castings, anything that could be purchased from time
to time from stock, without even any contract for future delivery. I think that is a
reasonable interpretation of the Bill; whether the interpretation commends itself to
the committee, I do not know. I suggest it for their consideration.
62
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Mr. Staples. — There is no provision to meet an emergency ? — A. Except in cases
of extraordinary emergency caused by fire, flood or danger to property.
Q. No other provision as to war? — A. No.
By the Chairman:
Q. Your idea is that the eight hour provision applies to contracts let in foreign
countries as well as to contracts let in the Dominion? — A. I think so.
Contracts Let Outside of Canada.
By an Hon. Member:
Q. We would not have jurisdiction outside of Canada? — A. No legislative juris-
diction, but the government as maker of a contract could insert stipulations regulating
contracts in a foreign country.
By the Chairman:
It might affect the government power to contract outside. Clause one reads : —
‘ Every contract to which the Government of Canada is a party, which may
involve the employment of labourers, workmen, or mechanics, shall contain a
stipulation that no labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of the contract-
or or sub-contractor, or other person doing or contracting to do the whole or
part of the work contemplated by the contract, shall be permitted to work more
than eight hours in any one calendar day, except in cases of extraordinary
emergency, caused by fire, flood, or danger to life and property.’
If his interpretation of the contract is correct, the government would be ex-
cluded from making a contract outside of Canada.
Prof. Skelton. — In several states in the United States it has been provided that
the law shall apply only to contracts performed in that state.
Mr. Macdonell. — Our Bill should be confined to Canada. All these other Bills
are confined to their respective countries.
Workmen, Law Would Affect.
Prof. Skelton. — Then take the third point, as to what workmen in the employ-
ment of these various contractors would be affected. It may be noted that, as the Bill
stands, it appears to apply to all workmen in the employ of the contractor or sub-
contractor affected, not merely to the men engaged on the government work, but to
those employed on any private work in hand at the same time. Further, a possible,
if somewhat strained interpretation, would mean that for both of these classes of
workmen eight hours would be the legal limit of their daily activity, whether on
government or private work, or even whether spent in the one contractor’s service or
not: that is, it would not be possible for a contractor to work the men eight hours on
a government job, and then put them on a private job for two hours.
By an Hon. Member:
Q. That is, if they started in the morning on government work, and the contractor
placed them on some private work in the afternoon, the eight-hour provision would
apply. — A. Yes, that would apply if they worked any part of the day on government
work.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Then it would not be an eight-hour day on public work. The Bill states
eight hours on public works. — A. That is the title of the Bill, but I think the
wording of the body of the Bill is a little wider than the title, and it is simply
the wording of the body of the Bill that I am considering. As I pointed out at the
last sitting of the committee, a committee of the United States Senate discussing a
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 63
APPENDIX No. 4
clause exactly like the one contained in this Bill, concurred in the interpretations I
have just given, or rather I am concurring in their interpretation of the meaning of
this clause, as to what workmen would be affected.
By the Chairman:
Q. What committee was that? — A. The committee of the United States Senate
appointed in 1902. They guarded against this far-reaching application of the law by
inserting, as in line seven of this Bill, after the word ‘ Mechanic,’ the words, ‘ Doing
any part of the work contemplated by the contract,’ that is, making it clear that it
should apply only to workmen on government work; and in line eleven, after the
words, calendar day,’ by inserting the words, ‘ upon such work,’ making it clear
it was government work alone, to which the eight-hour restriction would apply.
By an Hon. Member:
Q. Have you considered the question as to what effect the eight-hour day on gov-
ernment work has had on other work?— A. I have tried to follow it up. It is rather a
difficult matter to know just how far the lessening of hours in the trades affected is
due to the example set by the government, and how much is due to Trades Union or-
ganization. As a matter of fact, the law is enforced more fully in those states where
the trade unions are strongest, and in fact, is found only in states where the trades
unions are strong. So that it is difficult to say how much is due to the example of
the government, and how much to trade union pressure.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Then the Trades Union organization is a factor? — A. Oh, certainly. There is
another minor point which I think I had better mention before proceeding: that is, a
slight difference in the punctuation of the Bill before the committee, and the New
York statute, on which it is modelled. The New York statute reads as follows:
“ But no labourer, workman, or mechanic in the employ of the contractor, sub-
contractor or other person doing or contracting to do a part of the work contem-
plated by the contract, shall be permitted or required to work more than eight
hours on any one calendar day.”
In the Bill before us, in line 7, the comma has been ommitted after the work ‘con-
tractor,’ and an ‘or’ inserted; while in line eight, a comma lias been inserted after
‘ sub-contractor.’ The effect of this change is to put ‘ other person doing or con-
tracting to do the work’ in opposition with ‘ no labourer, workman or mechanic,’ and
equally subject to the stipulation which follows, equally forbidden, that is, to work
more than eight hours per day. By what is perhaps a strained interpretation, the
Bill as it stands to-day might be taken to mean that no principal engaged on any part
of a contract could himself legally work more than eight hours a day. I do not imagine
there was any intention on the part of the framers of the Bill, of making any change
from the New York measure.
I shall next take up briefly the recent legislation proposed in the United States
Federal Congress. The existing federal eight-hour law, as has been pointed out, was
passed in 1892 — the law providing for an eight-hour day on public works — after many
years discussion as to the exact scope of the previous abortive measure of 1868, which
had not been strictly enforced or understood.
By the Chairman:
Q. Can you give us any idea when that discussion commenced ? — A. It was large-
ly departmental, and turned on the question how the law was to be interpreted. In
1869 and in 1872 executive orders were issued by the President trying to make the
matter clear, and several Acts were passed giving back- pay to men who had been
worked more than eight hours, but the matter was not finally settled until 1892.
64
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Were there not Bills introduced as far back as 1864? — A. One Act was intro-
duced and passed in 1868, as I have stated. (See Exhibit A. (1).
By Mr. Verville:
Q. That vas the first one? — A. Yes. It was rather ambiguous, and was not clear-
ly understood.
By the Chairman:
Q. Was there much discussion between 1S68 and 1892 ? — A. No, most of the dis-
cussion has been later. The next important step was the introduction in 1&9T of a
Bill to extend the scope of the existing law. Since that date there has not been &
session of Congress where an eight-hour measure of one variety or another has not been
introduced. On nearly every occasion committees of the House or of the Senate have
held hearings on the Bill before it, which have been reported at length. The reports
of the hearings before Congress cover thousands of pages. On at least three occasions
the Bill passed the House of Representatives, without discussion, but was rejected
by the Senate, or never reported from the committee. During the present session of
Congress, the measure has again been introduced, promoted by representative Gardner
of New Jersey, the father of the 1S9S measure. It does not seem to have been pressed
quite as strongly as it was in previous years, not because those behind it have any less
faith in it, but simply because the legislative activity of the American Federation
of Labour, its chief sponsors, has been applied to grappling with the injunction powers
of the courts in labour disputes. ( See Exhibit C (1) and (If).
By Mr. Verville:
Q. And trying to keep out of jail? — A. Yes, and they are trying to have the
anti-boycott legislation amended. For that reason there has not been as much stress
laid on the Bill this last session.
As a result of the discussion many important changes have been made in the Bill
as first submitted, mainly in the direction of making concessions to meet specific objec-
tions. I have here a brief statement of the principal changes that were made in the
different Bills as they were submitted to the United States Congress during the thir-
teen years since 1897. The first Bill was introduced in 1897.
By the Chairman:
Q. These are all the proposed amendments, none of which have been actually
carried? — A. Yes, these are simply proposed amendments. They show the evolution
in the Bill as amended by its sponsors, to meet one objection after the other.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. These are the last amendments? — A. Yes, the Bill before the House at pres-
ent is practically the same as the 1904 and 1906 measure.
By the Chairman:
Q. As I understand it, the law on the statute book to-day is the law passed in
1892.— A. Yes.
Q. And it has never been amended since? — A. No.
Q. Since 1892 there have been several Bills amending the law, none of which
have been carried? — A. Yes.
Q. The Bill of 1897 was a proposed amendment of the law of 1892? — A. Yes.
Q. Then in 1898, a Bill going much further than the Act of 1892, was introduced?
— A. Yes. (See Exhibit C. (1).
Q. Since that time discussion has centred around the Bill of 1898, and it has
led to an amendment of that Bill? — A. Precisely. For example, in 1897, when the
first important Bill was introduced, it was sought to amend the Act of 1892 by ex-
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE HILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
65
APPENDIX No. 4
tending the definition of public works to include all labour on behalf of the United
States requiring the employment of mechanics or labourers, and providing that the
law should cover work done off the construction premises. Then in 1898 — and this
is really the Bill which has formed the basis of the later discussion — a Bill introduced
in the United States Congress this year took much the form of the Bill before this
committee, I shall read the essential part of it. It is as follows
Bill of 1898, Essential Part of.
‘ Each and every contract to which the United States, any Territory or the
District of Columbia as a party, and every contract made for or on behalf of the
U.S., or any Territory or said District, which contract may involve the employ-
ment of labourers, workmen or mechanics, shall contain a stipulation that no
labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of the contractor or any sub-
contractor doing or contracting to do any part of the work contemplated by the
contract shall be required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one
calendar day.’ (See Exhibit C. (I/.).
virtually the same as the Bill before us. If we go on to the Bill presented in 1902,
omitting the 1899, 1900 and 1901 proposals, we shall see that the result of the hearing
before that committee, and the result of the objections raised, and the concessions
made to meet these objections, was that the Bill took a different form.
Committee on Labour Bills Appointed.
Q. How many committees were appointed? — A. At least nine.
Q. Between 1897 and 1902? — A. Yes.
Q. Those were committees of the House of Eepresentatives ? — A. The Bill was
referred to the Standing Committees on Labour, of the House of Representatives and
the Senate: some years to the Committee of the House, and some years to the Com-
mittee of the Senate, and some to both.
Bill of 1902, Its Exceptions.
Q. Did they take much evidence? — A. Of a voluminous nature. I shall later
give its main points. The Bill of 1902 (H. E. 3076), explicitly limited the applica-
tion, to the workmen in the contractor’s employ who were actually engaged on the
government work and made the following exceptions. ( See Exhibit C. (2).
“ (1) Extraordinary emergency caused by fire, flood, or danger to life or
property.
(2) Contracts for military or naval work or supplies in war or when war is
imminent.
(3) Contracts for transportation by land or water.
So much of any contract as is to be performed by way of transportation.”
For example, if a man had a contract for providing stone for a government build-
ing, on a sub-contract, he would not have to secure the observance of the eight-hour
law by the transportation company engaged in hauling it from the quarry.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Would that include teamsters ?— A. I think it would include all engaged in
transportation.
(5) Contracts for such materials as may usually be bought in open market,
whether made to conform to particular specifications or not. Passing on to 1904;
as a result of further discussion, and amendments by the Senate Committee of
1902, the Bill then introduced made it clear by adding the words, ‘upon such
work,’ after ‘eight hours in any one calendar day,’ that it was not forbidden to
employ the same men on other work after the expiration of eight hours on gov-
ernment work, and added to the exceptions.
4—5
66
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(6) Contracts for transmission of intelligence.
(7) Contracts for the purchase of supplies by the government, whether manu-
factured to conform to particular specifications or not. And added, ‘ and articles ’
after ‘materials’ in exception (5) above. The Bill provided further for appeal
by the contractor to the head of the department making the contract, and as a
last resource to the Court of Claims.
On this last page of the memorandum you will find for your convenience a sum-
mary of the various exceptions which had been added to the Bill in its progress through
the American Congress.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Did the various committees make recommendations, or simply pass the Bill
on? — A. The most diverse action was taken. The majority of the committees of the
House of Representatives reported the Bill favourably, and on three occasions the
Bill passed the House of Representatives v ithout a vote being taken. In one case a
Senate committee reported the Bill favourably, and in that case the chairman went
back on his action, and moved in the Senate that the Bill be reported back to the
committee.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. They were sorry that they ever took any action? — A. Apparently they re-
pented.
Bills Killed in the Senate.
Q. I he Bills were killed in the Senate? — A. Yes it was pointed out in the hear-
ings before one of the Senate committees that the House of Representatives never
discussed the measure, but passed it without a division. The incident throws some
light, by the way, on the facility which the bi-cameral system of government affords
for shouldering the responsibility for an unpopular act on the wicked partner in the
government, but of course that is never done this side of the line.
•
Penalties Provided in the Bills.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. What was the penalty provided in these Bills for breaches of this provision?
Would it void the contract, or would it be a penalty and a fine? — A. Usually, with-
holding payments; the amount of the penalty stipulated in the contract would be
withheld.
Q. The contract was not voided?— A. No.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you happen to know whether any penalty has been imposed? — A. Yes, it
has been imposed in many eases. It is only in the last few years that the 1892 law has
been strictly enforced. Very often advantage was taken of the emergency clause of
the 1892 Act, to permit the contractor to escape the penalty.
The Two Main Features of the Federal Act of 1892.
Q. What Act is that? — A. The main legislation of the federal government of
the T nited States is that embodied in the law of 1892, which provides practically for
an eight-hour day for all workmen in the employ of the United States, no matter
whether engaged on public works or not, and in the second place provides for an eight-
hour day for all labourers and mechanics in the employment of contractors on public
works ; the term ‘public works’ is construed in the strict sense to mean buildings or
irrigation works, or other enterprises of the same sort.
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
67
APPENDIX No. 4
By an Hon. Member:
Q. It would u ot apply to a contract by the state government? — A. No, I am speak-
ing of the federal government.
Thirteen Bills Introduced Since 1897.
By Mr. Smith :
Q. That has never been amended? — A. No. At least thirteen Bills, one every
session, from 1897, have been introduced. These Bills have varied from time to time;
as yet none of them has been passed.
By the Chairman:
Q. All the amendments have been in the nature of extending that provision.
Does the law go further in its application, or has any law been made to restrict the
Act of 1892 ? — . No, but the 1897-8 Bill made a great advance beyond it, and the Bills
since that time have been making exceptions lessening that advance.
Q. Modifying the Bill? — A. Yes, as a result of these rather sweeping exceptions,
it comes down to this, that practically the only lines to which the Bill as finally amend-
ed, the Bill that is nowT before the United States Congress, would apply, would be pub-
lic works and shipbuilding, with the subsidiary contracts, such as contracts for armour
plates, boilers and engines, and so on. It was clear from the discussion on both sides
in 1904 that so many exceptions had been made that it was practically only these two
lines that would be seriously affected, alhough there was some discussion as to whether
or not these exceptions were really as sweeping as was- generally supposed.
Law Enforced — Inspector Reports.
By an Hon. Member:
Q. The law is rigidly enforced now? — A. It is enforced.
By the Chairman:
Q. How is it enforced? — A. The inspector reports violations, and the money is
held back.
Q. Who is the inspector appointed by? — A. By the government.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. There is always an inspector on the government work, anyway? — A. There al-
ways is on public works, and on shipbuilding too.
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. Supposing the government called for cast iron pipes or boiler plates. The
great contractors are Scotch. Some person represents the Scotch company, and sends
in a tender, and the Scotch workmen work sixty hours a week, and the Canadians only
forty-eight. — A. The government could not accept the Scotch tender in that case.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Do the British shipbuilders work eight hours? — A. Nine hours I believe.
Mr. Stanfield. — I was speaking of contracts for cast-iron pipes.
Effect on Foreign Competitors.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. If this Bill were restricted to operations in Canada only, it would have the
effect Mr. Stanfield pointed out.
4— 54
63
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Prof. Skelton. — Assuming that an eight-hour establishment is at a disadvantage
as compared with a ten-hour establishment, you would, if you made the eight-hour
provision apply to foreign contracts as well as Canadian contracts, prevent the foreign
competitor having any advantage over the Canadian manufacturer.
By the Chairman:
Q. It would prevent the government accepting tenders from foreign contractors.
— A. Possibly. The arguments and evidence brought before these various committees
were simply interminable, but it may be possible to present briefly some of the main
points made on both sides, omitting the rhetorical displays. For instance, you would
have appeals to the spirit of 1776 or the declaration that ‘our forefathers filled
the breasts of the oppressed people of the Old World with hope by stamping under
their heel the infamous creed that kings were horn with the divine right to rule, and
it is due to the example of the founders of this great republic that the tyrants of the
Old World have yielded greater measure of freedom to their subjects.’ One side,
however, would argue from this appeal to their illustrious forefathers that the liberty
then secured forbade any infringement being made on the liberty of contract between
employer and workman, while the other side would interpret it to mean that work-
men should be given the utmost leisure possible.
By an Hon. Member:
Q. Do you know whether goods from foreign countries to the government of the
United States pay duty.- — A. I do not think they do. As is frequently the case in
argument, the advocates and opponents of the measure carried on the discussion in
great part on different planes. For example, the advocates laid their chief stress on
the social and other benefits to the men which would follow from the adoption of the
eight-hour day. That is, they discussed the general proposition of the eight-hour
day aside from its special application to government work. That is where their
strongest point was made. Its opponents laid their emphasis on the trouble that would
be created for the manufacturer by its adoption, particularly its adoption in a partial
way.
In the first place, the opponents of the measure questioned its constitutionality.
Aside, however, from the soundness or unsoundness of their position, the arguments
advanced were based on constitutional relations between the Federal and State govern-
ments, which find no correspondence or parallel in our Canadian situation, and need
not be discussed.
Effect of Eight-hour Law on Productivity.
The effect on productivity was much discussed, though not in a very systematic
fashion. The unanimous opinion of the manufacturers heard was that the lessened
hours would mean lessened daily output, particularly where automatic machinery
was much employed. Among those who favoured the Bill there was wide divergence
on this point. Some contended that the experience obtained by reductions of hours
from fourteen to twelve, and from twelve to eleven, and from eleven to ten, &c.,
warranted the conclusion that productivity would not be decreased — that the increased
vigour and alertness and goodwill, and the increased intelligence resulting from the
v ise employment of the added leisure, would enable the workmen to uroduce as much
in eight hours as previously in nine, or ten. Other advocates of the measure defended
it on diametrically opposite grounds, contending that since each man would produce
less than before, it would be necessary to employ more men to produce the same
output, and thus the unemployed would be absorbed, much to their benefit, and the
benefit of those whose, jobs they menaced. On this question of productivity the best
evidence brought out in the discussion is contained in an investigation made by tho
United States Bureau of Labour in 1904, in response to a resolution of the House
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 6ft'
APPENDIX No. 4
The investigation was on the whole inconclusive and unsatisfactory. They did not
succeed in finding very satisfactory answers to any of the questions propounded, but
some of the data reported bearing on this question of productivity are interesting. A
comparison was made in 1903-4 of the cost of constructing twin battleships in differ-
ent yards. One was constructed in the Government Navy yard at Brooklyn where
the eight-hour day ruled, and the other in a private yard at Newport News under
the ten-hour day. By agreement the building of the hull was adopted as the best
basis of comparison, and under identical classification forms, careful records were
kept of the time spent by the riveters, fitters, drillers, carpenters, and other workmen
employed. The results were extremely favourable to the government eight-hour day
yard, the average output per hour of the men on the eight-hour basis being 24-48%
greater than that of the ten-hour men, the average number of pounds worked in in the
ten hours on the Louisiana, constructed at Newport News being 50-6 per man and on
the Connecticut, built at the Brooklyn navy yard, 50-39% per man — that is almost
precisely the same amount of product under the eight-hour day rule at Brooklyn as
in the private yard at Newport News under the ten-hour day.
Q. Was the equipment the same? — A. I should think so. It is only fair to say
that the work on the Louisiana was performed in the regular way under normal
conditions while that of the Connecticut, built in the government yard, indicates the
putting forth of unusual and extraordinary effort and energy.
Q. Did the men know there was a competition going on ? — A. The Department
points out that the government shipyard paid higher wages, gave steadier employ-
ment and shorter hours, and thus attracted the best grade of workmen, while the
feeling that the yard was on its mettle, and the expectation that a good showing
would lead to another contract, led to unusual exertions to secure efficiency. A com-
parison made between ships built some ten years previously showed up the government
eight-hour day yard very badly — that it cost one and one-half times as much as if
the work had been done in a private yard where the ten-hour day prevailed.
Q. What was the interval between the two tests? — A. About eight or ten years.
In the interval civil service regulations had been applied to the yards and much
reorganization of the whole staff had been made, and as I have said the whole establish-
ment was on its mettle.
Q. Have they made any record since? — A. No, not since.
Q. Is it not a fact, in connection with the question you are bringing out now,
that the government got the best equipment specially for that test? — A. Yes, they
brought their yard up to date.
Q. And it had not been up to date before that? — A. No, as compared with the
yard at Newport News, it had not been up to date.
Q. Would not the conditions be similar in the two cases? — A. Yes, at the time
of the test.
Q. Have you found out the value of the two ships after they were built and
whether one had to be repaired more frequently or to a greater extent than the other,
and in what time? — A. No.
Mr. Verville. — If you look that up you will find there was a difference.
Prof. Skelton. — The construction of the hull extended a little over a year and
the test was not applied to the other work. It should be pointed out that the work
was confined almost entirely to hand work; automatic machinery came in very little,
and of course, it is in hand work that the eight-hour day shows up best. In the same
investigation of the U. S. Labour Department other data are presented which make
possible comparison on perhaps a fairer basis. These data were based on the ex-
perience of some 396 United States establishments which had recently reduced hours
in varying degree, chiefly from ten to nine, and from nine to eight. About 90 per
cent reported a reduction in output and an increase in cost, in some cases less than
the proportionate decrease in time. In the case of the reduction from nine to eight
hours the reduction in output was almost identical with the reduction in time, con-
70 COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
firming in a way the manufacturers’ contention that where automatic machinery
which could be speeded up played an important part you could not expect the same
result from eight hours work as from nine. But this whole question of the effect on
productivity, as well as the counter question of the social and educational effects of
the reduction of hours, are part of the general problem of the eight-hour day rather
than of the specific problem before us of an eight-hour day on government works.
It was suggested by one of the members of the committee that at a later session some
memoranda might be presented embodying the present state of opinion on the effect
of the eight-hour day on productivity.. If desired, I shall present at a later stage, a
memorandum briefly considering these points, though I do not imagine it would be
worth while to attempt any independent investigation. I may recall the fact that
Nova Scotia nearly two years ago appointed a commission to cover the whole broad
subject of the effect of a universal eight-hour day on production, unemployment,
export trade, &c. That commission has been hearing evidence and looking into the
experience of other countries, and I believe will shortly be able to present its report.
If the findings of that commission should be available for the committee, it would
probably be unnecessary to spend much time on the general question. I think in all
probability that would give whatever light is required on the general question of an
eight-hour day, quite aside from its effect on government work. I have written to
the commission for a 'copy of the report, but I have not yet received it.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. On the question of productivity, you mentioned a few minutes ago that there
was a decrease in production proportionate to the decrease in the number of hours;
did you take into account the difference in wear and tear of machinery and all that
would be involved in keeping the establishment running two hours longer, in cal-
culating the expense? — A. They refer simply to the reduction in output in'one cal-
culation, but in another calculation they make an estimate of the total cost of manu-
facture, and in that case it is a little more favourable to the eight-hour day. If
necessary, I could give these details.
Q. You ha\ e to take into account the cost of running the machinery? A. Yes.
Confining attention to the points raised in connection with the specific
government contract feature, the objection was raised in various hearings before the
United States Committees referred to, that whatever might be said for the universal
adoption of an eight-hour day its partial adoption was inexpedient. For example a
good deal of use was made of the statement of George Gunton, perhaps the foremost
advocate of the eight-hour movement in America, who opposed the measure because
it ‘ injected the reduction of the working day in spots, not even in industries but in
spots in industries,’ asking for it ‘ under conditions that would produce the greatest
1 notion and the least results.’ It was urged time and again that it was impossible to
operate an establishment partly on an eight-hour, and partly on a ten-hour basis, not
only because of the discontent it would excite among the men, but because of the
impossibility in many instances of keeping public and private work distinct, both hav-
ing to pass in some stage through similar processes and practically at the same time.
Comparatively little attempt was made in all the hearings which I have followed to
meet this objection. The most conclusive answer put forward was that if confusion
resulted it could easily be cured by putting the whole plant on the eight-hour basis,
which m fact was the ultimate aim of the Bill.
Overtime Prohibited.
tt i Again, objection was raised to the rigid and inelastic prohibition of overtime,
lender the Bill as it stands here, and under the Bills as presented before the United
States Congress, overtime was of course prohibited no matter what wage the em
pJoyer might be willing to offer for the extra hours. It was brought out that overtime
was frequently necessary to make up for delay caused by bad weather or non-reoemt
PROF. SKELTON. receipt
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
71
APPENDIX No. 4
of material. Many endeavoured further to prove that some important operations
could not be stopped precisely on the stroke of the closing hour, whether after an
eight, or a ten-hour day. For example, if you are boring a cylinder, where stopping is
impossible because changes in temperature might mean changes in the diameter, you
could not stop the lathe until you went completely through with the last cut. It
would be impossible to get a true bore. Or in steel works, the necessity of an open-
hearth steel heat being completed by a man who has been in familiar touch with it
throughout, might involve his working overtime. It was further charged that the
average workingman desired the opportunity of working overtime, particularly when
paid at time and a half or double rates. In answer, the necessity of overtime was
minimized, and the possibility of working an extra shift of men was pressed. As for
the operations which could not be concluded on the stroke of the hour, it was declared
that either they could be carried on by the next relay, or if it was necessary to retain
the same men, this could be permissible under the emergency clause. The contention
that the men desired overtime work was met by the statement that they would not
need it if given the former ten hours pay for eight hours work — what they wanted was
extra pay, not extra work.
The ambiguity of the various exceptions rioted was frequently referred to; the
uncertainty as to what was excepted and what not excepted would, it was agreed, deter
bidding on government contracts. There was much controversy, without reaching any
very definite consensus of opinion, as to what was meant by the open market, what
was meant by supplies, and what was meant by conforming to particular specifica-
tions. The law officer of the Department of Labour gave the opinion that, if the Bill
was to be passed, it would be made more clear on those points. The question of the
possibility of enforcing the responsibility of the contractor for violation of the Act
by a sub-contractor was also frequently raised. The point was both as to whether it
could and whether it should be done. Then there was brought out the necessity of
a huge force of inspectors, and the opportunities for graft were touched on. In this
case the reply was that there were already inspectors on public works and there were
opportunities for graft as it was, which as far as known were not utilized.
Limit of Duty of Inspector.
Q. One inspector would not be sufficient to do the inspection necessary under the
eight-hour system? — A. If the Bill were passed in its entirety it would apply to many
occupations for which there are no inspectors now required. At present the inspectors
are limited to public works and the construction of ships.
Q. How do they work it out now where they are supposed to keep men at work
only eight hours in the day — how do they work it out with only two fair wage officers
in the department? — A. I suppose they expect that violations will be reported.
Q. Do you not suppose that the men would assist in working out the Act? — A.
The United States Bill assumes the appointment of inspectors.
Q. There are inspectors now on all government work. You cannot get any gov-
ernment work done, no matter what the size of it, without an inspector? — A. But it
is not possible that the inspector should be always on the job.
Q. He can report violations of the law? — A. It is more likely that the workmen
would report. If the law is to be enforced at all it would have to be largely enforced
by the workmen.
Enforcement of Law in Hew York State.
Q Then you think it would not need more inspectors to be appointed? — A. Ho,
if the workmen were content with that. In Hew York State, for example, the
enforcement of the law, which practically applies only to public works, is left in the
hands of ordinary factory inspectors, of whom there are 85 or f>0. The head of the
72
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Labour Department has several times complained that they were overworked, and it
was contended that if the law was to be carried out at all the enforcement should be
ieft mainly to the men whose interest was affected, and that the inspectors’ work
should consist chiefly of reporting on violations which have been complained of.
Q. By whom were the inspectors appointed? — A. They were officers of the Bureau
of Labour, engaged for the most part in inspecting factories and mercantile establish-
ments.
Additional Cost Under the Eight-hour System.
By Mr Marshall:
Q. Have you ever gone into the question of the additional cost that this eight-hour
system would add to the manufacturer? Now, it is contended that you get as much
work done in eight hours as in ten hours. That would not apply to automatic
machinery. Certainly a man cannot do as much on that kind of machinery in eight
iouis as he could in ten hours. That difference would be added to the cost of manufac-
turing, whatever it might be? — A. That raises a broad question, the effect of shorten-
ing hours on productivity. I think ewry one will agree that the field where there is
a possibility for the eight-hour day showing up best is where hand labour figures to
a great extent, where there is room for increased vigour, if you assume that that
follows from the greater leisure, to show itself. But on the other extreme, where auto-
matic machinery plays a large part and where that machinery is speeded up quite
irrespective of the desires and intentions of the man attending it, there is obviously
much less room for an increased output per hour, and there, I should think, the
increase of cost would be large.
,, . It;. 1S made out that i<: would add about one-fifth to the cost?— A. I do not
think it is possible to generalize. You would have to make an estimate for each
industry.
Q. I am speaking now of machine shops where lathes are used. You cannot
increase the speed; it is automatic in operation. I have gone into this with
machinists, and they say it is impossible to speed the lathes. What I am coming at
is tins; a great deal of government work is done in machine shops. I have not any
authority to say this, only going into it with practical men they say it would add
about one-fifth to the cost of that kind of work to adopt the eight-hour system.
„ g0ne in,t0, that at all?— A- 1 ^ve examined it in a general way, but as I
said, I do not want to make any special report on it unless requested by the committee
to do so, as I think the conclusions of the Nova Scotia Commission on that point
wou/d be sufficient. I am , familiar with most of the investigations that! have been
made m the past of the effect on cost and productivity, and.' as I said, there is a
great deal of variation, depending very largely on the extent to which the machinery
employed is automatic or not, and depending very largely also on the extent of the
thTa bf?ret rflUCtl°n;VaS made' For examPk, I think every one will admit
that a reduction of hours from sixteen to twelve, say, would not induce as lar-e a
proportionate decrease m product as a reduction from eight to six hours. The
onger the day was in the first place, and the more exhausting the labour to the work-
men the greater the possibility there is of the shorter day enabling him to do more
work per hour than when you come down to an eight-hour day, or a seven-hour day
to e hW? P60P ! Tld T66 th9t CUtting °ff an0ther hour not be as likely
£ “P th9‘ Th™ “ * — * considerations
Mr. Marshall.— When the Bill was introduced, I understood Mr. Yerville to say
that you would get as much work done in eight hours as in ten hours. I have in mind
machinery is usld ® ^ d ^ imp0Ssible to do that> because automatic
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
73
APPENDIX No. 4
Mr. Verville. — They are doing a good deal more work now in eight hours than
they formerly did in ten hours.
Attitude of the Committee on Proposed Measure.
Mr. Stanfield.— I wish to state that a remark I made at the last session of this
committee as to the' necessity of considering this measure carefully, and not rushing
it through, has been interpreted to mean that I have made up my mind against this
Bill. I have not I am a manufacturer, and I say that if every industry were put on
the eight-hours-a-day basis it would equalize us all round, provided the government
gave us protection from foreign competition. I am in favour of the labouring man,
because the manufacturer as a rule is well fixed and can look after himself.
The Chairman. — I think the committee should regard itself as a trustee of the
poor and ask questions with the object of bringing out information. We should all
feel that the public have no right to misjudge our attitude.
Shorter Day, its Moral and Physical Effect.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Have you ever thought of the moral and physical effect of the shorter day?
A. Yes, to my mind that is the strongest argument in its favour. The economic
arguments on the eight-hour day are somewhat against it, and if it can be defended,
as I think it can be, that is the strongest argument in favour of it.
An Honourable Member. — That would apply to smelting work and other hot
work. Take other work, for instance, work in a canning factory, and I do not think
you can make that out. I think there are' works in which men will turn out as much
in eight hours as they would in ten hours.
The Chairman. — There are several factors in considering the eight-hour day
question — the intensity of the work, apart from duration, is a factor. Another factor
is the mental and nervous strain. That was brought home very clearly in the case
of the telephone operators in Toronto. Here were young women dealing with elec-
tricity, an entirely new force. They were required to use five senses at the same time.
When you get a combination of that sort, the question of an eight-hour day is away
beyond the mark ; it comes down to a matter of four or five hours at the most. It is
not there so much a matter of the duration of work as of the intensity of nervous
strain. That same factor has to be kept in mind in regard to all classes of work. —
A. I think we are pretty well agreed it is hard to make any general sweeping state-
ment on the subject.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. You said from a moral and social point of view you were in favour of a reduc-
tion of the hours? — A. I do not think I said that exactly, but I said that was the
strongest thing in its favour.
Q. Has any investigation been made as to what the workmen do in those extra
hours? — A. The matter has been frequently debated.
Mr. Verville. — Take countries where there has been a general reduction of hours,
and you will find that the workmen generally take advantage of it to improve them-
selves. It has been so in Australia and Hew Zealand?
Q. Was any investigation made of the way in which the men employed in that
eight-hour government dockyard, where the test was made, spent their extra hours?—
A. I do not think in that specific instance any tab was kept on them, but it is possible
to compare the occupation of leisure by men in the long-hour countries and men in
the short, -hour countries. Side by side with any provision to shorten hours there
should go provisions for recreation in a healthful manner. I think most labour
organizations are aware of that and they are proposing alternatives to saloons and
other attractions.
Mr. Verville. — After long hours of work a man is not inclined to read or study?
74
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Difficulties re Eight-hour Day Contracts With Ten-hour Manufacturers.
Prof. Skelton. — There is another point or two I wish to bring out on the subject
of an eight-hour day on government work. In the United States evidence it was de-
clared by many manufacturers contracting with the government that they would be
unable to tender in the future in the event of such a law being enacted. As a rule,
government work was only a part, usually a small part, of their whole output. They
could put their factories partly on an eight-hour and partly on a ten-hour basis,
because of the internal difficulties of organization, and could not, put it on an eight-
hour basis because then, with the increased cost of production, they would he unable
to compete with ten-hour manufacturers for the private part of their trade. The sup-
porters of the Bill of course met this by denying the assumed inability of an eight-
hour establishment to compete with a ten-hour establishment.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. How has it worked in the United States ? Has it lessened the number of peo-
ple tendering for government contracts? — A. I do not think it has, because in the
States where the eight-hour day prevails, it is general in the building trades. There
are some New York instances of contractors refusing to tender. If they did drop
out, the result would be that government contracting would fall to a limited number
of establishments, confining themselves solely to government work. The supporters
of the Bill contended that this was in line with the modern tendency to specialization
observable throughout industry, but it was pointed out in reply that the natural lines
of specialization did not follow the division between private and public work, but the
division between different classes and sizes of articles. The demand of the govern-
ment ranged over a very wide field covering hundreds of heterogeneous articles which
were not a possible object of specialization. These, I think, were the main questions
that were debated, leaving aside the general question of productivity. So far as the
law was considered in its application to government work, the discussion turned
chiefly on the questions whether or not it would involve great difficulties in the in-
ternal organization of shops working on an eight-hour and a ten-hour basis simul-
taneously, the question of rigid prohibition of overtime, the question of the relations
between contractor and subcontractor, the difficulty of specializing and the question
of exact interpretation of the law. These were the points chiefly debated in the Iona
discussions carried on in the last ten or twelve years.
The Chairman. — A point was considered with regard to public buildings being
erected by contract work. A contractor might have one building for a private indi-
vidual and another for the government in the course of erection. The contractor
might employ men working on one building nine hours a day, while he would be
obliged to employ men on the other side of the street working eight hours a day. Was
such a case pointed out?— A. At the time the discussion was taking place, the idea
was that the public hours and private hours would be assimilated. So far as the hours
iu the construction of buildings are concerned, there is not as a rule much discrepancy
between private and government hours, in the skilled trades. As regards unskilled
labour on public works, it was pointed out the contractor might have some men work-
ing eight hours a day and some working ten hours a day.
Q. Was any exception taken to that? — A. It was partly to meet that objection
that the limitations to which I have referred were brought in.
Q. I understand you to say that the committee recommended, in view of the evi-
dence of that point, that there should be some exception? — A. No, I misunderstood
the question. No special amendment was made to meet that contingency.
Mr. Staples. — For instance, there is a government contract for enlarging a canal
and building a lock. That, of necessity, would disturb the labour in that locality, if
there was an eight-hour day on the government work and a ten-hour day on the farms
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
75
APPENDIX No. 4
in the surrounding country? — A. In that connection I might mention that in the New
York law exception is made of work carried on on the public highways of the country.
The employment of men on public works on the eight-hour basis, while the people
bordering on the highway were working much longer hours, would it was thought, cause
discontent. At the same time, while that exception was made, the eight-hour day is
actually enforced on the barge canal and on the aqueduct running through New York
State and it has had the effect of making farm labour more difficult to get.
An Hon. Member. — If a contractor pays a man the same for an eight-hour day
that the farmer pays for a ten-hour day, the contractor will get the man first.
The Chairman. V\ as the question of payment brought out? Is a nine-hour day
customary in private work?
By Mr. Verville:
Q. I hat was a special Act passed by the federal government of the United States.
" A. An opinion of the Attorney General, based partly on the legislation and partly
on the discussion in C ongress when the Act of 1892 was passed, laid down the rule to
be followed.
Effect of Law on Wages per Day.
By the Chairman:
Q. While the union scale may be made on an eight-hour basis in practice it
comes to be payment per day ? — A. Yes, for example in Oklahoma in a case for pay-
ment for some work on a pavement contract the rate for private work was 40 cents
an hour, and the day was ten hours long; that is the payment was $4 per day. Now
the work on a public contract in the same line would be eight hours a day and the
payment $4. That would work out at the rate of 50 cents per hour.
By an Hon. Member:
Q. In an engine house where there are only two shifts at present, you would have
to have three shifts on the eight-hour basis ? — A. I should think it would apply to all
workmen and mechanics who are paid by the day. Mechanics in the engine house
would be included, and it would be necessary to work three shifts.
Q. What effect would the eight-hour day have on piece work ? — A. As a matter
of fact, the law has not been applied in any instance, so far as I have been able to
find out, where work was done by the piece. For instance, I had a communication yes-
terday from a New York official who has the enforcing of this law. lie says - -
“We have never had a case involving the difficulties which would arise in the
matter of wages in trades where piecework prevails, and I appreciate the peculiar
difficulties which would surround the question of ‘ prevailing rate of wages ’ in
such circumstances.”
Important Cases Cited re Meaning of Law.
By the Chairman :
Q. It would appear that in the laws drafted by the several states they have got
over the difficulty by excepting those cases where difficulty is bound to arise? — A,
Yes, take the New York law for example; it is extremely sweeping, and would seem to
include everything possible, but partly because the various states do not contract
for nearly as much as we do, and partly because the labour officials who are entrusted
with its enforcement, the law officers of the state who have rendered opinions on it,
and the courts that have been called upon to construe it, have decided that if the
law seems to require anything to be carried out which could not be done without
great confusion, it was safe to conclude that the law did not really mean that. For
76
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ro. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
example, in the New York Case to which I referred last day, the case of Behnen vs.
Metz, the court decided that the law did not apply to materials made according to
specifications by a sub-contractor; they refused to apply the law to that case because
it would be unworkable, it would be ridiculous, and the law cannot be supposed to
have meant anything ridiculous. Or to take a Kansas instance: A case came before
the Commissioner of Labour of that state where in a brick-kiln some bricks for a
government building were burned along with a larger lot intended for ordinary com-
mercial sale, and the workmen in the brickyard had been employed ten hours a day.
The Commissioner decided that it was impossible in such a case to observe an eight-
hour day on the government work, and as the law did not contemplate impossibilities,
there was no violation.
Q. Have you given us all the important decisions relating to state laws ? — A. I
think I have referred to most of them. Of course, there are some dealing with the
constitutionality of laws not now in force. There are one or two others which I might
include in the appendix.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Have you observed the tendency to increase the amount of piecework? — A.
Yes, I think that is frequently the case where the shorter day is introduced.
The Committee adjourned.
House of Commons,
Committee Boom No. 62,
Wednesday, February 16, 1910.
The Special Committee on Bill No. 21, respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
Works, met at eleven o’clock, a.m., the Chairman, Hon. Mr. King, presiding.
The Chairman. — A sub-committee was appointed at one of our meetings to look
over the correspondence received and classify it. You were on that sub-committee, Mr.
Yerville, have you any report to make?
Mr. Yerville. — The only report we have to make is that 586 letters have been
received. We can hardly make a report until all the letters are in.
The Chairman. — Please give us an idea from whom the letters have been received.
Mr. Yerville.— A tabulated statement has been prepared by the secretary showing
the number and nature of the communications. It might be better to1 hand that
statement in.
Statement handed in as follows: —
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
77
APPENDIX No. 4
Report on Communications received respecting Hours of Labour on Public Works.
Total com muni eat ions received Feb 15
1910—586.
Classified ps follows: — . .
Marked for printing
Verbal evidence desired.
Amendments suggested..
Agricultural,
St ock Breeding
and Dairy
Associations.
42
33
Dominion
Grange.
13
13
Boards of
Trade.
Labour
Organizations
and Trades
Dnior.
34
27
190
169
12
10
In favour of Act as contemplated by Bill 21
In favour of 10-hours Act
In favour of 9-hours Act
In favour of 8-hours Act in certain opera-
tions
1
9
3
131
1
1
1
Manufacturers.
Marine Ass’n.
Transportation.
Number received
297
Making up 452
folios.
3
7
Marked for printing
270
3
5
Verbal evidence
i
o
Mr. Victor DuBreuil, Fair Wages Officer, Department of Labour, called sworn
and examined.
By the Chairman:
Q. What is your full name? — A. Victor DuBreuil.
Q. What position do you hold in the Department of Labour? — A. Fair Wages
Officer.
Duties of the Fair Wages Officer.
Q. How long have you been in the service of the Department? — A. Since the
first week in February, 1901.
Q. What is the nature of your duties as Fair Wages Officer?— A. The preparation
of fair wages schedules to be inserted in government contracts, and the investigation
of fair wages complaints. When working men employed by public contractors
think they are not treated according to the Fair Wages Clause inserted in the contract,
they send in a written complaint to the department, and my duty is to investigate
whether those complaints are well founded or not and recommend to the department
for which the work is being performed payment of the difference in wages, or if
they fail to substantiate their complaints, to declare that further action is not
necessary.
Q. What were your qualifications for the position you now occupy; that is, what
has been your previous experience as a working man, what connection have you had
with working men? — A. I have here a copy of a statement which we were called upon
73
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
to prepare for the Deputy Minister of Labour some time ago. Your desire is to know
what are my qualifications as a working man?
Q. Your qualifications for the position you now hold which brings you in touch
with labour conditions? — A. I have been engaged in the city of Montreal as a sheet
metal worker, and a plumber and steamfitter as well for a number of years. Later on
I became foreman, and later again, manager of the firm of Dufort and Rousseau, after
which I entered into business myself as a building contractor. During the period of
three years I was a building contractor in Montreal, and then I took service as fore-
man in the Department of Incineration, of the city of Montreal, that is the munici-
pality itself, and in 1900, by a nearly unanimous vote of the City Council I was
appointed general superintendent of that department, which position I abandoned to
accept the one which I hold at the present time. I was president of the Trade and
Labour Council of Montreal during two terms and delegate to the Dominion Trades’
Congress several times; Master Workman of Ville Marie Assembly, Knights of
Labour, in 1890 and 1891; organizer for District Assembly Mo. 19 of the Knights of
Labour, and president of the Sheet Metal Workers’ Union in 1S92. The fact is I was
the organizer of this union. In 1893 I was representative of the Manufacturers’,
Merchants’ and Workers’ Association of Montreal, en the Royal Commission to in-
vestigate the conditions prevailing in the manufacture of prison-made goods, which
commission was appointed by the government of Quebec. I was offered the position
of Factory Inspector for the province of Quebec, but I declined. I was also offered
the management of the night school under the Mercier government, which position
I also declined. I might add that in 1877 and 187S I visited England, France, Bel-
gium, Italy, Turkey and Palestine.
Q. Then you have had first hand experience as a workingman yourself and
experience also as a master contractor? — A. Yes.
Q. And you have been member of a number of trade unions? — A. Yes.
Q. Therefore, you are able to express an opinion from these different points of
view, are you, on the questions that will likely he asked you? — A. I would think so,
but may I ask you to allow me to make a remark here. You have already found out
that my language is not the English language, and I will ask you therefore to be
indulgent to me and if I cannot answer or comprehend your questions promptly
enough to be so good as to correct me.
ILow Fair Wage Schedules are Prepared.
Q. You will do very well. Please describe to the committee the manner in which
your duties are performed; how is the information secured on which the fair wages
schedules are based ?- — A. W ell, when it is necessary to award a contract by a certain
department of the government, the Department of Labour receives a request for the
preparation of a fair wages schedule to be inserted in the contract together with a
list of the different classes of men who are to be employed in the execution of this
contract. Then the said wages officer’s duty is to visit the locality in which the con-
tract is to be executed and take the information from the best sources possible, using
no discrimination. This was one of the first instructions we received from the then
Deputy Minister of Labour, now the Honourable Minister of Labour, to use no
discrimination whatever and make our investigation with the best care possible.
When we return to the department we make our report and fill in the fair wages
schedule. In each schedule is inserted the different classes of labour, the minimum
rate of wages to be paid per hour or per day and also the number of hours worked
per day.
Q. Do you confer with employers as well as workingmen? — A. We take our in-
formation from contractors and also from workingmen. At the beginning of my
career, if you will allow me to say so, I found it very, very difficult to ascertain the
right figures with regard to the correct rates paid in the different localities. I may
MR. DUBRETJIL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
79
APPENDIX No. 4
state that I had to don a workingman’s clothes and offer myself as a hod carrier three
or four times in order to secure the proper rates; but to-day being better known by
contractors and workingmen themselves we experience less difficulty than we have had
in the past, they are always willing to furnish the department with the current rates
of wages. I can touch with my finger in my territory the people of different places
where I would have to apply to get my information now. I may add too that at the
present time it is not quite necessary that we should visit every time the locality for
which the fair wages schedule has to be prepared. If I had visited Halifax or Mont-
real or Quebec, or any other larger centre, during the last month or so, the fair wages
schedule could be prepared in the department without having to go out; we are in
close contact, and we are communicating with the contractors and secretaries of the
different associations to keep us posted as to the different changes of wages during the
month. This allows us to do a little more clerical work in the department.
When Disputes Arise.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. Supposing any disputes arise? — A. When disputes arise, sir, it is our duty to
investigate in the locality where the work is being performed, and ascertain the rates
of wages paid by the contractor to the different classes of men and as much as pos-
sible wsit the men interested, that is after they have made a complaint, in order to get
their statements. It is the custom in the department to ask the different complain-
ants to furnish the fair wages officer with an affidavit sworn to before a justice of the
peace stating the number of hours worked and the rate of wages paid for each hour,
more especially since the order in council was passed obliging contractors to keep a
special set of time books for the inspection of the fair wages officer. Then we com-
pare the figures given by the complainants with the time book or pay sheets kept by
the contractor and we make a report to the Honourable Minister of Labour that the
difference between the money received by the worker and the money that he should
have received according to the rates set forth in the fair wages schedule amounts to
so much, with a recommendation that the amount of money should be remitted to him
at once. Then the Deputy Minister of Labour communicates with the minister of
the department involved.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. lou are dealing entirely with the contractor are you not, the man who has
the contract for building?
The Chairman.- — Ho, the contractor and the labourer.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. For instance, if a complaint is made, to whom do you go? — A. We first go to
the contractor and tell him that a complaint has been lodged against him at the de-
partment, and we ask what he has to say about it.
Q. That is what I wanted to know.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. And are you frequently called to settle these disputes?— A. Very frequently.
Minimum Rate of Pay in Schedules.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. You know yourself, as a practical man, that there is a great difference in the
value of labour — one man is worth a good deal more than another man — how do you
deal with a case of that kind? — A. The rate of wages set forth in the fair wages sche-
dule in each contract is the minimum rate of wages in the locality.
80
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VI!., A. 1910
Q. Does a poor man get as much wages as a good man? — A. He gets just the
minimum rate. A contractor can pay more than the minimum rate, but in our sche-
dule we take the minimum rate. If you will permit me, I will give you some explan-
action in regard to this. For instance, if there are fifty carpenters employed on the
works, forty of those carpenters are perhaps getting twenty-five cents an hour, five
are getting twenty-two and a half cents an hour and a very small proportion twenty
cents an hour. Well, the twenty cents an hour men are merely handy men, they can-
not be considered as skilled workers.
Q. Who regulates that rate of twenty-two or twenty-five cents an hour? — A. The
labour market.
Q. Not the contractor? — A. No. I not only consult this particular contractor,
but I also consult the other contractors and I establish a fair minimum rate of wages
which is inserted in the contract. That is not for the handy men but for the poorest,
the least skilled men in the different trades. It goes to show that those men who have
more skill are getting more w'ages. We have no objection if the contractor pays more
than the minimum rate but we cannot allow him to pay less because in the fair wages
schedule it is stated that the wages shall be ‘ not less than ’ &c. So there is always a
minimum rate of wages which must be paid.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. And that is settled by the local conditions? — A. Yes.
Complaints Investigated, Affidavits Necessary.
By the Chairman :
Q. Are there many cases in which the contractors pay men higher wages than
those fixed in the fair wages schedule? — A. Yes, very many.
Q. Mr. Broder was asking as to the number of these investigations into the
alleged non-compliance by contractors with the terms of their contract; can you give
any idea of the number of such investigations? What do the reports to the depart-
ment show? — A. I will ask your permission to consult the annual report because this
part of the report is prepared by the fair wages officers, so I can really only invoke
our own work there. Do you want the exact number?
Q. Yes, the number of investigations into complaints? — A. I will take the last
annual repmt, for 1908-9; that for 1909-10 is not yet published. According to it
there were nineteen complaints investigated during that year. Now, there are a great
many more complaints received than that, but sometimes the men refuse to furnish
the department with the necessary affidavits, and in that case at first sight the fair
wages officer discovers that the complaint is not well founded. Then we do not con-
sider it at all, and it is not inserted in the report.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. What is the reason given by the men for not furnishing affidavits? They
have a reason for that, and I suppose they have stated that reason to you' from time
to time ? A. The reason given is the fear of being debarred from employment in
the locality. The workingmen in the large centres are organized into unions, just
as the contractors themselves are organized as a builders’ exchange or some such
association, and the men fear that by asking the department to interfere in their
behalf it would create a certain animosity against them, not only by their own
employer, but on the part of contractors as well, and sometimes they decline or refuse
to go ahead with their case.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you think there are many men who really allow an injustice to be com-
mitted on the score of fear? — A. Certainly.
MR. DUBREUIL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 81
APPENDIX No. 4
The Chairman— I would ask you to bring any cases of that kind to my hearing,
because if I had an idea, as Minister of Labour, that there is any man afraid to put
in a claim <
Mr. Verville. — There are very many.
The Chairman. I should advise that those cases should be investigated on that
ground alone if not for any other reason.
Mr. Verville. — Well, there are very many such cases.
The Chairman. I think there are frequently cases where men send in coi&
plaints and when they are asked to substantiate them they find it a little difficult to
do so. There may be some cases where, as Mr. DuBreuil says, the men are afraid
to follow up the complaint. If any such cause were apparent it would be investigated
by the Department of Labour.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Have you ever seen the envelopes of the men that are paid?— A. They do not
keep these.
Q. Have you ever seen any of them? — A. Yes, I have.
Q. And still they would not swear to an affidavit? — A. No.
Underpaid Workmen, How Remedied.
By the Chairman:
Q. lou have discretion in the matter of investigating these cases, have you not 2
— A. Yes.
Q. If you believe that a genuine grievance exists you can investigate it? A
Yes.
_ Q; No matter whether the man sends in an affidavit or not? — A. Yes, but in the
majority of cases where the men refuse to substantiate a complaint it is done in this
manner: the men belong to a union, or they do not belong to one; it makes no differ-
ence, but there is a union formed in the locality. Well, it is the business of the
secretary, organizer or business agent of the union to find out or discover what rates
of wages are being paid by contractors of the government, and if he ascertains that
men are working under the rates set forth in the fair wages schedule, he himself, of
his own authority, will send a complaint to the Department of Labour in which' he
states that Mr. So and So’s carpenters, mechanics or bricklayers, whoever they may
be, are working for wages below the rates set forth in this schedule. Well then the
fair wages officer has to go to the locality and find out the complainant. He is’ the
first man to be seen. The fair wages officer goes to the building and inquires about
those men and tells them that complaints have been received. He is often told1 ‘We
have never sent any complaint to the Department of Labour, we refuse to have any-
thing to do with it.’ It stands to reason that it is not necessary to make an inves-
tigation if the men themselves are perfectly satisfied and have no desire to cause the
department to see that they are paid the difference between the wages they receive
and those, provided for in the schdule. It is a question of the representatives of the
union seeing that the rates of wages adopted by the union and generally adopted in
the locality by the contractors should be respected in all cases. Of course, the fair
wages officer cannot go beyond the power vested in him.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. You would not allow the union’s officer to become the complainant for the men
generally ?— A. Not knowing at the time whether he was authorized by the men or
not, to make a complaint, it is necessary for the fair wages officer to go to the particu-
lar locality and inquire.
4—6
82
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Are the complainants’ names made known to the contractor? — A. Well, we
have to, because we cannot force the contractor to pay so much difference to a man
without his knowing that man’s name and without ascertaining in his time book
whether the complaint is well founded or not.
Q. I know, but in the initiative do you? — A. No.
By the Chairman:
Q. What proportion of your time is spent in travelling and preparing schedules ?
— A. In travelling alone?
Q. The proportion of your time taken up when away from Ottawa and in the
preparation of these schedules? — A. In the preparation of schedules and in the inves-
tigation of complaints?
Q. Yes?— A. A little more than half the time.
Q. Half the year? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. More of your time is taken up this way in the summer than in the winter?
—A. No.
Total of Wage Schedules Prepared
By the Chairman :
Q. In what part of Canada do you chiefly travel, what towns and cities do you
visit? — A. Eastern Canada — Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Ed-
ward Island. I might say that during the late Mr. O’Donoghue’s sickness, and after
he died, for several months, I had also to do with the province of Ontario, in which
I have made a very extensive investigation with regard to dredging contracts, and
also throughout the Hominion of Canada. I was in the province of Ontario for at
least three months at that time investigating the conditions which obtained in dredg-
ing work in Canada.
Q. Mr. McNiven looks after the West, does he not? — A. Yes.
Q. ITow many schedules do you furnish in the course of a year? — A. Myself?
Q. Yes, how many do you prepare?— A. In 1908-9 the number of schedules pre-
pared by me was 210.
Q. Can you give the committee the number of schedules that have been prepared
altogether by the department since its establishment? — A. Eor each year? Yes.
1900-1, Department of Public Works, 63
Q. Just give the totals? — A. I have here the returns for the years 1900-1 to T90S-9
inclusive, and for the Department of Public Works 589 schedules have been prepared,
for the Department of Railways and Canals 728, Department of Marine and Fisheries
33. The total is 1,477.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. That is for that term of years? — A. Yes. I would like to state with your per-
mission that the Post Office Department before they send cheques in payment to those
who are supplying the department with different articles, submit to the fair wages
officer a statement which has been produced by the manufacturers or others with regard
to the number of hours of work and the rate of wages paid men, women and children,
and this also occupies a certain portion of our time. This has been prepared generally
in the department, but of late we had to go out to ascertain whether these statements
were right or wrong.
Basis of Schedule Preparation.
By Mr. Staples:
Q. In preparing the fair wages schedules, what basis do you work on, how do
you determine what a fair wage is ?— A. By consulting the different contractors in the
MR. DUBREUIL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— H0UR8 OF LABOUR
83
APPENDIX No. 4
locality we ascertain what rates of wages are being paid to the different classes, and
by consulting also the workingmen themselves.
Q. Then you take into consideration the cost of living and all that, do you? —
A. The rates of wages in force in the different localities are always set according to the
cost of living. The department has no desire to increase or decrease the rates of
wages which are current in the different localities.
Q. The object of the department is to protect the workingman and to see that he
gets a fair wage.. Now, then, there must be some basis upon which the department
determines what is a fair wage? — A. Well, to a certain extent the cost of living is
taken into consideration also, but it has not come to my knowledge that the fair wages
officer had to increase the wages in the locality on account of the cost of living, because
as I have said before, rates of wages are always arranged corresponding with the cost
of living in the different localities.
The Chairman.— It is the current rate that the fair wages officer has to ascertain.
He does not fix an arbitary rate but he takes the current rate in the district. Where
he finds tw o or three different rates if he concludes that one rate is not a current rate,
or being a current rate is not a fair rate, then he will fix a minimum rate below
which payments cannot be made; but his duty is not to fix an arbitrary rate himself.
He has to be governed by the conditions prevailing in the territory.
Wage Schedules Subject to Revision.
Mr. Knowles. — Is there an appeal to the Minister of Labour?
The Chairman. — There is an appeal. If the parties wish to take it to the minister
these schedules can be subjected to revision. There have been two or three cases in
which, the contractors have thought that the wages were fixed too high, and other
cases in which the men thought that the wages were too low, and they have appealed.
An appeal of that kind has generally been made the subject of at least consultation
and perhaps further investigation.
Mr. Knowles.— But according to the Act the minister’s decision is final?
The Chairman. A es. T liese figures are fixed in the schedule and become part of
the contract, and if the contractors do not comply with the requirements of the
schedule then the department which has awarded the contract can withhold the pay-
ment of moneys due the contractor and out of that amount make good the difference
to the workingmen.
Mr. Knowles. — Supposing a contractor refused to continue to pay what he thought
was an exorbitant rate of wages?
The Chairman. — So far as the contractor is concerned he is put in a safe position
in this regard, in that he knows before he signs the contract what the wages are that he
is obliged to pay. These schedules are prepared and submitted when tenders are called
for, so that a contractor does not enter into a contract for building a post office, or
other structure, for the government without knowing what he is goimr to pay. The
information is there before him at the outset and he sees that he must not go below
the rates set forth in the schedule. All contractors are put upon an equal basis in that
respect in tendering.
Mr. Knowles. — Would there be any cause for complaint as the work progresses
such as this witness would have to go and investigate?
The Chairman. — Some contractors try to get around the schedule, they wish to
pay less than the rate fixed.
Mr. Knowles. — That would involve an investigation to ascertain what the current
rates of wages are.
The Chairman. — The investigation in regard to the current wages paid takes place
when the schedule is being prepared. That is to say, if the Department of Public
Works were awarding a contract for a public building in Regina they would send
word to the Department of Labour that they would like to have the schedule of the
current rates of wages paid inserted in the contract for that building. Then an officer
4 — 6£
84
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
would go to Eegina and ascertain what are the current rates of wages, and he would
fix a rate of so much for masons, so much for bricklayers, and so on. Then all the con-
tractors in Regina would have the schedule before them when they were tendering,
the idea being that a man who hoped to get the contract at low figures by taking it
out of his working men would not obtain any advantage in tendering over the man
who was treating his employees fairly and was prepared to pay the current rates of
wages.
Mr. Marshall.— You have instanced the case of a contractor in Regina; would
the fair wages schedule in force here be applied to that district?
The Chairman. — UST o.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q>. How would you go about that? Would you find out what contractors were
paying for outside work before you determined what rate should be paid in Regina?
I am speaking about general contract work. — A. There is no special rate for govern-
ment work and another rate for other work.
How Fair Wage Officers Proceed.
By the Chairman:
Q. Explain what you would do if you were to go to Regina to-day? — A. I
would go to Regina to consult with the contractors of that city as much as possible and
ascertain the rates of wages paid to the different classes of working men.
Q. Paid by the contractors? — A. Paid by them at the actual time, not speaking
of government work whatever. And then I would go to the men themselves engaged
in the different trades and ask them what they were being paid, and then I would
draw a conclusion. I have to use my own judgment, but in the majority of cases
both the employer and the employees agree as to the rates.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. That rate would be for ten hours, would it not? — A. Ten hours or nine hours.
If it was ten hours on outside work it would be the same on government work.
Q. I mean to say, supposing on outside work the hours of labour are ten hours
a day, in arriving at your schedule would you give the men employed on government
work the same rate of wages for eight hours as these other men were getting for ten
horn's ? — A. No, we do not prepare schedules that. way. If the current system is ten
hours a day we cannot insert eight hours per day in the schedule.
Q. Then the pay in the schedule would not be for eight hours a day? — A. So
much per hour and so many hours per day.
The Chairman. — At present the current rates are taken both as regards wages
and as regards hours. If the prevailing system in the district is ten hours a day, the
wage schedule would be made up on a ten-hour basis. That is the point we are coming
to, and I will now ask this question : Does the schedule always include the number of
hours to be worked? — A. Yes.
Q. And do you find in framing your schedule that the hours of labour differ as
between localities? — A. They do.
Conditions in Prince Edward Island.
Q. Can you give us any idea of the extent of the difference? — A. In large cities
or large towns where the working men have the advantage or the opportunity of
appealing to a labour organization, the number of hours in certain places are less
than in the remote localities. We will take Prince Edward Island, for instance, where
there are no labour organizations, with the exception of one, that is the plumbers and
steamfitters. Throughout Prince Edward Island the plumbers and steamfitters work
nine hours a day and no more. All other trades work ten hours a day, and before there
ME. DUBKELTL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
85
APPENDIX No. 4
was any schedule inserted in the government contracts. I had been assured by prom-
inent men there that mechanics were working thirteen, fourteen and fifteen hours a
day, and, strange to say, the carpenters were then being paid $1.25 per day and the
labourers $1.50 per day, and the carpenters had to furnish their own tools.
Q. How do you account for that? — A. Because during the fishing season labourers
are scarce ; it is so difficult to obtain help, that in order to induce them to remain on
land^ and perform labour the employers have had to offer them higher wages than
they were actually paying to mechanics. But to-day that condition is reversed.
Since the creation of the Department of Labour, by reading the Labour Gazette or
otherwise, they have found out that this system should be reversed, and the carpenters
are now getting $1.50 and $1.75 and the labourers $1.25.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. I would like to ask if you ever had any trouble in getting the regular current
rate of wages from the labour organizations in the different cities? Were they fair
in giving you the minimum rate? — Yes.
Q. They never exaggerated the minimum rate? — A. No.
Q. Of your own knowledge do you know that a large number of working men are
getting paid over and above the minimum rate? — A. Yes.
Q. But still they tell you that the minimum rate they are working for is so much
and of course you base jrour schedule on the minimum rate as given you by them
and sanctioned by the employers? — A. Yes.
Q. You have no trouble in large cities? That information is always given? — A.
Yes.
Q. The working people in large cities are always fair in their statements when
they have made an agreement of that kind? — A. Yes, that is perfectly right.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you find the wages differ as between the different trades; for instance,
as between carpenters, masons and plumbers; do they get a different rate? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you find that in the same trade as betw'een different localities the rate of
wages differ?— A. Yes.
Q. Do you find the same thing to hold as regards hours in the different places?
—A. Yes.
Q. The hours are different in some places from what they are in others? — A.
The hours of labour are shorter in large places than in remote places, and the rates
of wages are also higher in cities and large towns than in remote places.
Q. Do you find, for example, masons and bricklayers having eight hours a day
whereas carpenters have nine hours a day in the same locality? — A. Yes.
Q. Could you say there is any general reason that would govern the matter of
hours in the different trades and localities; what is it that is responsible for one trade
having an eight-hour day, another trade a nine-hour day and another trade a ten-
hour day, all in the same locality? — A. It is the consequence of all the men engaged
in a certain trade, every one of them belonging to the same union and they have
made: arrangements with the employers by which the latter agree to work them only
eight hours a day. For instance, all through the province of Quebec, with very few
exceptions, the stone cutters are only working eight hours a day the same as in the
city of Montreal, while the carpenters are working ten hours a day. Outside of Mon-
treal and district, and Quebec and district, the carpenters throughout the province are
working ten hours a day. They only work nine hours in Montreal and Quebec.
Statement, re Hours for Building Trades in Various Provinces.
Q. Considering this particular Bill respecting the hours of labour on public
works, I understand you have been preparing a table which will show what at the
present time are the hours of labour of the different trades engaged on public build-
86
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
ings of one kind and another; have you that table with you? — A. Yes. The fair
v ages officers have prepared a statement showing by localities and by trades the num-
ber of hours which constitute a day’s work at the present time. I now produce that
statement. (See also Exhibit D.)
Q. Has this statement been prepared by Mr. McNiven and yourself? — A. It has
been prepared by myself in the absence of Mr. McNiven. But, since his return to
the city, Mr. McNiven has made some corrections as regards his territory, because
some changes have taken place there since this statement was prepared. The correc-
tions are made in red ink.
Q. I think you might read parts of it to the committee — you need not give the
whole of it to show the nature of the memorandum. I think this memorandum con-
tains a good deal that will be helpful to us in the consideration of this Bill, and will
show the extent to which the measure, if it went into operation, would affect existing
conditions. — A. (Beads) :
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
I he 10-hour day prevails except in Charlottetown, where the plumbers and
steamfitters are only working 9 hours per day.
Q. Before leaving that point, do you understand at the present time that if any
contracts were awarded in Prince Edward Island they would be all on a ten-hour
basis? — A. With the exception of plumbers and steamfitters. (See D 3).
Q. Then if Mr. Verville’s Bill became law and it was required that on all gov-
ernment contracts the eight-hour day should apply, the hours iu all the trades except
plumbers and steamfitters would be reduced by two hours a day in Prince Edward
Island; that would be the effect of the Bill in Prince Edward Island? — A. Yes
(Reads) :
NOVA SCOTIA.
The eight-hour day prevails for bricklayers and masons in Halifax; the nine-
hour day for other trades.
The nine-hour day prevails for all trades in Sydney, North Svdney and
dace Bay.
The ten-hour day prevails for all trades in other localities. (See Dl.)
Q. In that connection let us see the effect of that Bill should it become law?—
A. there is an eight-hour day for bricklayers and masons in Halifax.
Q. Then as far as. bricklayers and masons are concerned it would not affect them
one way or the other in that particular locality? — A. No.
Q. It would not affect the bricklayers or masons in Halifax, but it would all the
other trades in the province. In respect to Halifax it would affect all the other trades
to the extent of one hour, there being a nine-hour day for the other trades in that city.
In Sydney, horth Sydney and Glace Bay it would affect all the trades to the extent
oi one hour? — A. Tes, one hour.
Q. In all other localities it would affect all trades to the extent of two hours?—
A. Yes. (Reads:
NEW BRUNSWICK.
The 9-hour day prevails for all trades in St. John and district.
The 10-hour day prevails for all trades in other localities.
Q- Then the result of an eight-hour day provision in an Act with respect to hours
•of abour on pubhc works would be to affect all the building trades in St. John and
district to the extent of one hour? — A. Yes. (See D 2)
Q- In all other localities in the province of New Brunswick it would affect all
-trades to the extent of two hours ?— A. Yes. (Reads) • eCt
MR. DUBREUIL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
87
APPENDIX No. 4
QUEBEC!.
The 8-liour day prevails for stonecutters.
The 9-hour day prevails for other trades in Montreal and district, Quebec,
St. Johns, Iberville, Yalleyfleld, Levis, Westmount, Maisonneuve, St. Henry and
St. Louis.
The ten-hour day prevails for other trades in other localities. (See D 1+.)
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Does this apply to government contracts? — A. It is general, I do not consider
government contracts here at all. I make a statement of what is considered as cur-
rent.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Of the actual conditions ? — A. Of the actual conditions.
By the Chairman:
Q. Government contracts at present are subject to the prevailing rate? — A. The
10-hour day prevails for all other trades in other localities with the exception, as I
mentioned here, of stonecutters.
Q. Then the effect of the change in the law in the province of Quebec would be
the same as in the case of bricklayers and masons in Halifax so far as stonecutters
are concerned; it would not affect them one way or the other? — A. No..
Q. It would affect to the extent of one hour all trades other than stonecutters in
Montreal and district, Quebec, St. Johns, Iberville, Valleyfield, Levis. Westmount,
Maisonneuve, St. Henri and St. Louis, to the extent of two hours and trades in all
other localities to the extent of two hours? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Practically the whole island of Montreal is under a nine-hour day? — A. Yes,
Montreal and district and the other places named. Now I come to Ontario. (Reads) :
ONTARIO.
The S-hour day prevails in certain trades within certain localities, as follows :
Stonecutters. — In Guelph, Hamilton, Kingston, London, Niagara Falls,
Ottawa, Port Arthur, St. Thomas, Toronto, Windsor, Owen Sound, St. Marys,
Peterborough.
Carpenters and Joiners. — In Brantford, Hamilton, Toronto and Kingston.
Bricklayers and Masons. — In Brantford, Hamilton, Kingston, London, Nia-
gara Falls, Toronto, Berlin, Windsor and St. Marys.
Plumbers and Steamfitters. — In Toronto, Brantford and London.
Plasterers. — In Hamilton, Kingston, London, Niagara Falls. Toronto.
Painters and Glaziers. — In Toronto, London and Windsor.
Electrical Workers. — In Toronto.
Builders’ Labourers. — In Brantford, Kingston, London and Toronto.
The 9-hour day prevails in certain trades within certain localities, as follows :
Bricklayers and Masons. — In Chatham, Guelph, Ottawa, Peterborough, Port
Arthur, St. Catharines, Sault Ste. Marie, Broekville, Owen Sound.
Stonecutters. — In Chatham, St. Catharines, Sault Ste. Marie, Broekville and
Sarnia.
Carpenters and Joiners.— In London, Niagara Falls, Ottawa, Peterborough,
St. Catharines, Sault Ste. Marie, St. Thomas, Windsor, Broekville and Sarnia.
Plumbers and Steamfitters. — In Guelph, Hamilton,- Kingston, Niagara Falls,
Ottawa, Peterborough, St. Catharines, Sault Ste. Marie, St. Thomas, Windsor,
Broekville and Sarnia.
88
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21—H0UR8 OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
. -Fosterers. In Berlin, Brantford, Guelph, Ottawa, Peterborough, St. Cath-
arines, Sault Ste. Marie, Stratford, Windsor, Brockville, Sarnia and Midland.
Painters and Glaziers. — In Kingston, Ottawa, Hamilton, Brantford,
Chatham, Niagara Falls, Peterborough, St. Catharines, Brockville, Sarnia,, Sault
Ste. Marie.
Sheet Metal Workers. — In Kingston, Ottawa, Toronto, Sault Ste. Marie,
Berlin, London, Peterborough, St. Catharines. Windsor, Sarnia.
Structural Ironworkers — In Chatham, Sault Ste. Marie, Stratford and Owen
Sound.
Electrical Workers — In Kingston, Ottawa, London, Windsor, Brockville,
Owen Sound and Sarnia.
Builders’ Labourers — In Berlin, Chatham, Guelph, Hamilton, Niagara Falls,
Ottawa, Peterborough, St. Catharines, Sault Ste. Marie, St. Thomas, Windsor,
Brockville, Owen Sound, Sarnia and Midland.
Common Labourers — In Kingston, Hamilton, London, St. Catharines, To-
ronto, Windsor.
The ten-hour day prevails in other localities. (See D 5).
By the Chairman :
Tlien’ so ‘far as Ontario is concerned, it would appear that in some cities
ditterent classes of labour have the eight-hour day? — A. Yes.
Q. And they would not he affected by any change in the existing law? — A. No.
A" °ther hand, other trades in other localities have a nine-hour day? —
A. Yes.
Q. And still in other localities the same trades have a ten-hour day? — A. Yes.
Q. So that in some localities they would be affected, if this Bill went into law, ‘
to the extent of one hour, and in other localities to the extent of two hours? — A. Yes!
L. Then it appears, too, that the effect of the proposed change in the law would
not be as considerable in Ontario as it would be in either Prince Edward Island,
JNova Scotia, New Brunswick or Quebec? — A. Oh, no.
Q- Inasmuch as the eight-hour day exists more generally and also the nine-hour
day* JNow, what is the situation in Manitoba?— A. (Reads):
MANITOBA.
The eight-hour day prevails for stonecutters in Winnipeg, Neepawa St
Boniface and Selkirk; the nine-hour day for other trades, except the labourers
who work ten hours per day.
The ten-hour day prevails for all trades in other localities. (See D 6.)
Q. The situation in Manitoba is somewhat the same as* in Ontario? 1 About
the same. (Reads) :
SASKATCHEWAN.
The eight-hour day prevails for stonecutters in Regina and Maple Creek.
The nine-hour day prevails for stonecutters in Moosejaw, Alameda; for
bricklayers and masons in Moosejaw and Regina; for carpenters and joiners in
f ar((1 Regina ; for plumbers and steamfitters in Regina; for plasterers
m Regina; for electrical workers in Moosejaw and Regina.
The 10-hour day prevails for all trades in other localities. (See D 7).
Q^Then, the effect is somewhat similar in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario?
■A. Yes, about the same. (Reads):
MR. DUBREUIL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
89
APPENDIX No. 4
ALBERTA.
. r1'he eight;h°uir day for stonecutters is general: for bricklayers and masons
m La gary and Edmonton; for carpenters and joiners in Edmonton; for plumbers
and steamfitters in Edmonton; for plasterers in Calgary, Edmonton and Leth-
bridge; for painters and glaziers in Edmonton ; for electrical (workers in Edmon-
ton; for builders’ labourers in Edmonton. (See D 8).
May ! make a remark which has just occurred to me. Bricklayers, masons, join-
ers, painters, glaziers, plumbers, steamfitters and stonecutters are not avail-
able m some small places where there is a very small population. Now, if the gov-
ernment was to build a post office in a village of, say, a thousand souls the con-
tractor would not be able to secure that labour there; he would have to go to a large
centre It the fair wages officer happened to pay a visit to that small place he would
go to the mayor of the town, or the contractor, if there was one, and inquire what
were the working hours for certain trades. The employer would probably be obliged
o secure his labour from the next large place, mechanics not being available in that
town, and it the working day was composed of eight hours he would have to adopt
eight hours a day.
By Mr Marshall:
™ Q- Sl’pposm? lie secured his labour in the town itself, how would it affect the
hm-l!01 ’ ®,l'PP°Smg 111 town Gf Aylmer, where I live, a new post office was to be
built and the men on the contract worked eight hours a day, would it not create
feeling among the other workers there?— A. It would not affect Aylmer at all, inas-
much as you state that there are other workers there.
Q. But supposing that you bring men from other cities to do the work*— A
It would not be necessary in that case, because you stated that in Aylmer there were
other workers besides those whom the contractor might bring in.
Q. I do not think you understand me: would it not create a feeling which would
not be a desirable one. They would say, ‘ Here is the government using our money
lor paying men to work eight hours a day while we have to work ten hours.’
tt ^<HAIRMAN- You are speaking now on the assumption that this Bill of Mr
V erville s is m force?
Mr. Marshall. — Yes.
The Chairman. Mr. DuBreuil is speaking of the actual conditions as they are
at present. J
Mr. Marshall. — But supposing this Bill passes.
The Chairman — That is another thing.
The Witness! You stated that in Aylmer there are some workingmen, and I
suppose if they are working ten hours a clay they would not be satisfied if the con-
tractor were to bring hands from outside and worked them only eight hours a day
btill, it there are workingmen in Aylmer working ten hours a day the rates set
torth m the fair wages schedule -would be ten hours also.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. The men employed on the government contract might be working eight hours
a day and the men beside them on other work would be putting in ten hours a day?—
A. Of course, the contractor is at perfect liberty to work his men only eight hours a
day, even although the fair wages schedule might call for ten hours, and he is at per-
fect liberty to pay fifty cents an hour instead of twenty-five cents as stated in the
contract.
Q. What I am getting at is, you pay the men who work eight hours just the same
as another man who works ten hours?— A. I have nothing to do with that.
90
COMMITTEE RE BILL Eo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
The Chairman.— I think we had better get Mr. DuBreuil’s opinion on the point
you raised, but perhaps it would be better to let him finish his statement as to t e ex-
isting hours of labour.
Q. As far as Alberta is concerned, in Edmonton the eight-hour day seems to be
pretty general in the building trades? — A. Yes. _ .
Q. And this proposed change would have no effect at all on existing conditions
so far as Edmonton is concerned? — A. No.
Q. It might affect some of the smaller localities except where the places are so
small that they have not any local labour. Then the effect of a change in this regard
would not be as considetrable in Alberta as in the other provinces you have already
mentioned? — A. No.
Q. There are still some further particulars to be given? — A. \es. To continue
with Alberta. (Reads) :
The 9-hour day prevails as follows: — For bricklayers and masons except in
Calgary and Edmonton; for carpenters and joiners except in Edmonton; for
plumbers and steamfitters in Calgary and Lethbridge; for plasterers 9 to 10 hours a
day except in Calgary, Edmonton and Lethbridge; for painters and glaziers in
Lethbridge and Calgary; for sheet metal workers in Lethbridge, Calgary and
Edmonton; for electrical workers in Lethbridge and Calgary; for builders’
labourers in Calgary and Lethbridge; for common labourers in Calgary, Ed-
monton and Lethbridge.
The 10-hour day prevails as follows : — for plumbers and steamfitters in Mac-
Leod; for plasterers 9 to 10 hours a day, except in Calgary, Edmonton and Leth-
bridge; for painters and glaziers except in Edmonton, Lethbridge and Calgary;
for sheet metal workers except in Edmonton, Calgary and Lethbridge; for struc-
tural iron workers throughout the province; for electrical workers in MacLeod;
for builders’ labourers except in Edmonton, Calgary and Lethbridge; for com-
mon labourers except in Edmonton, Calgary and Lethbridge. (See D 8).
By Mr. Macdonell : ■
Q. There is a uniform 10-hour day in all those cases? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. When you say ‘the prevailing rate,’ is there a prevailing rate for every day
in the year, long days and short days, or is there a winter rate and a summer rate? — A.
They work eight hours per day, or nine hours per day or ten hours per day. When
the days are shorter, that is during the winter season, they are not able to work ten
hours, they only work seven or seven and one half hours, but the contractor can have
his men work according to his contract, viz., ten hours per day if ten hours is inserted
in the schedule.
By the 'Chairman:
Q. What Mr. Knowles means is this : in any locality what is the prevailing custom
as to hours of labour in trades? Do they have to work eight hours a day, if that is
the working day, right through the year or only in certain months? — A. Yes, right
through the year.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Where do you get this information? — A. From the contractors and from the
workingmen themselves by visiting different localities from time to time in the pre-
paration of the fair wages schedules to be inserted in the government contracts.
The Chairman. — This is based on the observation of our own officers.
Mr. Macdonell. — And on information obtained by the bureau ?
The Witness. — By the fair wages officers.
MR. DUBREUIL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
91
APPENDIX No. 4
Mr. Hacdonell. Well, they are officers of the labour bureau
The Witness. — (Reads) :—
BRRITISH COLUMBIA.
The 8-hour day for stonecutters is general; for bricklayers and masons in
JSanaimo, New Westminster, Victoria and Ladysmith; for carpenters and joiners
in Nanaimo, Ladysmith and Victoria; for plumbers and steamftters in Revel-
stoke, Nanaimo, Victoria, Cumberland and Ladysmith; for plasterers in Nanaimo,
\ ictoria. and Ladysmith; for painters and glaziers in Nanaimo, Victoria and
Ladysmith; for sheet metal workers in Revelstoke, Nanaimo, Victoria, Cumber-
land and Ladysmith; for structural iron workers in Victoria and Revelstoke; for
electrical workers in Victoria and Cumberland; for builders’ labourers in 'Na-
naimo, Victoria and Ladysmith; for common labourers in Nanaimo, Cumberland,
Ladysmith, Oranbrook and Revelstoke.
The 9-hour day prevails for bricklayers and masons in Cumberland and
Osoyos; for carpenters and joiners in Cumberland, Osoyos, Cranbrook and
Revelstoke; for plumbers and steamfitters in Cranbrook and Osoyos; for plasterers
ill Cumberland, Osoyos, Cranbrook and Revelstoke ; for painters and glaziers in
Cumberland and Osoyos; for sheet metal workers in Cranbrook; for structural
ironworkers in Osoyos; for electrical workers in Osoyos, Cranbrook and Revel-
stoke ; for builders’ labourers in Cranbrook, Cumberland and Osoyos.
The 10-hour day prevails for electrical workers in Nelson; for common
labourers in Osoyos and Corvitchan Lake.
The department has no recent information regarding the number of hours
per day prevailing in other localities. (See D 9).
The Chairman. — That covers pretty well the main localities through the Dominion.
Hr. Knowles. — The statement contains no information as to Atlin.
The Chairman. — There is nothing with respect to Atlin.
Hr. Knowles. — It would be interesting when we are providing for an eight-hour
day on public works all over the Dominion to know what the effect would be in those
parts of the country where the seasons are shorter and the days very much longer. It
would be a serious thing in such a district to have to curtail the hours of labour.
Have you no information from the Yukon?
The Chairman. — There is none from the Yukon. (See D 10).
Hr. Knowles.— This Bill would have much greater effect in places where the
season is short and the day is longer than it would in other parts of the cbuntry where
the conditions are more normal.
By Mr. VerviUe:
Q. From your experience, have you ever found discontent to prevail among the
workmen on the buildings where some were working eight hours a day and others
nine?— A. Yes. There is always discontent manifested when the fair wages officer
makes an appearance to investigate a complaint or anything else; they all take
advantage to complain and to say that every man should be treated the same way.
That is on the part of the workingmen.
Q. In winter time, to your knowledge, it is not possible for any trade, in con-
struction work especially, to work much more than eight hours and a half anywhere
around this part of the country?— A. They cannot work eight hours and a half a day.
Q. Well, they can work eight hours a day?— A. When I was working in the
building trade we worked seven hours and a half in winter time.
Q. A man would be able to work about eight hours in winter time? A. Eight
hours would be about the limit.
Q. So that for five months at least workingmen of the building trades are working
eight hours? — A. Yes. °
92
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ro. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. So that this Bill in some parts of the country would only affect seven months
of the year on that line of work because for five months at present they are working
eight hours a day? — A. Yes, about seven months.
Mr. Knowles. — I would like to know what the effect of this Bill would be in the
case of a building constructed by the government in Dawson City. There must be
some information attached to these contracts.
The Chairman. — Have you any information, Mr. MclSliven?
Mr. McNiven. — No.
The Chairman. — I think probably the explanation is that in some of these remote
parts of the country the department has inserted a general clause in the contracts
awarded, that the current rate of wages in the district must be paid. Schedules are
inserted in all contracts as an extra precaution; in fact I know that when I was
deputy minister two or three requisitions were made for schedules for the Yukon and
it was thought unnecessary to send an officer away up there in view of the limited
quantity of labour, that there was just so much labour in the locality, and the con-
tractors would have to accept the rates provided in the case of the few contracts that
were awarded.
Mr. Knowles. — I wish we had the information because it would help us in con-
sidering the effect of this legislation.
The Chairman.- — I think we can get that information. I will ask the deputy min-
ister of the department to secure information as to rates of wages and hours of labour
in the Yukon. (See Exhibit D 10).
By Mr. Broder:
Q. You do not hinder a man who chooses to work overtime in case of emergency
from getting extra pay? — A. No, we have nothing to do with that. The question of
overtime and the rate that is to be paid for overtime is generally settled between the
employer and the employees themselves.
The Chairman. — In addition to the statement which Mr. DuBreuil has given by
provinces, the fair wages officers have prepared a series of additional statements set-
ting forth the prevailing hours of labour in individual trades and classifying them
according to the province. For example here is a statement of hours of labour for
stonecutters in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario,
Manitoba, Sackatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
Mr. Broder. — Apparently in Alberta and British Columbia they have the
shortest day of any.
The Chairman. — They have a ten-hour day in Prince Edward Island, a nine-hour
day in four localities in Nova Scotia and a ten-hour day in sixteen other localities in
of the same province, an eight-hour day in St. John, New Brunswick, and a ten-hour
day in five other localities, an eight-hour day in different localities in Quebec, and an
eight-hour day in a large number of localities in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
In Alberta and British Columbia an eight-hour day is general. These statements
embrace figures in regard to stonecutters, bricklayers and masons, carpenters, joiners
and stair builders, plumbers and steamfitters, plasterers, painters and glaziers, sheet
metal workers, structural iron workers, electrical workers, builders’ labourers, common
labourers. I think if Mr. DuBreuil were to read to us two of these statements, say
bricklayers and masons and builders’ labourers, the remainder could be filed as part of
his evidence. This is very valuable information as illustrating
By Mr. Broder:
Q. Will you allow me to ask this question: The stonecutters use a great deal of
machinery in their work, I suppose that has had the effect of shortening the hours of
labour? — A. No. This system of eight hours a day was accepted by both employers
and employees prior to the introduction of those machines. The Union men generally
do not work with those machines.
MR. DUBREUIL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
93
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. How does it come that the stonecutters have succeeded in getting an eight-
hour day to a greater extent than the rest of the trades?— A. That" I could not say,
it is a question of understanding between the employers and the employees themselves.
I understand that the stonecutters are a body of men possessing one of the best
organizations of their trade.
By Mr. B voder:
Q'JW are near]y skilled workingmen ?— A. They are all skilled working-
men. They are only allowed to liave so many apprentices to every hundred men, and
they are very careful in their intercourse with their employers.
By the Chairman:
Q. Head to the committee what the prevailing hours for bricklayers and masons
are m the different provinces? — A. (Reads):
BRICKLAYERS AMD MASONS.
Prince Edward Island. — The ten-hour day is general.
. 5°Va Sootia-— The eight-hour day prevails in Halifax; the nine-hour day
m the three localities following Sydney, North Sydney and Glace Bay the
ten-hour day elsewhere.
New Brunswick.— The eight-hour day prevails in St. John; the ten-hour day
m twenty-four other localities.
Quebec.— The nine-hour day prevails in the nine localities following, viz. :—
Montreal, Quebec, St. Johns, Iberville, Valleyfield, Levis, Three Rivers, West-
mount, Maisonneuve; the ten -hour day in other localities.
Ontario.— The eight-hour day prevails in the eight localities following, viz.:
Brantford, Hamilton, Kingston, London, Niagara Falls, Toronto, Windsor, St.
Marys and Berlin; the nine-hour day prevails at the localities following, viz.:
Chatham, Guelph, Ottawa, Peterborough, Port Arthur, St. Catharines, Sault Ste.
Marie, Brockville, Owen Sound; the ten-hour day elsewhere.
w. ^anitoba-— The nine-hour day prevails at the five localities following, viz.:
Winnipeg, Neepawa, St. Boniface, Selkirk, Brandon; the ten-hour day elsewhere.
Saskatchewan. — The nine-hour day prevails in Moosejaw, Regina, Saska-
toon, Prince Albert; the ten-hour day elsewhere.
Alberta.— The eight-hour day prevails in Calgary, Edmonton and Lethbridge •
10 hours at Medicine Hat.
British Columbia.— The eight-hour day prevails in the localities following
viz.: Nanaimo, New Westminster, Victoria, Ladysmith, Vancouver, Rossland|
Nelson, Fernie; the nine-hour day in Ashcroft, Vernon, Revelstoke, Greenwood’,
Grand Forks, Cranbrook.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Have you nothing for Vancouver there?— A. Yes, I have Vancouver here.
The Chairman.— This statement would indicate clearly that the effect of any Bill
which would fix an eight-hour day would be very different on trades in different
localities; that seems to me to be the significant feature it brings out.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. I notice that in pretty much the same sized towns, not very far apart, one
will have nine hours and the other eight hours a day. Does the department find’ that
their wages correspond or are they paid by the hour? — A. They are paid by the hour.
Q. Do the ten-hours a day men get one-eighth more wages than the eight-hour
meu- — A. I do not know. I would have to make a comparison by looking over the
schedules.
94
COMMITTEE BE BILL Bo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
. 9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By the Chairman:
Q. What is your memory; could you say if there is very much difference or are
they the same? — A. The rate per hour?
Q. Supposing you have two localities. In one place they are working nine hours
a day and in the other place, eight hours a day; will they get the same rate of pay in
each case? — A. Certainly they will get the same rates per hour. Those working only
eight hours will get an hour’s leas pay than those working nine hours.
By Mr. B voder:
Q. That would make a difference in the minimum rate of pay in the schedule ?
A. Not per hour.
Q. No, but per day? — A. Yes. In those places when they work eight hours or
nine hours per day the rates of wages are not necessarily so much per hour, but so
much per day.
By the Chairman:
Q. By the day of so much per hour? — A. Yes. The schedule is prepared this
way, ‘ Stonecutters, forty cents per hour, eight hours per day.’
Mr. Knowles. — When they work an hour longer they get proportionately more
money.
The Witness. — In some cases the rates of wages are given as so much per day,
not considering the number of hours, but it is stated that they work ten, nine or eight
hours per day, but not in localities so near one another as you state, but in localities
with quite a distance between the two. Take, for instance, Montreal and Ste. Flavie,
or take Toronto and Peterborough. The distance is so great that the same rate does
not apply.
Mr. Knowles. — We have had the hours of work of different trades in different
towns. If we could have a table prepared showing what they get per hour it would
answer my purpose. I do not think the witness quite understands what I want.
The Chairman. — I think it would be well, perhaps, to submit with this another
table in this connection and it might be prepared between now and our next meeting.
What you want, Mr. Knowles, is a table which will show the wages in relation to the
hours of labour. That is to say, where it is an eight-hour day what the total wage
for that day would be as compared to a nine-hour day. Mr. McNiven, you might
be prepared to answer that question at the next meeting of the committee. (See
Exhibit D.)
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Is it not a fact that where working men get a shorter work day they receive
higher wages per hour? — A. It has come to my knowledge that those working shorter
hours are getting a higher pay.
By Mr. B voder:
Q. Per hour? — A. No, per day. For a day’s work in the localities where the hours
are shorter the men are receiving higher pay.
Shorter Hours, Higher Wages.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. As you said in Prince Edward Island where they are working ten, twelve and
fourteen hours a day they are getting $1.25? — A. Yes.
Q. And in other places where they are working eight hours a day, they are getting
higher wages? — A. Yes, three or four dollars a day.
MR. DUBREUIL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
95
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. I am not clear on this point and I want to be clear: are we to understand that
a man working eight hours a day gets just as much as a man who works ten hours ?—
. ' , mean t° say this: that in the localities where the eight-hour system is in force
it shows that the men are well organized, and I can say by experience that I have
found out that where the shortest hours per day are worked the men are commanding
a higher salary ; not only have they induced their employers to shorten the hours of
laboui per day, but they have also persuaded them to pay more wages.
Mr. Broder. — Through their own exertions.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Suppose for instance a contractor were to take a contract outside of the city
where he belongs and his men are working eight hours in that city. He has taken a
contract three or four hundred miles away from that city. Now the schedule in his
contract would probably call for ten hours a day. He will have some of his men to
come to tne scene of that contract from the city in question and they will work there
ten houis a day under the prevailing conditions. Of course he pays those men, if
they work eight hours in their own city, for the two extra hours that they work on
the contract every day? — Yes.
Q. That is what he does? — A. Yes.
Q. Even if they work eight hours a day in their own locality and ten hours a day
at the place wdiere the contract is being carried out, the contractor pays them extra for
the other two hours.— A. He pays them so much per day instead of so much per hour.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Then they are getting more than the other man who is working for ten hours
in that locality. He gets paid for ten hours while the other men who have been in
the habit of working for eight hours get paid for the two extra hours ?— A. This same
question came up a minute ago and it was left in abeyance. Now I will answer it in
this way. I will give you the effect of my experience. If the eight-hour law was
adopted, speaking from my own experience, I think that the large majority of the
working people will accept a reduction of two hours pay because the scale of wages,
the rate of pay, would level itself little by little. At the present time wrhat they want
is an eight-hour day.
Q. Then you are going to cut the working man down to eight hours? — A. I do
not know what would happen then regarding wages.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. We are not reducing his wages, we are reducing his hours. It is up to him to
get higher wages.— A. That is what I say. In the majority of cases the working peo-
ple that I have met are in favour of a reduction of the number of hours even if their
wages are reduced.
Q. Proportionately? — A. Proportionately, as compared with the present time
Q. You think that?— A. Yes. Because they think that in a very short time the
rate of wages will take its own level.
Mr. Marshall. — Exactly. You see that is the reason we are afraid of this Bill.
Organized Labour, its Effect on Wages and Hours.
Mr. Broder.— The eight-hour day has been brought about in certain localities by
certain conditions without any statutory provision whatever. That has resulted where
labour is properly organized. If labour were still better organized the eight-hour day
with increased wages would be carried out to a still greater extent. You are only ask-
96
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
ing to apply it on public works in this Bill, but if you make the minimum day on
government works as eight hours, I do not see where you are going to stop; you must
go further. It is only a matter of time before the same thing will prevail in the case
of everybody.
By the Chairman:
Q. Is it your view, Mr. DuBreuil, that the workingmen on government work,
should this eight-hour regulation go into force, will be content to work for the eight
hours at a less total per day than the men who are engaged for ten hours outside. —
A. Do you mean those engaged in public works and contracts or those employed by
the different departments?
Q. Supposing a certain class of labourers were getting twenty cents an hour
and this eight-hour regulation were in force, for example, $1.60 per day for men
employed on government works. Would those men be prepared to accept the $1.60
as against $2 paid to the men working ten hours per day? — A. As I said before,
according to my experience a large majority of the men engaged in the building
trades would be willing to accept a reduction in the hours of labour — I mean to say
a reduction of salary if there was a reduction in the hours of labour. That is in
public contracts as well as in others, but I am not prepared to answer for those who
are working directly for the different departments of the government. There are
masons and stonecutters, bricklayers, plumbers and steamfitters employed by the De-
partment of Public Works the whole year round in their different shops in different
localities.
Q. Bestriding yourself entirely to government contract work, is it your opinion
that the men employed on such work by the contractor would accept a lower rate of
remuneration for a shorter number of hours work in a day than they would be getting
if working for the same contractor on private buildings? — A. I do not believe that
any labouring man who is getting $1.50 a day for ten hours would like his wages
reduced to $1.25 or $1.30.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Is it not a fact that wherever the hours of labour have been reduced to eight,
the working men have always accepted the reduction and the matter has adjusted it-
self at the beginning. — A. As I said before the rate of wages would be adjusted sooner
or later.
Q. The bricklayers are now working nine hours and the masons and plasterers,
&c., are doing the same. Now supposing these trades have their hours reduced to
eight, the men that are serving them would have to work eight hours also ? — A. It is a
very great inconvenience in the building trades where some men are working eight,
others nine and others ten hours. Take the builders* labourers, for instance, or even
the common labourers, if a post office were being constructed and the number of hours
per day was eight hours, then these helpers would quit work when the time was up
and the stonecutters would have to turn their stones themselves, or the bricklayers
would have to mix their own mortar or carry the bricks up on the hods themselves.
Fortunately it is the other way. It is the most skilled men who are working the
shorter hours and the unskilled men who are working the longer hours; but in con-
structing a very large building it is necessary that the stonecutters, the bricklayers,
the masons and the carpenters should co-operate and work together. Now, it is impos-
sible sometimes when the stonecutters or the bricklayers and masons are gone, where
they only work eight hours a day, for the carpenters to do any kind of work at all
after their disappearance. They are timed to work nine hours or ten hours a dav
instead of eight as the others, but I consider that even in the interest of the con-
tractor those two hours are completely lost to him.
MR. DUBREUIL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
97
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. From your experience throughout the country have you noticed any falling
off in the extent and promptitude of construction of buildings since the hours of
labour have been shortened? — A. Well, that would be very difficult to ascertain be-
cause since that time certain machinery has been introduced.
Q. I am not asking for positive evidence under oath, hut to the best of your judg-
ment, from your experience? — A. If they employed 25 men at ten hours per day they
would have to employ thirty at eight hours a day and the building can be completed
in the same time. But if I understand you well
Q. You know my view of the matter? — A. I am not of opinion that a man can
do as much work in eight hours as he can in ten.
Effect of Short Hours on Building, Cost and Productivity.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Shortening the hours of labour would make the building cost more, would
it not? — A. Yes.
Q. What would be the percentage in the increase of cost? — A. In proportion to
the dimunition of the number of hours worked.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. A man would naturally do more in eight hours than he would in ten? — A.
I was reading a case in point, if you will permit me, in a publication which was issued
in 1910. It is the report of the factory inspector at Bheims. He stated that a decree
was promulgated by the government permitting a dying industry to work their
employees twelve hours instead of ten. For certain reasons, the government granted
that permission. You know that the hours of labour are arranged by the government
in France. The first week the production increased proportionately with the increase
in the number of hours. 'The second week there was a great reduction. The third
week it fell far below the production of ten hours.
Q. The workingmen got on to it? — A. It was simply because the employees were
so exhausted that they were unable to perform their duty at as much speed as when
they were only working ten hours per day. How, in another part of this report I
read — but I can speak for myself if you like. When I was working at my own trade
I never saw men over fifty years of age. They all died before that age.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Have you ever seen any plumbers of that age? — A. No.
Mr. Broder. — They do not kill themselves.
Mr. Verville. — It depends upon the conditions they have to work under.
By the Chairman:
Q. Supposing that in the factory at Bheims to which you referred the men had
been working eight hours and had permission to work two hours longer, do you think
the consequence would have been the same as when the hours were increased from
ten to twelve? — A. No, because the tension of work where the hours of labour are
between ten and twelve hours is greater than when the hours of labour are between
eight and ten hours. If a man or a woman works for ten hours he or she can work
that long for a certain number of days, but the nervous system is subject to such a
strain that it is impossible to perform the same amount of work the next day that
he or she did the day before; on the third day the work will be less than on the
second, and on the fourth it will be less than on the third.
4—7
98
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ho. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Do you think you will get as much work done in the eight hours as in the
ten? — A. No. I have already said that I am not of opinion that a man will do as
much work in eight hours as in ten.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Not even with the machinery we have at our disposal? — A. You have to aug-
ment or increase the speed, you have to change the speed. Then some machinery at
the present time has a maximum of speed and you cannot increase it. Moreover,
these people working with machinery now are not working so much with their hands
as did the old workers ; they work more with their heads.
Q. That is why they do not last so long? — A. It is one of their arguments that
they should have some time at their disposal to study and be of more use to the man
who is employing them.
Mr. Marshall. — The object of the Bill, as I understand it, is to divide up the
work and to give more work to more people. Now, if you are going to get as much
work done in eight hours as in ten
Mr. Verville. — There is an argument on that point which has not been explained
very thoroughly before the House. The fact is that I have never been asked to
explain it thoroughly.
Mr. Marshall. — When you introduced the Bill I paid particular attention to you
and you gave yourself away a little on that.
Mr. Verville. — There will be evidence on that.
Mr. Marshall. — You said in introducing the Bill that you would get as much
work done and the object of the Bill was to divide the work.
Mr. Verville. — I meant exactly what I said. I did not explain the point because
nobody asked me to do so, but we will have it explained before this committee.
Mr. Macdonell. — Before we leave this question of wages, I would like to have
one point cleared up. If the hours of labour are reduced, is the workingman going to
get as much per day as he would get otherwise, or are his wages going to be reduced ? I
think if it is possible to have it, we should get a supplementary statement put in, giving
the rate of wages by provinces, and localities in those provinces, in the same way as
the hours of labour are set out in the report which has been filed this morning.
The Chairman. — That is what Mr. Knowles has asked for.
The Witness. — Pardon me, we cannot give you a statement showing whether in
working eight hours the men will receive the same pay as they are at present receiving
for ten hours, we cannot do that.
Conditions in Ontario.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. What I want is this: take the province of Ontario, you say the building
trades work eight hours in Toronto? — A. Yes.
Q. Now, in another place, Peterborough, I think, they work nine hours? — A. Yes,
eight, nine and ten.
Q. What I would like to know is this: take the bricklayer and the plasterer, or
any other mechanic or artisan, does he get as much wages at the end of the week — if
he is working in Toronto on the eight hour system — as he would get in Peterborough
or some other place where they are working nine hours? — A. The cost of living is
very different.
Q. Never mind the cost of living, that is another matter; at the end of the
week when he gets his envelope does the man who worked for eight hours a day get
as much as the man who worked nine, in the same class of trade in the same province
but in another locality? — A. He might.
MR. DUBREUIL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
99
APPENDIX No. 4
The Chairman. — In that connection I was going to direct Mr. Knowles’ attention
to an investigation that was made in the department some years ago- — Mr. DuBreuil
has just brought it to my notice — into the wages and hours of the labourers in the
building trades of Canada. This investigation took up all branches of the building
trade, cigar makers, carriage makers, and some other trades. The result of the in-
vestigation is given under the following headings. For example, here is one relat-
ing to stonecutters. (Reads) : —
Stonecutters: — Wages per hour, average per week, hours per day, per five
days per week, per day (Saturady), average per week, rate paid for overtime,
average duration of working season in months. It gives that whole information.
Mr. Macdonell. — Can we get that information by provinces?
The Chairman. — The information is arranged according to provinces: Nova
Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. I
remember the investigation well, because I happened to be deputy minister at the time.
It took a tremendous amount of correspondence with contractors and workingmen and
a good deal of personal investigation ; in fact I think we were one or two years in
gathering the data. I think we could now set on foot a similar investigation and bring
our data up to date.
Mr. Macdonell. — Supposing we enact an eight-hour day law and the effect of
that is to reduce the earning power of the artisan or workingman. Is that in his
interest, is that a result that is proper and desirable?
Mr. Broder. — They do not expect the Bill to have that result, I think.
Mr. Macdonell. — There are two features about this eight-hour day provision
that I would like to have cleared up; one is as to the maximum amount of the earning
power of the man; secondly, how does the matter adjust itself to the Saturday half-
holiday? How does the man get off at twelve o’clock, and does he lose by that
Mr. Yerville. — He does.
Mr. Macdonell. — Or does he work that out in the balance of the week? The
Saturday half-holiday is generally recognized, and wherever it applies does the work-
ingman lose by it?
The Witness. — In the building trades they are paid by the hour. Whether work-
ing eight hours, nine, or ten, they are paid by the hour.
Q. In all the building trades? — A. Yes. There is a different rate of wages in
each locality. That is, in Toronto it is different from Peterborough, in Peterborough
it is different from Hamilton, and so on. You want to find out what the rate of
wages will be. Well, you have it there in our schedule. They are paid by the hour.
If they work eight hours for forty cents per hour they get $3.20 per day. If they
work ten hours they get $4.00.
Q. And the workingman would not get as much for working eight hours as the
man does who works ten hours, at the end of the week? — A. No. The statement you
wish to have is to be found in our schedule. In the building trades they are paid so
much per hour.
The Chairman. — I think what Mr. Macdonell wants and what Mr. Knowles
requested a minute ago, which can be easily obtained, is that we should take a few
typical examples.
Mr. Macdonell. — Anything you can give.
The Chairman. — Showing where eight hours prevail, in other cases nine hours,
and in others, ten hours in the same trade, and stating what the wages come to per
hour and per week.
Mr. Verville.- — Our Bill is not of such a character that the question
arises how much the workingmen get per hour or how many hours they should work.
The Chairman. — I think so, Mr. Yerville.
Mr. Yerville.— It does not say in the Bill that they should be paid so much ner
hour, but it says the working hour will be eight hours.
* 4—
100
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Will Eight-hour Measure Cut Down Wages.
The Chairman. — As a member of the committee, I would not want to recommend
to the House the adoption of a measure which was going to have the effect of cutting
down wages unless I were perfectly sure of what I was doing.
Mr. Yerville. — But these people are asking for it and are willing to stand for it.
The Chairman. — I would like to state to parliament, and to the workingmen as
well exactly what the effect of the operation of the Bill would be; I think it is our
duty to do so.
Mr. Yerville. — Do you think the workingmen do not know exactly what the
effect of the Bill will be?
The Chairman. — If that is so there is no objection to our stating it.
Mr. Verville. — We have correspondence from the labour organizations
m favour of the Bill, and we have probably a thousand or more letters
from different associations and it stands to reason that they know all about
what the effect of working eight hours will be because the system is in force in a great
many places at the present time. If an eight-hour day law were passed the wages
would probably for the first year be reduced, and the workingmen would have to
accept it, but the matter would adjust itself.
Mr. Staples. — That is what we want to -get at. I understand the witness to say
that the workingmen are prepared to accept the eight-hour day with the reduced wages
which it will involve, but in so doing they only expect to have to accept that reduced
wage for a short time; the matter will adjust itself.
J lie Chairman. — It is a present sacrifice for a permanent future gain.
Mr. Staples. Ihey hope to gain the same wage as is now paid through their
organization.
Mr. Yerville. They expect to be able to show that it would be of benefit even to
the employers.
Mr. Staples. That is another question. To come back to the labourer, do you
expect that he will get as much per day or per week for an eight-hour day?
Mr. Yerville. — We expect that.
Mr. Broder. What was the effect of shortening the working day on those trades
that already have eight hours; it did not lower their rate of wages.
Mr. Verville. — It lowered them at the start.
Mi. Staples. At the same time the witness has stated that his experience from
investigation is that a man will do more in ten hours than he will in eight. Therefore
the employer is going to be out two hours.
The Witness.— But the necessity will probably create new ways or methods.
Mr. Staples. — Probably.
The Witness. And the employer will certainly find other means to get the same
amount of work in eight hours that he is getting in ten hours now. I am not speaking
of the pay at all.
Mr. Marshall.— As a matter of fact I find by making investigations it will add
one-fifth to the cost of building.
Mr. Staples. — That is the point.
Mr. Marshall.— I have gone into this matter myself. How if it is going to add
one-fifth to the cost of building, should this Bill become law it is only a matter of time
before the Act will have to be made general because it seems to me it is unfair to
give this advantage to one class and not to another. If you are going to build a shop
or a store and have to add one-fifth to the cost you will also have to add one-fifth to
the cost of your groceries, and the man who is buying groceries will have to pay more
When you come to look at the effect of this Bill it is very far reaching.
Mr. Staples — It is very far reaching and will not stop at the works with which
we are dealing but will finally be extended to the agricultural classes. In fact it
already affects the agricultural classes. If there is a public work being constructed in
ME. DUBEEUIL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
101
APPENDIX No. 4
a particular locality and the men on the construction work are only working eight
hours whereas men on the farms have to work fourteen hours — as they do in our part
of the country — it will be a cause of dissatisfaction.
Mr. Marshall. — I am connected with a business that gives employment to 3,000
men at times. Supposing this law is enforced everywhere, look at what the effect will
be. We handle perishable goods and there are times when even with extra help we
have to work eighteen hours in order to put up our product. I am looking at the
matter from a business standpoint. If this Bill becomes law, I want to know how it
will affect the business of the country.
The Chairman. — I think we will have to consider the effect of the Bill in all its
bearings but at this moment we are more concerned with larger public iworks building,
so to speak. Ultimately we shall have to consider to what particular class of build-
ings or works the law shall apply, if any. As I gather from Mr. Verville, his inten-
tion was to have the law apply only to public works under contract, but the Bill itself
goes further. It will probably be reasonable for the committee to consider when they
come to draft the report whether it is really desirable to include anything other than
public buildings.
Mr. Verville. — If the Bill had not been so radical in its nature we should not
hare had this discussion.
The Chairman. — I think the discussion is all right.
Mr. Knowles. — The witness told us that the workingmen would be satisfied to
accept $1.60 as wages instead of $2.00. Now, he is acquainted with the workingmen
and that is a very important statement. However, I want to be quite clear on the
point. The witness is an expert and there is a great deal of importance to be attached
to what he says. Now, does he believe that the workingmen will accept $1.60 instead
of $2.00 and be satisfied.
The Witness. — Yes, they will accept it for the time being in the hope that in the
near future the rates of wages will become what they were before the introduction of
the eight-hour day system. The rate of wages will take its proper level, its own level,
in a short time.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. Here is a question I would like to ask the witness : Whether since the eight-
hour day has been adopted by the stonecutters if the wages are just as high as under
the previous working day? — A. No. They were getting 40 cents per hour and working
ten hours per day. They were paid $4.00 per day. Then the hours of labour were
reduced to eight hours per day but they are still being paid 40 cents per hour.
Q. How long has that prevailed? — A. The stonecutters have been under the eight-
hour day for the last eight or nine years. The effect was a reduction in the rate of
wages.
The Chairman. — The hour of adjournment having arrived it will perhaps suit the
convenience of the committee if Mr. DuBreuil would complete his evidence next
Wednesday. We can then have the evidence of Mr. McNiven also.
The committee adjourned.
102
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
House of Commons,
Committee Room No. 62,
Wednesday, Feb. 23, 1910.
Ihe Special Committee on Bill No. 21, respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
Works, met at eleven o’clock, a.m., the Chairman, Hon. Mr. King, presiding.
I he Chairman. — I might mention to the members of the committee that Pro-
fessor Magill of Halifax was here on Saturday last. He is chairman of the com-
mission which was appointed by the Nova Scotia government to investigate the ques-
tion of the hours of labour in that province. I took the liberty of mentioning to him
that this committee would like to have him present as a witness to give evidence. I
think his name was mentioned at an earlier meeting of the committee, and it was
decided we should try to secure him, and I thought possibly if he was up here he
might wait over until to-day. He said, however, he had in his report to the Nova
Scotia government, put forth practically everything he could say before a committee,
and he would much prefer the committee to secure copies of his report and take such
information out of it as they desired. He was not anxious to appear as a witness
unless the committee pressed for it.
I understand his report has been submitted to the Nova Scotia government, and
the government is having it printed at present. It will be laid on the table of the
House very shortly, and if the committee so desire we might instruct our secretary to
write to the secretary of the provincial government and ask that copies of the report be
forwarded as soon as printed. Is that your pleasure?
Mr. Macdonell. — Yes.
I lie C iiairman. Professor Magill gave a very interesting address before the
Canadian Club on the subject of the eight-hour day. The Canadian Club have
adopted the practice of having some one present to take down shorthand reports and
I arranged with the Department of Labour to secure a copy of the address
given before the Canadian Club. I have here a copy of Prof. Magill’s address; it is
fairly comprehensive; at the same time it is concise. If the members of the com-
mittee thought well it might be desirable to have this turned in and printed as an
exhibit.
Mr. Verville. — Yes.
Mr. Macdonell— I have a copy, but I have not had time to read it yet.
ihe Chairman, then it is the wish of the committee that this be printed as
part of the proceedings. (See Exhibit E.).
We were discussing the other day the question of wages in different trades in
different localities. I thought it might be well for the members of the committee to
know, of this book if they have not already come across it — the question of the varia-
tion in wages by F. W. Lawrence, of Cambridge, England. It was published in 1899.
As far as my reading has gone, I know of nothing as satisfactory regarding the causes
of. variations, in wages in different trades in different parts of the country as is con-
tained in this volume. This can be had by any member of the committee. It is
well worth looking over if one has any time to read it.
Mr. Macdonell. — It is not very recent.
The Chairman— It is not recent, but it is a scientific inquiry into the variations
in the rates. For example, he takes the cities throughout England and begins with a
certain class as labourers, bricklayers, and so on, and runts down through a list of
the different cities and compares them with London.
MR. DTTBRETTIL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
103
APPENDIX No. 4
Mr. Macdonell.— Illustrates it by chart.
The Chairman.— Illustrates it by. chart; and the descriptive chart has (well set
forth the density of population and matters of that kind.
Mr. Macdonell.— It might be left to the secretary so it will be convenient to the
members in the building.
Mr. Verville. — There is also a report just out this year issued in California.
The Chairman. — That is a report on industrial disputes by Hiram Weinstock.
There is interesting information in it. Have any members of the committee any
points to bring up before we proceed to examine Mr. DuBreuil?
Mr. Verville. — I would like to suggest that it might be advisable in the future,
as we might have quite a number of witnesses during this session, to ask leave that we
may sit during the sitting of parliament. It would be too bad to keep witnesses here
for two or three days now, because we cannot very well afford it. I say that if you
were going to make another report to the House, it would be well to have that permis-
sion.
The Chairman. — What is the wish of the members of the committee on that ?
Mr. Broder. — Do you expect to go into it pretty thoroughly?
Mr. Macdonell. — There is no harm to get permission to sit during the sittings of
the House, and if we require to hold sessions, we have the authority.
The Chairman. — It might be difficult, and as I understand Mr. Verville, his desire
is to meet the emergency in the event of some witnesses being here from a distance, if
•we could not meet in the morning, to come up in the afternoon and clean the slate.
Mr. Macdonell. — I think that is a good idea. We might use it if the emergency
exists; if not, we won’t need it.
The Chairman. — Perhaps you might move that the committee recommend that
leave be granted to them to sit while the House is in session.
Mr. Verville. — I will make that motion.
Mr. Macdonell.— I second that.
The Chairman. — The last day, Mr. DuBreuil gave a good deal of evidence con-
cerning this matter, and I had a few questions prepared in advance which I thought
might facilitate the eliciting of information, and if it is the wish of the committee I
^perhaps might ask a few more of those questions, following along the lines of the
■testimony already given.
Mr. Victor DuBreuil, fair wages officer, Department of Labour, recalled and
.examined : —
Agitation of Organized Labour for Shorter Hours.
By the Chairman:
Q. As far as your observation has gone, is there any agitation in the country at all
among any section of the people for a shorter working day? — A. According to my
-experience, the labour organizations in the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and
Nova Scotia are nearly all unanimous in demanding an eight-hour day.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Do you refer to any particular trades ? — A. More so in the building trades than
in any other, because the building trades are generally better organized than any other
trades, and their unions being stronger, having better educated people as members,
they took the matter up years ago and they followed it up to the present time. In some
other industries they are not so anxious. with regard to the shortening of hours, for
ihe Simple reason that their members are not so well educated.
By the Chairman:
Q. What about working-men that are not members of any organization?
104 COMMITTEE EE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Position op Unskilled Workmen.
Mr. Macdonell. — That is ■what I was going 'to ask.
The Witness. — Of course you will understand our intercourse with those people
outside of the labour organizations is far more difficult than it is with those who are
organized, but it came to my knowledge after intercourse on several occasions, with
regard to the shortening of hours, that as a whole the workingmen, more especially
those who are skilled men, are in favour of shortening the hours. I might state that
those who are earning, at present, from $1.25 to $1.50 per day are not in favour of
reducing the number of hours, but those are considered as unskilled men. The
skilled workingmen, as a general rule are in favour of shortening the hours.
Q. Union and non-union men? — A. Yes.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you think they would be in favour of it if the shortening of the hours
meant a reduction of wages per day? — A. I answered that question at the last meet-
ing. les, with the hope that in a short time the rate of wages would readjust itself.
Q. That has not been the experience of these unions. The last day you were here
you spoke of stonecutters who were getting the same wages per hour that were got
ten years ago when they were working the same number of hours per day?— A. The
stonecutters are not to be considered the general rule; but as I stated last meeting,
those who are working shorter hours now are, in the majority of cases, earning the
highest wages.
Q. At the last meeting I think it was understood either Mr. McNiven or yourself
would prepare a statement of rates of wages and hours for the different localities. Has
that statement been prepared? A. Tes. I would like to read to you a statement which
was prepared by the fair wages officers of the Department of Labour in connection with
the rate of wages per day, and the number of hours’ work per day in the building
trades throughout the different provinces of Canada.
Q. We might leave that for the present. It is quite a long statistical statement.
We will finish the general points first.
Opinion op Union Men re Wages.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. The unions idea no doubt is that they should get the day shortened and then
later they will agitate for higher wages again. Is that the way they look at it?— A
As you are aware, I have been present at a great number of union meetings, and the
general opinion of the union men is that if they were to obtain a shorter number of
hours, constituting a day’s work, that through their exertions they would give proof
to the employer that it is even in the employer’s interest to shorten the hours; and
that they would give them the same salary for eight hours as they are receiving for
ten hours, by turning out more goods or doing the work in a better way.
By Mr. Stanfield.
, Q-J°u are iust speaking of the building trades?— A. Yes, I am just speakin^ of
the building trades.
The Chairman.— Mr. Broder asked the question pointedly, do the trade unions
admittedly say and believe that in asking for a reduction of hours, if it were effected
that one of the first things they would go in for would be to bring the wa°-es un to
the old scale ?— A. Decidedly. °
Q. I don’t think there is any doubt about that.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. In your experience have you ever seen any trades of any kind that have ever
got shorter hours without making a struggle for it? A. Mo.
MR. DUBREUIL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
105
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Then they are justified in making a struggle of any kind?— A. Yes.
\ The Chairman.— Did you ever see them get an increase of wages without a
struggle ?
Mr. Verville. I am not speaking about increase of wages at all.
Shorter Hours re Railroads, Dredging, and Engine Men.
By the Chairman:
Q. With what industries do your duties as fair wages officer bring you chiefly in
contract?— A. With the building trades, railroad construction and dredging con-
tracts.
Q. You have given your view with regard to the building trades. Do you think
the shortening of hours in railway construction is desirable? — A. I do not.
Q. Why not?— A. Because the season in which the work can be performed in
railroad construction is limited and it would not be wise to shorten the hours per day
on account of this limited season.
Q. Is not the season limited in all trades?— A. Not to so great an extent as in
railroad construction.
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. Not in the maritime provinces?— A. Not even in the maritime provinces.
... ^ Tou wdl find many bricklayers and carpenters out of work for months. They
will not build m the winter time.
The Chairman.— Is the season longer during the spring, summer or fall months ?
Mr. bTANFiELD. No. We have more open spring than you have here.
Q. How does the work for building construction compare with railroad construc-
tion • A. I should think they would get more hours for railroad than for building
construction. That might be because railroad construction is not proceeded with in
the winter time while bricklayers, stonemasons, carpenters and plumbers are employed
at their work during part of the winter season, while railroad construction is par-
alysed during the winter season. They can only work at dredging in the summer
time. In the city of St. John, where the difference in the tide is about 65 feet,
they have to shift every half hour or so —
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Before you leave the subject of the railways, what about railway employees?
You are speaking about railway builders and contractors. What about railroad
employees?— A. I did not mention those. I mentioned railroad construction.
By the Chairman :
Q. Mr. Macdonell is asking about your view as to the shortening of hours of
men on railroad trains, the various classes of employees.— A. They are regulated by
an agreement signed each year between the companies and the men themselves. They
have brotherhoods. This is for the whole year. I never noticed any difference between
the number of hours’ work in winter compared with summer.
Q. How do you think a law requiring eight hours will work on the part of rail-
way employees handling mail on the trains ? Do you think it is workable ?— A. It is
always workable, certainly; but in some cases where the line is composed of thousands,
of miles,— take the mails from Montreal to Halifax, it would require the employment
of three shifts to work eight hours each per day. Three shifts would work eight hours
each, making 24 hours to complete the day.
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. Some of these mail clerks 'will follow a certain run from Halifax to Camp-
bellton ; they will lay off for a certain time? — A. They leave Montreal and they
106
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
change at Levis, and a new shift commences at Levis and is relieved at Campbellton.
Another shift takes duty at Campbellton to Moncton and from Moncton to Truro
on to Halifax.
Q. The shift that goes on at Campbellton goes to Truro and back ? — A. The over-
seer is on duty from Montreal to Halifax.
Q. I know men to get on at Halifax and go to Campbellton and back? — -A. That
might be.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you think the application of an eight-hour law to railway work generally
is a practicable thing? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you think it could be worked out in connection with transcontinental
railways, in connection with engineers and firemen? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Does it exist elsewhere? — A. No, not that I know of.
Q. Anywhere in the United States? — A. They work by the mile. They have so
many miles to travel, not taking into consideration the number of hours. Some-
times they cover the route in eight hours and sometimes in ten or fifteen hours.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. They take wliat they call the run? — A. Yes, they have to take the run.
By Mr. Smith:
0. Have you ever met any railway men? — A. Yes.
Q. Did they discuss the question of eight hours ? — A. Yes ; they are in favour of
shortening the hours of labour.
Q. Has there ever been any application to parliament in connection with the
eight-hour law ? — A. I cannot answer as to that. I am not acquainted with that. I
am speaking of what I was told, in speaking with railway men as I was travelling,
regarding their desire to shorten the time.
Q. I have met hundreds of them and I have never had an application? — A. No.
I never had an application myself. I am simply stating what I learned.
Q. Except the telegraphers, where we had a letter at the beginning of the session
from the president of the Telegraphers’ Union, not to present the letter, as the men
iwould present their own views. This gentleman saw me some time ago and said
they could settle it satisfactorily among themselves.
By the Chairman:
Q. I think all people are anxious to have shorter hours. Leaving that out of
consideration, do you know of any agitation among railroad employees, as a body,
for the eight-hour day? — A. No, I never was present at any of their meetings.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. I asked you if you had met any railway men, and you said yes? — A. Yes, but
I never was present at any of their meetings.
Eight-hour Law re Government Contracts.
By the Chairman:
Q. AY hat, in your opinion, would be the effect on the performance of government
contracts of a geneial eight-hour day? Assuming we had an eight-hour law applicable
to all government contracts, what effect would that have upon contract work as it
is now carried on? — A. That is a very broad question. In some industries it would
he quite impracticable, but in the building trades it would be practicable.
ME. DUBREUIL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
107
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Smith:
Q. W hat special trades would it not be practicable in? — A. Take an employer of
garment workers. He will probably employ men or women or boys a couple of hours
each day making buttons or button-holes or anything of that kind. It is next to
impossible for any man to keep track of the number of hours or minutes worked in
one day on government contracts or other contracts.
By the Chairman:
Q. In connection with firms doing work for the government, it would be impos-
sible to separate government work from private work. Is that what you mean? — A.
That is it.
Q. In factory work ? A. In factory work, yes, but in the building trades it is
quite practicable. It is very feasible.
Garment Workers, Shoemakers.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. If the garment workers are working ten or twelve hours a day, working on
garments, and the government enacts a law making it an eight-hour day, would not
that have a good effect on the tendency to reduce the hours of labour? — A. Yes. Take
the shoemakers’ trade for instance. The government awards a contract fo the
Slater Company or any other shoe manufacturer, and at the same time they are
manufacturing stock for themselves from the same material which they furnish to
the government. If they have an order from the government for 12,000 pairs of boots
of a certain quality, they will probably or4er the same number of men to prepare
twenty-five or fifty thousand pairs of boots of the same kind. I cannot see how a
man can keep track of how many hours these boot and shoe workers have been
employed at the manufacture of boots and shoes for the government and the number
of hours they have been employed to work on boots and shoes for their concerns.
By the Chairman:
Q. As far as the building trades are concerned, what about that?— A. It is quite
different, because when a man starts a day’s work, he has to work the whole day.
Stone and Brick Supplies.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. How would that apply to contractors’ supplies for government works, such as
dressed stones or bricks made in private brickyards and supplied to the government ?
How would you follow the material in those cases ? — A. The Department of Labour do
not prepare schedules of wages for those who are engaged in making brick.
Q. You are not giving your opinion on the feasibility of applying the eight-hour
day? — A. The same conditions will obtain as in factories, because people will be sup-
posed to manufacture brick for the government and brick for their own concerns as
well.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. What would be the difference between the shoe factory and the brick factory
you spoke of before? — A. I say the same conditions obtain.
Button-Makers.
By the Chairman:
Q. Your idea is that unless a man is putting all his work on government work,
it would be difficult to enforce an eight-hour regulation? — A. You take the button-
makers for instance: men or women operating a button machine can make enough
108
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. til— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
buttons in one day to supply the whole government of Canada. It is quite impossible
to force a woman to work all the time making buttons for the government, for said
employee would work a certain portion of the time making buttons for some other
firms, and it would be an impossibility for the employer to keep track of the number of
hours worked by this employee for the government and work for outsiders. If there
was work enough to keep an employer going a whole day or a whole week or a whole
month, then the condition would be possible, but otherwise, I think, it would create
a very great annoyance. One portion of the personnel of the factory would work eight
hours and the people employed in the other end of the room would be obliged to work
ten hours.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Do you think a reduction of hours would be popular with the working people?
— A. The reduction of hours will always be popular with the working people.
By the Chairman:
Q. Whether it is accompanied by a reduction of wages or not? — A. As I stated
before, I was under the impression that if they could obtain shorter hours, they would
come to some arrangement by which they would obtain the fo.rmer wages.
Q. Does that apply to all workers? — A. Especially in the building trades.
Cement and Paint Factories.
Q. This Bill as drafted applies to all kinds of workers and all kinds of industries.
Your statement is that, as I understand it, the enactment of the eight -hour law would
be popular notwithstanding it would mean a reduction of wages to all classes of
workers? — A. If it is popular or not, there are certain reasons for invoking a shorten-
ing of hours of labour. Take cement factories, the Portland cement factories for
instance, the paint factories, where they are mixing paints, the metal polishers, the
copper workers, those operating laths or buffs, cleaning wheels or polishing wheels,
those trades are more or less noxious, and the shorter the number of hours the less
exposed the employees would be. If you will kindly let me, I will just present one
case to you. Not very long ago a man 23 years of age came to my office. He had been
previously employed at a cement factory. He had completely lost his voice; he could
not articulate one sound. His vocal cords were completely destroyed, as also his larynx.
He came to my office to ask me to give him some pointers or some advice as to the best
way to get damages from the company. He was accompanied by a friend; he could
not speak himself. Well now, here is a case where a man working 12 or 13 or 11
hours a day, Sunday as well. I think if you take it in this light you will find out that
employers are taking great care of their driving wheels and piston rods, allowing them
to stop and to cool on Sunday, while the poor man has to work 12 or 15 hours a day,
Sunday as well.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Can you tell us whether these men have made any tests to have their hours
reduced with their superiors ? — A. I am sure they have not, because if they were to
open their mouths to their superiors, you, as well as myself, know what would happen to
them.
How Working People Would View Shorter Hours.
By the Chairman:
The general question of certain noxious trades and industries is a matter for
legislation by itself. This is a question of shortening the hours in connection with
work performed by the government either directly or indirectly. The proposal is to
reduce the hours of labour to eight hours a day, and, as the Bill is drawn, that would
ME. DUBEEUIL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
109
APPENDIX No. 4
extend to all classes of people who might be concerned with work for the govern-
ment. Do you think a measure of that kind would meet with the approval of the
working classes generally, provided it meant also a pro rata reduction in wages? —
A. It is my opinion that the working people in general — of course there are exceptions
—would be in favour of a reduction of the number of hours, even if they had to
suffer a reduction in wages.
Q. Working people generally would be in favour of a reduction of hours notwith-
standing it meant a reduction in wages. Let us take the two classes, organized labour
and labour unorganized. Now, as regards organized labour, is that your view? — A.
That is my view.
Q. As regards unorganized labour, is that also your view? — A. To a certain ex-
tent, yes; but unorganized people, as a general rule, have not the same opportunity
to educate themselves.
Q. Never mind the reasons for it?— A. They do not study so carefully the dif-
ferent social questions. The only difference they know is between two dollars and one
dollar, whether it is earned by working ten hours or fifteen hours. That is a general
rule.
Q. That being the general rule, would it not follow that the most of those who are
uneducated would prefer higher wages even if it meant a longer work-day? — A. That
is a question.
Q. While the better class of workers would prefer less remuneration with a
shorter day? — A. Yes.
Mr. Stanfield. Is it not a fact that in Canada the trainmen are not agitating
for shorter hours, but always for more pay.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. We have letters before this committee, I believe, representing 8,000 men in
favour of eight hours. They are railroad men. I would also like to ask Mr. DuBreuil
if there are many trades that are not organized in Canada to-day in any branch? —
A. There are not many trades not organized, but there are localities where the trades
are not organized.
Q. Is it not. a fact that those trades which are not organized always follow the
other ones in the question of hours and wages, after the organized trades have estab-
lished a certain number of hours per day to work? — A. They follow the conditions
which have been prepared by those belonging to the union, and I find that those who
are unorganized are always the first to come and claim their share of the benefit ac-
corded to them through organization.
Percentage of Working Classes in Organizations.
Q. What percentage of the working class of Canada belongs to organizations? —
A. In what trade?
Q. Speaking generally? — A. That is a hard proposition.
Q. I mean taking labour generally. What percentage of the working classes in
Canada are members of labour organizations ?— A. There are about 1,800 labour or-
ganizations in Canada at the present time. It is quite impossible for me to make a
statement as to the number of those who are organized and those who are not
organized.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. Do you think there are about 20 per cent? — A. More than that.
Q. Workingmen generally, including agriculturalists, domestic servants and all
that? — A. No, I am not speaking of that.
Q. I think it is a small percentage.
By the Chairman:
Q. If you take all those who work for wages, do you think it would amount to
10 per cent? — A. More than that.
no
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Would it amount to 20 per cent? — A. I figured it about 25 per cent.
Q. I think you bad better go into it again? — A. All the miners are organized;
all the longshoremen are organized.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. The miners are not organized. They have been, but they are not now? — A. I
am speaking of my own territory all the time. I will not venture to make any state-
ment with regard to the west because I have never been there.
_ Q. The province of Quebec is particularly your territory. Do you think that
taking all the labour in the province of Quebec 25 per cent of it is organized? — A,
Yes.
Q. Let me follow that up. If 25 per cent of the labour of Quebec is organized,
how much representation have they made to the local legislature for an eight-hour
law? Do they agitate for this eight-hour law in the province? — A. Not to my know-
ledge.
Q. IIow can you say they want it if they do not desire to have it? — A. By my
intercourse with the different unions. I have never asked them to furnish a written
statement endorsed by the secretary or the president, but through my conversation
with them.
Q. I know, but you have no evidence that they passed resolutions in their unions
regarding representation to the legislature?— A. Every union I know of had more or
less interested itself with this question of reducing the number of hours.
Q. In the province? — A. In the province.
• By Mr. Verville:
Q. Is it not a fact that three or four years ago there was an eight-hour Bill pre-
sented in Quebec by — I forget his name. He is dead now. — A. Where was he from?
Q. From Montreal. He was the member for Chambly. — A. Mr. Perrault.
By the Chairman :
Q. Take the agricultural labour in the province of Quebec, is it organized ^ — A.
No.
Q. What percentage of the labour is agricultural? — A. It is very small. As you
will understand, they have very large families there, so there is no necessity on the
part of the father to hire outside labour.
Q. That is labour? — A. They are not working for wages. The father supplies
them with garments and looks after their general welfare.
Q. Those are wages, real wages, as opposed to money wages?— A. They are not
paid so much per day or so much per week or so much per month. If they want a
fancy horse, the father will give them a horse.
Q. I think if a man working on a farm gets any return, either shelter or food or
anything else, that is wages. — A. I cannot ascertain how much a suit of clothes will
cost now. I do not know his tastes.
Q. As. a matter of fact in your statement as to 25 per cent of the labour being
organized in Quebec, have you not in mind simply the labour in those trades in which
there are trade organizations? — A. Yes.
Q. I think that is what Mr. DuBreuil must have in mind, that is in the trades
where. there are labour organizations. I think that 25 per cent of that labour maybe
organized, but that is a different thing from the labour generally in the province that
is organized— A. I would add that in the building trades more than 25 per cent are
organized.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. A ou made, the statement that you thought that organized labour, when they
asked for a reduction of hours, were willing to submit to a reduction of wa°-es Now
you have been a member of trades unions yourself, and have been present and taken
MR. DUBREUIL.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
111
APPENDIX No. 4
part in the discussion for a reduction of hours. Was there ever an occasion when
you thought that a reduction of hours would be followed by a reduction of wages?
A. It was the general belief of those who took part in the discussion of this subject
that if a labour organization could obtain a reduction in the number of hours for the
time being, they would have to submit for the present to a reduction of wages, but
in a very short period the rate of wages would be re-adjusted.
Q. My experience with trades unions has always been that a reduction of hours
meant shorter hours with the same wages.
Mr. Macdonell. — Per hour.
Mr. Smith. — Not per hour. If they worked eight or ten hours per day, that
always meant at the same wages.
Mr. Verville. — There has been no representation so far as wages are concerned.
The only representation we are concerned in now is hours.
The Question of Hours and Wages Inseparable.
The Chairman. I think we ought to understand each other on that point in this
committee. I do not think, speaking for myself, and I think the other members of the
committee will agree with me that you can separate the question of hours and wages.
It is the amount of money, the income that everybody is looking to in considering
his condition in life, so I do not think you can separate the two things, and I think
we are bound, in considering the effect of the reduction of hours, to consider what it
will mean to the family budget as a whole.
Mr. Yerville. We seem to be anxious to know that, and while the generosity of
employers was wide open just as much before to-day as it is now, if they have not
exercised that generosity with their employees, it is not this committee’s fault. We
seem to he anxious, if we are going to reduce the hours of labour, to reduce the wages
as well.
The Chairman.— I think what this committee is anxious to do is in the first place
to ascertain whether in the event of the hours being reduced it will be necessary also
to reduce the wages.
Mr. Verville. — This Bill has been asked for by a certain number of working
people, and there is nothing in it that mentions wages.
Mr. Smith. — The question is, what do they understand when they ask the govern-
ment to reduce their hours by law. Do they expect a corresponding reduction of
wages ?
Mr. Verville. — Sure they expect that in many cases.
Mr. Smith. — I think if the government were to pass an eight-hour law and reduce
the wages correspondingly, in three months you would have a petition from all these
men to restore the old order of things.
The Chairman. — That is what I want to ascertain.
Mr. Smith. — That is the reason it should be ascertained. I would not want to
report in favour of an eight -hour Bill unless I was sure the consequences were going
to he favourable to the men. If the committee were to bring in a Bill like this, I
would not support it, because I know from experience it is not what they want.
Mr. Knowles. — If we are asked in the House what the effect would be, and we
said we had to look into that, our work would look foolish.
B>i Mr. Turcotte:
Q. How are the wages? — A. They are far higher than where the ten-hour day is
in force. The shorter number of hours, constituting a day’s work, that is where
workingmen are getting higher wages, generally speaking, and I do not think it would
take three months after the adoption of the Bill before the salaries are re-adjusted.
Mr. Smith. — In British Columbia, wherever eight hours constitutes a day’s work
it has never affected the question of wages in a single instance.
112
COMMITTEE EE DILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Mr. Macdonell. — You cannot deal with reduction of time regardless of the weekly
pay the man is going to get. You have to consider the two questions together. There
is no benefit in giving a man a reduction of hours if he earns less wages.
Mr. Verville. — Do we consider the amount he is getting now?
Mr. Knowles. — We did not legislate about hours before.
Mr. Macdonell. — For instance, supposing men get paid by the hour in any
particular trade, factory or business, and they are working ten hours and they get say
30 cents an hour, if you cut them down to eight hours and say nothing about it, it
would seem to me they would work eight hours at 30 cents an hour. I think Mr.
DuBreuil might file the statement he has there. The statement is arranged by pro-
vinces, and shows according to the different trades the wages per day and the hours
per day for the main localities throughout the different provinces. A glance at this
will show the rates compared, in localities where there is a nine-hour day with localities
where there is an eight and ten-hour day. It is a lengthy statement. It might be
printed and filed as an exhibit. (See Exhibit D).
Yearly Earning Power in Building Trades.
By the Chairman :
Q. Have you any statement you would like to make to the committee ? — A. I would
just add one or two words. The diminution of the hours of labour at first sight would
seem to indicate that there would be a reduction in the wages of the
men, but if you take into consideration that between eight and nine months during a
whole year are worked by those engaged in the building trades, and no more — if you
reduce the number of hours by two each day, they will work 25 or 30 or 40 days more
during the year, so their pay will probably be less for each day, but they will work
more days, sc at the end of the year their revenue will probably be more. They would
lose nothing by it.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. That would be assuming their wage per hour would be the same, they would
work less hours per day, but they would work more days in the year ? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you think in addition to wishing to shorten the hours per day that the
workingmen wish to shorten the number of days per year they are employed -A. No,
I don’t believe that, I believe they would like to go to work every day.
Witness retired.
Jajies D. McNiven, Fair Wages Officer, Department of Labour, called, sworn and
examined : — •
Duties of Officer and Previous Experience.
By the Chairman:
Q. ITow long have you been in the service of the Department of Labour? — A.
About three years.
Q. What is the nature of your duties ? — A. To provide schedule of wages und
hours of labour for insertion in government contracts, chiefly for the protection of
workingmen engaged upon public works, and also if the contractor violates the terms
of his contract in regard to those conditions and complaint is made to the department,
if it happens to be in the territory I cover, I go out and investigate the complaint
and report to the deputy minister.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. What is your district?— A. The provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan,
Alberta and British Columbia.
MR McNIVEN.
COMMITTEE HE El EE No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
113
APPENDIX No. 4
Mr. Macdonell. — Would you mind asking Mr. McNiven what his previous experi-
ence was.
By the JOhairman :
Q. What has been your previous experience as a workingman, and what connec-
tion have you had with workingmen ? — A. I am a printer by trade, worked at the print-
ing business for about 28 years in different parts of Canada, chiefly in Ontario and the
western provinces; during all this term, or I might say the last 20 years of it, I was
closely connected with labour organizations, not confined altogether to the typograph-
ical union but to labour generally, in central bodies, trades and labour councils.
Q. What positions have you held? — A. I have held the position of Secretary of the
Victoria Trades and Labour Council for a number of years, Chairman of the Execu-
tive Committee and President of that Council; also in the city of Vancouver I was
connected with a typographical union, held all the principal offices, chairman of the
executive committee and president; also in the city of Winnipeg, where I started my
career, I was connected with the typographical union, held most of the principal
offices there, secretary and chairman of the executive committee.
Q. Did you ever hold office in connection with the Trades and Labour Congress?
- — A. I was also vice-president of the Trades and Labour Congress for British Colum-
bia, I think, for four years.
Q. Did you ever occupy the position of foreman?— A. Yes, I held the position of
foreman on a daily newspaper the last ten years of my experience as a tradesman.
Q. What paper was that? — A. The Victoria Daily Times.
Q. Were you ever a member of parliament? — A. Yes, I have had experience of
that kind also.
Q. And you still live?- — A. And I still live. From 1903 to 1907 I was a member of
the British Columbia Legislature, representing the city of Victoria.
Is Fair Wage Clause Respected ?
Mr. Macdonell. — Personally, I believe that this fair wage clause in public works
is practically disregarded as far as contractors can do so without being caught at it by
the government inspector. I do not believe there is one piece of work going on in this
country to-day in which the contractors respect that fair wage clause.
The Chairman. — On what do you found your belief?
Mr. Macdonell. — I found my belief on this, that wherever there is a government
contractor, taking an average contract or anything of that nature, there is a rush of
poor labouring men to get daily work, and few of them belong to the unions ; they do
not know there is a fair wage clause attached to that contract and they practically
work for what they can get.
I am not in any way blaming the government or the inspectors, but it seems to me
something might be done to put that thing in better shape than it is. I think the law
is being disregarded wherever it can be evaded.
The Chairman. — As Minister of Labour I cannot escape responsibility for criti-
cism in this connection. I would say my view is different from yours. Any case
brought to the attention of the government, where such contracts have been violated
is investigated. If there is any case in your knowledge, or in the knowledge of any
member of parliament in the country, I will see to it that a thorough investigation is
made into the matter, but in the absence of any specific charge it is difficult to do any-
thing in that respect.
Mr. Macdonell. — What I was going to ask is, what methods are applied or adopted
to see that this fair wage clause is enforced? Are the various works visited and in-
spected, even if no complaint is made? Do you look at the contractors’ books to see
the wages he is paying the different classes of workmen and so on? What is done?
The Witness. — I do not consider it part of my duties to go about a building and
act as a detective in the matter of finding out if the regulations are violated. That, I
4—8
114
COMMITTEE RE BILL ivv. zi — nuuns ur ij/idwh
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
think, devolves upon the tradesmen who are working on the building. It is a regula-
tion of the department that on every building under construction the fair wages
schedule must he posted in a conspicuous place on the premises, so that every workman
about the building may see what he is entitled to per hour, and if any workman on
that building accepts a less sum than is stated in these schedules and makes no com-
plaint, I never consider it my duty to go and make complaint for him.
Mr. Macdonell. — There are very many men getting small wages who are afraid to
open their mouths for fear of losing their position.
The Chairman. — If they are afraid themselves they can ask some third party to
send in a complaint. I think you are making a very broad charge which ought to be
made only with the greatest of care. If you can give me a single concrete instance of
a case in which any man is employed to-day on government work and is not receiving
the wages to which he is entitled under the fair wages schedule, I will guarantee that
he receive it to-morrow or the contractor will suffer for it; but I do not think in the
absence of a concrete case the statement should be made.
Mr. Macdonell. — I think it exists. I have always, all along, believed' this fair
wage scale has not been fully enforced, not only now but in the years that have passed.
The Chairman. — Can you give us any grounds for your belief?
Mr. Macdonell. — I am not making charges here. I am asking this witness if
he can give the committee information
The Chairman. — As long as that is clear that you are not making a charge it is
different, but I would not like the impression to go out that you had conveyed to this
committee that the fair wages schedule was not being lived up to.
Mr. Macdonell. — I believe the fair wages schedule is not fully enforced. I am
not blaming the government nor the inspectors for its non-enforcement. Now, I am
asking this witness if he can tell what is done by him or by his fellow inspectors to
see that it is enforced; because I think it is the duty of every one of us to see that
the law is enforced and carried out in that respect, and if there is any means by
which it can be enforced which we are not now adopting, then I think we should all
readily make an effort to better the condition.
Practice Followed in Protection to Workingmen.
The Witness. — I might say that during the last fiscal year Mr. DuBreuil and
myself investigated about twenty complaints that had been received in the depart-
ment regarding the violation of the terms of contracts by contractors. I think it
was about 19 or 20.
Q. How many cases were found to be well founded?— A. Probably one-half were
considered well founded.
Q. Where they were well founded what action was taken ?— A. The action is that
we, as fair wages officers, report to the Deputy Minister, who, in turn, reports to the
minister of the department who let the contract. The usual thing is we find to what
amount these workingmen have been defrauded, then we recommend that the minister
of the department who has let the contract retain from the contractor the amount
equal to what has been retained from the workingmen and pay it to the workingmen.
Q. That has been done? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Is there no penalty at all? — A. No.
By the Chairman:
Is th“enot a clause jn the contract that the contractors who do not comply
wHh the conditions may not have the privilege of tendering again?— A. There is in
some departments, that the contractor who has violated liis contract once shall be
debarred from further tendering for government work.
MR. McNIVEN.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
115
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. That is one penalty ? — A. That is one penalty.
Mr. \ erville. I do not think it is fair to say it is not carried out, because I
might cite a case where there were $18,000 involved, and the contract was finished,
and there were only four men concerned, and it was a case of about $75 all told, and
the Department of Public Works held the $18,000 until the men were paid. Of course
seme men are afraid to make a statement, but, as you say, those statements are made
by others.
By the Chairman:
Q. Are tne contractors obliged to keep their books open for inspection? — A. Yes,
there is a clause in the specifications now requiring the contractor to produce his
books for the inspection of the fair wages officer at any time it is desired by the
Minister of Labour to do so.
How Law re Fair Wages is Enforced.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. What I wanted to know was, what action the government takes from time to
time, as a matter of routine with regard to seeing that this law is enforced. It is a
very fair question and one in the interests of the working people of the country, and
I do not see the occasion for making much ado about it. I would like to know what
steps your department takes from time to time to see that that fair wage clause is
carried out ? — A. The usual course is to leave that with the workmen interested. It
simply means if they are being defrauded or not being paid the current rate of wages
as provided in the schedule, all they have to do is to intimate that to the Department
of Labour, and we, in turn, wherever a complaint has been made, have always pro-
ceeded immediately to an investigation of the case.
The Chairman. — Perhaps I could explain fully, Mr. Macdonell. These govern-
ment contracts extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In connection with every
contract where a schedule is prepared, that schedule is put up in a conspicuous place
in the works, so that the men employed about the works will know to what they are
entitled.
Mr. Macdonell. — Excuse me. Who is it that sees to the notice being put up? I
have yet to see that notice put up. Does any one look to it that it is put up ?
The Chairman. — I think if a complaint were received from any source that the
notice was not there, the officer would go immediately to see why it was not there. This
was done as a departmental regulation, to give further effect to the Fair Wages Reso-
lution. It was a resolution of the House of Commons that the current rate of wages
should be paid. N
Then, in addition to that, the schedules are published in the Labour Gazette every
month.
The Witness. — The schedules inserted in contracts are published there. It is
sent free of charge to every labour organization in Canada, and those labour organ-
izations are apt to inform their members. It is pretty generally known that that has
been passed by the House of Commons, and the department is there to see it is carried
out. In addition to that the contractors are obliged to keep their hooks open for
the inspection of the officers. Considering the large number of contracts and con-
sidering the fact that the fair wage officers are supplying new schedules for new
contracts that are being awarded up to the present time, their time has been taken
up in the preparation of new schedules and investigating any complaint that may be
made as to the violation of ■ existing schedules; they have not undertaken the work
of going about the country to see that the men are receiving the wages to which they
are entitled. The department has assumed that up to the present time if he was not
getting his fair wages he would make that known to the government through
4— 81
some
116
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
union he may be connected with or through some other source. The department felt
it was not necessary in the enforcement of that clause to go beyond that stage.
Mr. Macdonell. — X am saying I do not believe this law is enforced.
Mr. Smith. — When a man makes a statement to this committee that he believes
a thing is not done, he ought to be able to give some evidence about it that it is not
done.
Mr. Macdonell. — It is only left to the volunteer complaint of somebody else.
The Chairman.- — Our inspectors' do not go about asking the people if they get the
wages they are entitled to.
Mr. Knowles. — The answer seems to be that so far as you know the department
never takes any initiative steps in seeing to the enforcement of it.
The Chairman. — It takes the initiative to this extent, that it prepares the schedule
and has it posted, but if for example a post office is being put up in Moosejaw it does
not send a man out to ask the men if they are getting all the wages they are entitled
to.
Mr. Knowles. — I think there ought to be a penalty, because it is very seldom a
man can break the law and not be subject to a penalty.
The Witness. — My experience has been that workingmen have been very alert
to detect any violation of the scale of wages in government contracts.
Q. So far as you know, have the unions ever made complaint? — A. Unions fre-
quently do. When they find a member of a union, say a carpenter, has not been paid
the rate of wages provided by the schedule, it is some times customary that the secre-
tary of the union takes the case up for him or the business agent of the union com-
municates-this to the department. It does not involve the man who is actually affected.
Q. So far as you know, labour organizations have never expressed an opinion
such as Mr. Macdonell has expressed? — A. No, the very reverse; they are very favour-
able to the fair wage clause.
Q. Do you think, in the opinion of the trade unions, that they regard it as being
well enforced? — A. Yes, I think they do as a rule. Of course we hear complaints
occasionally, but as a rule I think they do.
Mr. Verville. — They have adopted it in Winnipeg.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Is every complaint that comes to the department investigated? — A. Always.
Q. Has every case where it has been proven that the employer did not pay the
standard wages resulted in the difference between what he actually paid and the
standard wage been kept out of his income ?— A. As far as I know always, yes.
Mr. Stanfield. — The Labour Department has something to do with government
employees.
The Chairman. — No, not the direct employees of the government.
Fair Wages Clause Applied to Subsidized Railways.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Does the fair wages clause apply to private work subsidized by the govern-
ment, such as the construction of railways subsidized? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. So it would apply to all railways aided by the government ? — A. Yes, it would
apply to all railways aided by the government.
Q. Does it apply to the Grand Trunk Pacific?— A. Yes, it applies to the Grand
Irunk Pacific. I made a very extensive investigation last summer. A complaint
was received by the department last summer that the labourers on the Grand Trunk
Pacific were not paid the current rate of wages in the locality.
Q. By whom was that sent in?— A. By the Secretary of the Workingmen’s Asso-
ciation of Prince Rupert.
Q. Not by the men? — A. Few of them knew anything about it. I proceeded to
MR. McNIVEN.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
117
APPENDIX No. 4
Prince Eupert and made a complete investigation of the case and found that there
was really no ground for the complaint. I found that on the works there under con-
tract by Messrs. Foley, Welsh & Stewart that they had about 3,000 common labourers
employed. These common labourers were paid at various rates, ranging from $2.50
to $3 a day. I found the average rate of these 3,000 men was about $2.80 a day. I
considered that a fair rate for navvy work. These men were paid an average of
about $2.80 per day, and they paid 75 cents a day for board or $5.25 per week.
By the Chairman:
Q. In that case you did investigate in regard to a number of men who had not
made any complaint at all, because there was a general rumour ? — A. Yes. There was
no complaint made by the men actually at work; they knew nothing of it.
N
How Information is Secured re Schedules Preparation.
Q. There was a general rumour that the men were not paid the current rate of
wages on the Grand Trunk Pacific and the officer was sent out and he spent a
month going into the whole business. I will say that wherever general rumour has
reached the department, so far as I have had anything to do with it as minister, I
have always had the matter looked into and made the subject of an inquiry, but
where there has been no rumour of complaint, no officer has been sent to seek for
trouble. How is information secured on which the fair wages schedules are based? —
A. When I am instructed to prepare a fair wages schedule for any locality, I imme-
diately proceed to the locality, I first get in touch with one or two or three of the pro-
minent contractors, according to the size of the town and get rates of wages from
them. Then I proceed to verify these by workingmen in the various trades, covering
all the trades enumerated. If the trade unions are fairly strong in the locality, I
endeavour to see the secretary or the president or somebody in authority in the trade
unions, and by that means establish the current rate in the locality. If I find there
is much variation in these figures as given by contractors and workingmen, I proceed
to make further inquiries, but if they coincide pretty well, I take it for granted those
are the prevailing rates and also the same method is adopted in regard to the number
of hours.
Q. In what part of Canada do you chiefly travel? — A. In the provinces of On-
tario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
Q. What proportion of your time is thus spent travelling? — A. Six or seven
months per year.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Did I understand you to say that on the letting of every contract you proceed
as you have stated? — A. If I should visit Toronto to-morrow I would get the rates of
wages ; then it would not be necessary for me to go back there in two or three months.
If I should be required to make another schedule for the same locality in two or three
months I would take the same figures.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You are always in touch with changing conditions? — A. We have means of
keeping in touch with any changes that may occur.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Your schedule contains itemizer amounts each workman should get? — A.
That is the rate of wages and number of hours per day ?
Q. The schedule contains those details?— A. Yes. .
Q. Does the notice put up on the building contain these details also?— A. The
notiee is identical with the schedule.
113
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Schedules Furnished in Last Fiscal Year.
Q. Iiow many schedules do you furnish each year? — A. During the last fiscal
year I furnished 118.
Q. For what department were those schedules furnished? — A. The Department
of Public \\ orks, the Department of Railways and Canals, the Department of Marine
and Fisheries and the Department of Militia and Defence.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Do you know whether there were any important contracts carried on by the
department that did not provide for the fair wages? — A. No, I know of none.
Agitation for Shorter Hours.
By the Chairman :
Q. Does any agitation exist, as far as your experience has gone, for shorter hours?
A. Yes, in some localities there is a marked agitation. I find that where trades
unionism is strong, where they are well organized there is a decided agitation for
shorter hours.
Q. How about other trades? Trades that are not organized ?— A. Well, of course
ive ear very little of it. Frequently we meet men who do not belong to any union
w io are in favour of shorter hours, but of course we usually meet the organized bodies,
and m the organized bodies you get a full expression of opinion in a condensed form!
but with the unorganized, who seldom meet together, it is very difficult to get an
opimon of the masses. Here and there you meet men among the unorganized who have
advanced ideas that way and are very much in favour of shorter hours.
Q. Speaking from your knowledge of the working classes generally in Canada, do
you think there is any agitation among them as a body or as a whole ‘in favour of an
eight-hour day? A. Yes, there is a marked agitation, but I’ would not call it a
general organized agitation as yet.
By Mr. Knowles:
d,AIXr«he“ ?hta£rnYef!tiA COl“rabia bef0re ,he? had ****"“
an ,b“ “ 1 *** -* *• *•
Q. I mean, have we any agitation to compare with that agitation? — \ I think
our agitation now may be a little stronger than the agitation that preceded it.
Conditions in British Columbia.
By Mr. Smith:
. Q' You^re ei^ht-hour laws in British Columbia?— A. Yes- that annlv to cvd
•mines, metalliferous mines and smeltens. ’ 1 PPl *
thinlfit^W3 f6 e!gh,|'llOU!' day been brought about in British Columbia?— A. I
think it has been largely brought about as a result of agitation.
motoirf °nduct.ed b^ whom?— A. By organized workmen. The eight-hour law for
metalliferous mines I think was enacted about ten vears a°-0
Q. In 1899?— A. Yes.
"i,b a ^
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 —HOURS OF LABOUR
119
APPENDIX No. 4
Columbia now, especially in the building trades, they are nearly all working an eight-
hour day without any enactment. In Victoria, Vancouver, Nanaimo, Ladysmith and
New Westminster on the coast, and in the interior Rossland, Fernie and Nelson the
building trades are exclusively on the eight-hour basis. The principal cities in the
interior work eight hours almost exclusively.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you think more has been effected by volunteer agitation on the part of
labour organizations than has been effected by legislation or vice versa? — A. I think
the legislation gave them the foundation to work upon, because they had the precedent
of the metalliferous miners getting an eight-hour law.
Q. You said the coal miners had an eight-hour day before they had the legisla-
tion?— A. Yes.
Q. Was that due to organization? — A. Yes, and I think the shorter hour day in
British Columbia was all due to organization.
Q. Taking all the forces at work, would you say that trade unionism was
responsible for shorter hours? — A. Yes.
Q. Are the metalliferous miners and smelter employees more numerous than all
the trades in British Columbia? — A. No, I think not.
Q. So, as a matter of fact, in the trades that have an eight-hour day, the majority
of the men who have an eight-hour day have gained much through the strength of the
unions they belonged to? — A. Through their own strength.
By Mr. Yerville:
Q. Also to the legislation that had been passed? — A. It had beneficial effect.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. And the opinion of the unions affected the legislation? — A. Yes; undoubtedly.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. After the reduction was made was there ever any expression from the labouring
classes against it? — A. No, not that I know of.
By the Chairman:
Q. Are there any factories in British Columbia? — A. Very little in the way of
factory work in British Columbia.
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. What about the canning factories? — A. They employ Orientals.
Q. Does white labour take up the question of shorter hours on behalf of Orientals?
—A. No.
Q. As a result of the eight-hour day in the province, was there any reduction of
wages? — A. Not that I can recall.
Q. With the exception of the metalliferous mines, are you aware of any reduction
of wages? — A. I cannot recall any reduction in wages through the reduction of hours.
Q. So far as the coal miners were concerned, their regulation with regard to
wages and hours was before the law? — A. Yes.
Q. What about the smelters? What were they working before the law? — A. They
were working twelve hours, and after the law they were compelled to work three shifts
of eight hours.
Q. Do the men in the shifts of eight hours receive the same remuneration as they
did when they were working twelve hours? — A. That is something I cannot tell.
Q. Could you find that out for us ? — A. I can.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Have you ever heard any complaint? — A. No. •
Q. As to the reduction of wages? — A. I was a member of the legislature wdien that
120
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. .21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
question was first mooted in British Columbia, and when the first Bill was brought
down. Smelter men, proprietors and managers came down to Victoria in a body to
protest against its passage. They declared at that time that if that law was passed
it meant ruination of the industry.
By the Chairman:
Q. Has it resulted in that? — A. I think not. I think it is just as flourishing now
as then.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Are you speaking of smelters now? — A. Yes.
By the Chairman:
Q. You have a considerable experience of the hours of labour in different locali-
ties.. Do you find the hours vary much between one locality and another? — A. Yes,
considerably.
Q. The hours vary between trades? — A. Yes.
Q. You have seen the Bill introduced by Mr. Verville? — A. Yes.
Q. If that Bill became law so that an eight-hour day would be applicable gener-
ally, what, to your mind, would be the effect of a measure of that kind on the people
concerned in these industries that vary in rates?— A. Take the building trades, the
trades we are most interested in, if that became law it would operate very well in some
localities, but in others I do not know how it would be received.
Q. You have heard the discussion here. Give your views on any of the points
brought up?— A. Of course the main point to be brought out is, would the workingmen
be satisfied to accept eight hours’ pay for eight hours’ work.
Q. Where at present they are working ten hours?— A. Yes, at a rate per hour.
Would they be satisfied to forego two hours’ pay in the day.
Q. What is your view of that?— A. I am sure they would not be satisfied to forego
that, but I believe where trade unionism is concerned, and where they know the method
of trades unionism, they might accept a reduction temporarily, but I do not think it
would be accepted with any intention of having it remain there.
Q. What limit do you think they would be satisfied with? When you say
temporarily, do you mean two months or two years ?— A. I think that would all depend
on their ability to get back to the old rate, whether by force or otherwise.
By Mr. Verville:
. Q- e they ever accepted the wages they are now receiving for ten hours with
entire ^satisfaction with the intention of never asking for more? — A. Ho, I think not.
ft' ^iac^ Vilify to get back to the old rate, why don’t they exercise it
now ?— A. They would have something definite to work for. A man working ten hours,
if he was deprived of two hours’ pay per day would put forth great efforts to regain
the two hours pay.
Q. In what manner would he put forth that effort?— A. Agitation.
Q. Would he go on strike? — A. He might.
The Eight-hour Union Law re Stone Cutters and Printers.
By Mr. Macdonell:
By Mr. Knowles:
ill ouiiic localities, OUT ± think that would be
MR. McNIVEN.
an isolated case; the
121
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
/
APPENDIX No. 4
stonecutters now are prevented by their international law from working more than
eight hours. I think I am speaking correctly when I say that those belonging to a
union are governed now by an eight-hour law.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Through their union ? — A. Through their union the same as a printer is. All
union printers are governed by an eight-hour union law.
Mr. Macdonell. I do not think the workman would be satisfied to take less
pay per day even if it was temporarily unless there -was some guarantee that he would
return to his old rate.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. According to your experience about reduction of hours, is it not your opinion
that they always expect the same pay for whatever reduction is made? — A. Undoubt-
edly they do. The average working man will tell you that he is only getting a living
wage and that he cannot afford to take anj'thing less.
By the Chairman:
Q. You say you think if the hours were reduced in this way they would try to
recover the old wages, and they would do it by agitation and strike if necessary? — A.
I have no doubt they would.
Q. Is it your idea that if this went into force it would probably lead to strikes? —
A. I do not think it would create much friction along that line.
Q. You say if men were reduced from ten to eight hours and only secured eight
hours’ pay for that day, that they would begin immediately to obtain the ten-hour rate
and in the course of that agitation they would probably use the strike as a weapon
to secure that end? — A. If they forfeited the two hours’ pay they would resort to any
available means to get it back.
Q. That is an important point to bring out? — A. The Typographical unions have
enacted an eight-hour law ; that is the union law that no printer or member of the
Typographical Union can work longer than eight hours a day.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. All the unions have not got four million dollars to spend?— A. That agitation
cost the Typographical Union between three and four million dollars.
By the Chairman:
Q. In what? Strike funds?— A. In strike benefits to members out on strike.
Q. What hours were the printers working before?— A. Principally nine.
Q. When the union decided that the eight-hour day should be established in the
printing trades, did any of the members concede the same amount of pay for the eight-
hour day? — A. Yes.
Q. How many? — A. I think all of them.
Q. What brought about the strike? — A. Refusal on the part of the proprietors
to concede an eight-hour day.
Q. When they got the hours conceded, were the two questions united? — A. As
far as I can recall. I don’t know of any case where they lost anything in their pay
by the reduction of hours. There may have been some cases, of course.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Is the printer paid by the hour?— A. Usually he is.
Q. Was it not part of the agitation that the schedule per hour should be increased
in proportion to the decrease in work? When they agitated to have an eight-hour
day they provided in the agitation that the wages per hour should be increased so that
they would have the same money? — A. Or the wages per day would not be disturbed,
yes.
122
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. V erville :
Q. What means have the labour people at their disposal now to increase their
wages or shorten the hours? — A. Only through organization.
Productivity of Eight antd Tex Hours Compared.
By Mr. Staples:
Q. What is your opinion as regards the quantity of work? Will they do as much
work in eight hours as in ten? — A. I think in some industries or trades they may;
in others they will not. If a man is working in a bad atmosphere, at a high rate of
speed, he will do as much in eight hours as in ten.
Q. Is that your own opinion? — A. That is simply my own opinion.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. And experience? — A. Yes.
By the Chairman :
Q. What about the building trades ? — A. I think in some lines of building trades
the same will obtain. He is working out in the fresh air, and I think longer hours
are not so detrimental to him as to men inside.
Q. Particularly the printer? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you think he can do as much in eight hours as he can in nine? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Taking the whole thing together, you do not think the general output would
be reduced on account of the reduction of hours? — A. Ho.
By the Chairman:
Q. Coming to the building trades, do you hold the same view? — A. Ho, I would
make certain exceptions. A stonecutter, I think, would do as much work in eight
hours as in ten.
Q. What about the carpenter ? — A. I would not like to say the same regarding
the carpenter. I think this, that while a man may not be able to do as much in eight
hours as in ten, that a good workman, a man iwho takes an interest in his work, can
do more in eight hours, in proportion to the number of hours, than he would in ten.
I hat is. I believe he can speed himself up to acquire the same result almost in eight
hours that he could in ten.
Q. What about work in the factory? Do you think the same amount could be
turned out in a factory in eight hours as in ten? — A. Well, I have not had so much
experience in factory work, but I have been in factories where I would not like to be
steadily employed in for more than eight hours per day.
Q. In the factories where there is a great deal of machinery you have power,
steam, &c., as opposed to individual strength. In a case where they are attending looms
or spindles worked by machinery, do you think it would lead to an increased productive
power per hour? A. Hot in cases of machinery. Where machinery is running at a
certain speed the output is fixed. If you work twelve hours you can produce more than
you can in ten hours.
By Mr. V erville:
Q. Is it not a fact that machinery has to be attended to by some one, and through
the exertion which such person would be required to exercise during the day he could
do much more in a shorter time than he could in a longer time? — A. The machine is
fixed for a certain speed. The attendant must keep up with his machine.
MR. McNIVEN.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF L1B0UR 123
APPENDiX No. 4
Q. I do not mean for a day; the amount of work he can produce with a machine
tor ten hours taking- year in and year out and comparing that with the following
year, do you think he could turn out as much the following year with a shorter day?—
A. 1 believe he will, if he attends to his work and speeds himself up to it. I believe a
man can speed himself up to do as much work in eight hours as he can in ten, in anv
occupation.
Q. If he speeds himself up, is he likely to do it?— A. I think he would be required
to do it.
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. A lot of this machinery starts at seven and runs on till six o’clock, never stops.
How are you going to get as much work out in eight hours as in ten? — A. If the at-
tendant is there he has to keep up with the machine.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. The machine has to be fed ? — A. If the person is required to keep a machine in
running order, he has to look after it day m and dav out.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Fiom your experience in British Columbia, in your own province, does it take
any longer now to put up a building working eight hours as it used to working ten ? —
A. I do not think so. It does not seem to.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you think, for instance, to-morrow, if this law went into operation, where
men are working now eight and nine or ten hours, do you think it would take anv
longer than at present.— A. I do not think it would be noticeable.
. Q’ ^ou mean to say, taking a locality like Sydney or Inverness, where the work-
ingmen are working ten hours a day? — A. Yes.
Q. If this law should go into force, with regard to working eight hours a day
to-morrow, and the government were putting a post office up at Inverness, do you think
it would take any longer to put up with an eight-hour day than it would with a ten.
assuming they are working exactly as they are working now at so much per hour?— A.
I think it would.
Q. It would take longer? — A. Yes, and it would cost more.
Q-. Take in the case of Sydney, where they are working nine hours per dav.
Assuming the government was putting up a public building there, a wharf or some-
thing and the requirement was eight hours instead of nine, would it take longer to
build that public building? — A. It might take a trifle longer.
Q. Do you think it would take the equivalerft of the difference longer? A. Ho.
Q- Why not ? — A. Because a man can do more in the first half of the day than he
can in the last half. I would say his last hour is not as good as his first.
By Mr Knowles:
Q. In laying bricks do they really find they lay less in the last hours than they do
m the first hours? — A. I could not give you any authority for that statement. It is
simply an opinion of my own.
Mr. Verville. — There is a regulation in the contract as to the number that must
be laid per hour. It is a well known fact that they lay more now in eight hours than
they do in ten.
I would like to have the committee send a communication to the Manufacturers’
Association and we will probably decide on getting a few of those regulations.
124
COMMITTEE RE BILL Mo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
The Chairman. — Mr. Macdonell spoke about having Mr. Armstrong of Toronto,
and Mr. Guyon, factory inspector of Quebec, here.
Mr. Verville. — Would you like to have Mr. McNiven answer any further ques-
tions?
Mr. Macdonell. — Has he a statement to put in?
The Chairman. — I think he might come back. There are one or two questions
we might like to ask him further, and the secretary will instruct Mr. Armstrong and
Mr. Guyon to be present.
Mr. Macdonell. — I think they had better he subpoenaed. These men are in the
employ of other parties.
The Chairman. — Then it would be necessary to make a motion that we do subpoena
them.
Mr. Smith. — I move they be subpoenaed.
Mr. Macdonell. — I second that.
The Committee adjourned.
House of Commons,
Committee Room No. 34,
Wednesday, March 2, 1910.
The committee met at eleven o’clock, a.m., the Chairman, Hon. Mr. King, presid-
ing.
The Chairman. — We are fortunate in having with us this morning Mr. John
Armstrong of Toronto, and Mr. Guyon of Quebec. I hope we will be able to take their
evidence to-day. In the meantime Mr. McNiven, Fair Wages Officer, who was exam-
ined at the last meeting, hais again attended in case there are any questions to be put
to him before his examination is concluded.
The Half Holiday.
The examination of Mr. McNiven resumed.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. I would like to ask you what has been your experience in cities that have
adopted the half-holiday? Are the workmen who enjoy that holiday working eight,
nine or ten hours mostly? — A. Well throughout the principal cities in Canada the
Saturday afternoon holiday prevails very largely, and to a larger extent among those
who work the shorter workday, that is work eight hours per day. As a rule they work
44 hours per week; eight hours a day for five days in the week, and four hours on
Saturday. Those working nine hours largely take the Saturday afternoon making a
50-hour week instead of 54. Those working ten hours a day are usually unorganized
and it is very difficult to find out, or to get accurate information concerning them, but
I find that very few of them have the Saturday afternoon holiday, although] they may
have one hour or two hours shorter on Saturday; that is the ten-hour workmen.
By the Chairman:
Q. Does that apply to factory work as well as to trades, so to speak? — A. Well,
there is very little eight-hour work done in factories, I believe. I know of very little
in factory work, it is principally nine and ten hours.
Q. How do you account for the fact that they have the Saturday half holiday in
the trades but not in the factories? — A. I account for it in the fact that the trades
are better organized. I believe it is entirely through organization.
ME. McNIVEN.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
125
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Is it to your knowledge that some of the factories close early in the afternoon
in some places? — A. Well, I believe it is the fact, I believe there is a shorter day on
Saturday.
By the Chairman:
Q. In the summer? — A. Particularly in the summer.
By Mr. luacdonell:
Q. Who suffers that loss of time? — A. As a rule the workmen lose it. They are
paid by the hour and for a short four-hour day on Saturday they are only paid for four
hours.
Climatic Conditions, Effect on Operations.
By the Chairman:
Q. To what extent do seasonal conditions affect the desirability of a short hour
system in your opinion? — A. Well, I cannot see that it would have very much effect.
Q. Take for example this city, although we have not found it so this winter. But
we frequently have a fairly rough winter so that outdoor employment cannot be carried
on to any extent. Would that affect the question of an eight- hour day in the building
trades here as compared with, say, Victoria or Vancouver, where they carry on the
outdoor work all the year round? — A. They do carry it on to a limited extent. Of
course in British Columbia, they work a month longer, but the rainy season there
prevents outdoor work to a very large extent. Where they work nine months here they
may work ten months there, but I think ten months out-door work would be the limit.
Q. You think the fact that there is one month less of out-door work here is an
element that ought to be considered _in framing an eight-hour Bill of general applica-
tion to the whole Dominion? — A. Well, it might be, but when you consider the work-
ingman’s point of view— from the workingman’s point of view now — the trades that are
most affected by seasonal conditions are the trades that are now working the short
hours such as bricklayers and stonecutters. These are the branches of the building
trades that now work the shortest hours and are mostly affected by seasonal con-
ditions.
*
Immediate and Ultimate Effects of an Eight-hour-Day Law.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. How does the eight-hour day benefit the workingman if he is only paid for the
time he works, that is during week-days he gets paid for eight hours a day and on
Saturdays for only four hours a day? Under such circumstances wherein is the
advantage to him of this eight-hour day? He loses the time during which he is not
working, is that not so?— A. Yes, I do not see that it would be any particular advan-
tage to a man who is now working eight hours a day.
Q. The whole principle of this Bill is to extend the eight-hour day? — A. Yes.
Q. Then I do not just see how it benefits the workman if he is to be at the loss
of the shortening of time.
The Chairman. — In consequence of the shortening of the time.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. If in consequence of the shortening of the time he gets less wages. — A. I do
not think that a man working ten hours now would be satisfied to accept a reduction
of two hours’ pay a day.
Q. Your idea is^that time will straighten the matter out? — A. Ultimately, I
think so.
Mr. Macdonell. — So that ultimately he will get as much for eight hours as ten.
126
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By the Chairman:
Q. You say that a man working ten hours now would not be satisfied to accept a
reduction of two hours a day. Is your idea then that the immediate effect of this
law, if it were enacted generally would be to create some friction and discontent? —
A. Well, it might create some friction in some cases, but I hardly look for that kind
of thing for the reason that the men whom it would affect are unorganized and it
is hard to obtain an expression of opinion or to get unorganized men to act unitedly
on any question.
Q. There would be no concerted demonstration, but each individual who composed
that unorganized group, would he or would he not feel that he had a grievance? If
anybody said to him: ‘Now we are going to let you work only eight hours a day
although you have been accustomed to work ten, and you can only expect eight hours’
wages in consequence,' how would he feel — A. Well, I think he might imagine that
he had a grievance if his weekly pay remained the same.
Q. Would he not have a grievance? — A. Well he might have a grievance but he
would settle it with his employer.
Q. Supposing the government were to cut down your hours of labour and knock
off about one-eighth of your salary, would you think you had a grievance or not? —
A. Well, if I thought I was working too much or too long and injuring my health in
doing so, I would not consider I had a grievance; but if I were not overworked and
confined to a limited number of hours, I might think I had a grievance, yes.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. What you would prefer would be doing the work at longer hours for more pay?
— A. I would, in a case of that kind.
By the Chairman :
Q. T ou put it as a question of health? — A. And enjoyment of course. Every man
is entitled to a certain amount of leisure for enjoyment, recreation, education and
the bettering of his condition.
Q. Do you think all men use the spare time they have in a profitable way?—
A. I would not say all men, but I believe the great majority of them do. I believe
they use it to advantage.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Is it not a fact that the men working the shortest hours are the best educated?
— A. I believe so.
Q. Is it not a fact, if you compare one family with another and scrutinize them
carefully that the men working shorter hours have better homes, more happiness and
drmk less? — A. As a rule that is a fact.
Q. There must be a reason for that? — A. Yes.
By the Chairman:
Q. Is it because they have shorter hours they are better educated, or is it be-
cause they are better educated they have got shorter hours; which is the cause?
A. Education leads to the demand for shorter hours, and the better educated a man
becomes, I believe the more demands he will make.
Q. In a general way what is your opinion, as to the moral and physical effect on
the individual, of a shorter working day?— A. I think it has a very beneficial effect
on the individual, morally, intellectually and physically— in fact in every way. If
we refer to countries outside, I mean to Britain or the Australian Commonwealth
where they have eight hours a day, I think you will find a higher standard of citizen-
ship and a better class of workmen in those countries than you will find in the lono-
hour countries; and I think if we had an eight-hour day established throughout Can-
ada that, in the course of a short while, we would have a better class of workmen and a
better class of citizens, morally, physically and in every way better
MR. McNIVEN.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
127
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. That is if all men worked less? — A. If all men worked less. I believe men
would use their leisure time to bettering their condition and making better workmen
of themselves.
The Desirability of a Shorter Day.
By the Chairman:
Q. I think you are right. Have you as a result of your investigating the condi-
tions of workingmen in different industries formed any conclusions as to the desirabil-
ity of a shorter day ? I mean to say you have been brought into contact with each of the
industries of this country. How from what you have seen, and from first hand know-
ledge, have you framed any ideas definitely or convictions as to the desirability of
shortening the hours of labour in the cases you have come into contact with?— A. I
think that if I understand you correctly that in the building trades
Q\ Taking the building trades, you come into contact with them?— A. Mostly
the building trades.
Q. As a result of what you have seen of conditions in the building trades where
they are working ten hours or nine hours a day, do you think there are as strong
reasons why the change should be made to eight, in the interest of the workers?— A.
Yes, I think that ten hours a day is too long, and I think that is the general pre-
vailing opinion among those that work long hours.
Q. Have you seen the evidence of the fact of its being too long; has this fact
shown itself m any adverse way on the workers?— A. I find in going among the men
who work ten hours that their rate of pay per hour is less than that of the man who
works eight or nine hours, therefore their standard of living is lower.
Q. Take those men and cut down their wages as well as their hours, and the con-
ditions would be worse still?— A. The average workingman to-day is of opinion that
he cannot live and maintain himself decently and respectably on any less wages than
he is at present receiving. If you cut two hours off his pay he must degenerate to a
certain extent, his standard of living must go down, and that I do not think any one
of them will voluntarily agree to.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. In what way, what trade are you speaking of now? — A. I am speaking of the
building trades or unskilled workmen generally.
By the Chairman:
Q. How are you going to meet that difficulty? That is the thought in my mind
— A. That is rather a difficult problem to solve.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. How will the difficulty be met, by an increase of wages ? Mr. Macdonell says
he would like to know how the lessening in wages was made up to those people who
were not satisfied with what they were receiving per hour. — A. How was the increase
secured ?
Q1. Yes, how was it secured? — A. Well it was secured through organization alto-
gether. Now in the city of Toronto (where the building trades now work eight hours
a day, that eight hours, I am told, was secured in all cases practically without a
strike, by voluntary agreement between employers and workmen.
Q. Have you ever known of anybody who was willing to increase the wages of
their men without being asked for it? — A. No, I cannot recall any case.
Q. I do not think you can. — A. No I cannot recall any case.
Mr. Verville. — No, nor anybody else.
128
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Mr. Macdonell. — One difficulty is this : In the great ranks of labour they work
nine, ten and twelve hours a day in factories and workshops of all kinds. Well these
men get a fair wage say for the time they work and they think that if their hours are
lessened that their pay will be lessened in proportion. I do not find men voluntarily
offering to reduce the hours of labour to their employees and maintaining the same
rate of pay per day. That does not happen.
Mr. Verville. — But there is nothing in the Bill with respect to that.
Mr. Macdonell. — That is quite right, but you were speaking of the fact that
workmen do not voluntarily reduce their wages. I find they do not either and em-
ployers do not voluntarily decrease the hours of labour. How you are going to
meet this difficulty of reducing hours of labour without reducing the rates of pay is
something I would like to know.
Mr. Verville. — Leave it to the men themselves.
The Witness. — Of course it is a very difficult question for anybody to state de-
finitely what would result from it. I believe that such a condition would settle itself
in the course of a short time. There might be dissatisfaction at the reduction of
hours and the consequent reduction of pay, but I think the conditions would settle
themselves in a very short time.
By the Chairman:
Q. If in presenting a measure to parliament such as is proposed here to reduce the
hours of labour to eight in all the building trades engaged on government contracts it
were stated that the wages in all cases were to amount to as much per day as they do
at the present time, would a measure of that kind give rise to any discontent or would
it be welcomed by the working classes? — A. If the rate per day would remain the same?
Q. Yes. A. I think that would be welcomed generally.
Q. Take another case; supposing a Bill were introduced reducing the hours of
labour ,to eight and it was distinctly stated, or understood, that the wages would be
reduced pro rata where the hours are at present longer, would a measure of that kind
be welcomed or would it create dissatisfaction? — A. I think it would create dissatis-
faction among those whom it would deprive of any amount of money.
Q. They are the only ones it would affect? — A. Yes.
Mr. Staples. — You cannot suggest a stationary wage. The wage may rise or fall
in periods of prosperity or depression, but if you state the wage shall remain as it is
to-day, how are you going to govern it ?
The Chairman. — I mean by that, if you have a ten-hour day the men are paid bv
the hour and it is easy to figure out what the wages for ten hours would be. Whether
the wages are for 20, 30 or 40 hours, they are on an hour basis and you take the num-
ber of hours per day.
Mr. Staples.- — Always governed by existing conditions?
The Chairman. — Yes.
The Witness. — Of course I think that in the building trades with the ten-hour
system, those working ten hours are very largely in the minority as a class.
Feasibility of an Eight-hour Day in Factory Work.
By the Chairman:
Q. One other question : do you think it will be possible for the government to en-
force a regulation requiring all men engaged on any work for government purposes,
whether work in connection with the discharging of a contract or otherwise, to work
eight hours; would it be possible to enforce a regulation of that kind? — A. Well coming
to factory work it would be difficult. On outside work, on buildings, it would be very
simple to do that.
Q. On factory work it would be difficult? Would it be possible on all classes of
factory work? — A. I think it would he possible to go to a limited extent in regard to
factory work.
MR. McNIVEN.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
129
APPENDIX No. 4
Q; IIow far? — A. Take, for instance, if the government let a contract for the supply
of militia clothing. I think it might apply as far as the manufacture of that clothing
was concerned, but to go back beyond that I think it would be very difficult.
Q. Take an illustration. Among the leather workers in this city they have recently
had a strike. Supposing the government were having some saddles made by one of
these factories where they manufacture saddles by the thousand, say the government
gave an order for 100 or 200 saddles, would it be possible in a case like that for the
hands on the government contract to work only eight hours while the others worked
nine hours a day ? — A. Yes, I think it would be possible. I* think it would also create
some dissatisfaction among those not engaged on government work provided the
pay was the same.
Hr. Staples. — A es, but in a factory of the kind spoken of they would not set aside
the government’s order for two hundred saddles and manufacture those. They would
naturally go on in their usual course with other saddles numbering probably a thousand
or five thousand.
Government Contracts in Factories.
By the Chairman:
Q. How would they distinguish the government’s order from the general order?
My present view is that it is impossible and I would like to be shown that I am mistaken
in regard to that. — A. Of course in regard to government work now the Militia Depart-
ment and the Post Office Department require stated rates of wages to be paid to
mechanics employed on contracts for supplies. If a contract were let for 100 saddles
and say the Carson company of Ottawa got it they would be required to pay the stated
rate of wages on that contract. The hours of labour of the workmen would be the pre-
vailing hours of the locality.
Q. Under this Bill so far as government work is concerned the men must only
work eight hours no matter what conditions are in the factory or the locality. Assum-
ing the conditions as they are would it be possible — if possible I think it would be
desirable in many respects — to carry it out. A. I think it would be possible. I believe
it would disarrange the existing conditions in the factory to some extent, but I think it
would be possible.
Q. How would you enforce it, how would you go about it? — A. Well, of course it
would depend very largely,; the enforcement of it, upon the workmen engaged.
Q. How would the workman know whether he was engaged on government work?
— A. I believe there are very few of these contracts that the workmen do not know
exactly what work they are on.
Q. Take the case of this leather business, how would a man know who was making
saddles, or parts of saddles, when he struck the government order? — A. Well I think
he has a pretty good idea and in giving orders for supplies
Q. Would he know that the government had given that order in all cases? — A.
Well, I do not know that he would unless, of course
Q. Take Poison’s Iron Works, Toronto, for example, when they are turning out
particular products would the workmen have an idea that certain of these are put out
say for government work and certain others for private work? — A. Even now a sched-
ule is required to be posted even in a factory and that schedule covers a certain con-
tract. Well all the workmen in that factory know that this contract is being executed
and therefore
Q. For the reason that a statement is required from the head of the concern as
to the wages paid to the men and it may, be the wage they are getting for all the work
they are doing? — A. Yes.
Q. And of course if government work comes under that category that is all right.
Now, if you bring in a new feature and make a change in hours say, the minute you
4—9
130
COMMITTEE RE BILL i\o. zi — n uv kb up la bulk
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
touch government work you have to work a shorter number of hours on that than on the
other work?— A. It would be difficult.
Q. That is the point. We have got a measure before us which proposes going the
length of saying that eight hours shall he made compulsory on that kind of work
whether there is any relationship one way or the other — to government contracts as
I understand it. I think that in some respects that measure is impracticable, it is not
workable. I think up to a certain point it is and I want to see just how far it is prac-
ticable.
By Mr. Prowse:
Q. Supposing some men are getting as much pay as the others and the others
are working longer hours ? — A. It would not be satisfactory, I must admit that much.
Mr. Verville. — How would you apply the fair wages clause, for example in the
Poison Works?
The Chairman. — In the case for instance, of orders for post office supplies, the
firm in tendering has to make a statement of the rate of wages paid to their em-
ployees engaged on that class of work. Then those rates are examined and if they
are not fair the tender of that firm is not considered unless it will submit a different
rate. ou see that is the rate applicable to employees on that kind of work whether
they are on government work or not. And then a declaration is required that the
current rate of wages has been paid. In that case it is not necessary to distinguish
between government work and other work because the same rate of wages applies to
all the work in the factory. But once you introduce the eight-hour system and make
it applicable only to government work you bring in a new feature.
Mr. Verville. — That is the way I interpret the Bill.
I be Chairman. I am open to conviction and I want to be convinced on the
point if I can.
Mr. Verville. If I understand you. Mr. Chairman, your contention is that the
Bill if it became law, would apply only to the work done for the government but not
to the balance of the work performed in the factory. Is that it?
I he Chairman. My idea is that a Bill such as you have introduced would be
absolutely workable— leaving out the question of the advisability of it altogether and
considering just simply the enforcement and the workability of it— so far as prac-
tically everj public building is concerned like a post office, custom house, or anything
of that kind' where you have dne piece of work and it is perfectly evident that that
work is being done for the government. In such a case I think you can make any
regulations you like and hope to have them carried out; but if you go beyond that
and say ‘ We propose to carry these regulations further into private businesses,’ which
may be doing government work in part only— not perhaps this year doing any-
thing for the government and during the next ten years doing nothing for the gov-
ernment, but one day getting an order for a certain specific amount of materials or
something like that and it is hoped to enforce the eight hour regulation on that
business and with that condition I do not think it would be possible, and I think you
would sacrifice the first part of the measure by introducing that other feature.
Mr. Macdonell. — Unless you can separate the work.
The Chairman. — Yes.
Ten-hour Factory re Eight-hour Government Contracts.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. How would you separate that?— A. It would be very difficult to separate fac-
tory work.
Q. Supposing the factory is running on a ten-hour basis ordinarily and normally
and that is satisfactory to everybody, and government work is undertaken upon which
ME. McNIVEN.
COMMITTEE RE bill No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
131
APPENDIX No. 4
the hours of labour would be restricted to eight, how could that work be separated
from the other ( I would like to see in what way the measure could be made work-
able? A. In some instances it could be separated. Of course a contractor tender-
ing on government work would have to adopt eight hours a day and he would be re-
quired to fix the rate of wages he would pay on that basis.
Q. lie would have to reduce his shop to an eight-hour a day shop? — A. Hot ne-
cessarily. He would have to pay the men engaged on this particular work at an ad-
vanced rate.
Q. My mind is the same as the chairman’s. I would like to be able to follow
the effect of the Bill. How can you follow the work that is particularly government
work? For instance take the Poisons where they are making thousands of nuts,
bolts and screws for their miscellaneous work and some of them are being used on the
government work. How can you separate those particular pieces of work from the
ordinary work of the factory? — A. I might give you an example of a recent investi-
gation I made at Regina where a contractor there had a contract for putting interior
fittings in the Custom House, and a complaint was received by the Department of
Labour that this contractor was not paying the current rate of wages to the joiners
and carpenters. I went to Regina and I found out by inquiry and investigation that
he was paying 3 cents per hour less than the current rate of wages to the joiners en-
gaged in the work. I reported back to the department these facts and recommended
that the contractor be required to pay the workmen the extra 3 cents per hour with
the result that this contractor agreed to keep an accurate account of the time of the
men engaged on that particular work and when the work was completed he was to
pay them the extra 3 cents per hour.
By the Chairman:
Q. That was quite simple, because you had a concrete piece of work which you
could examine and see that all of it was distinctly government work, and that the
group of men who were engaged on it were paid the correct wage. What was the
nature of the fittings they were putting in? — A. Well, tables, office desks, &c.
Q. Well, let us take the tables. Mr. Yerville’s Bill, if I read it rightly, would go
so far as to say that a man working on the tables, turning the leg of that table on a
lathe would have to work 8 hours only, even if the whole shop were on a ten-hour
basis. How would the man know when he struck the leg for the government table?
— A. That would be difficult.
Q. I think it would be impossible, he would not know it, it is absolutely im-
possible in some cases for him to distinguish? — A. In some cases it would be, yes.
Q. I think it would work up to a certain point. I think one of the main objects
of this committee should be to endeavour to discover if possible the line up to which
the regulation might go in order that we may be able to achieve something.
Mr. Macdonell. — In order to make an effective measure and an acceptable meas-
ure, I must say it seems to me there is a great deal of difficulty and I would like to
have it made simpler than it is. To my mind, the difficulty is great in applying
the measure to work done in a miscellaneous manufacturing business unless you
reduce the whole factory to an eight-hour basis. For instance, you start to apply the
Bill to any kind of industry you like to select; the fireman, the machinists, the oilers
and men of that kind get there in the morning and start in for a ten-hour day, and
supposing that a piece of government work comes in, under this Bill work on that
particular contract would have to stop after eight hours; supposing you can separate
and do separate the government work from the other work that is being done in
the factory at the time and the factory goes on for another hour or two hours or for
another minute or two minutes; these men who are working, say in the engine room,
the engineers, who have worked for 8 hours in their engine room on the government
work, that is assuming you put the first eight hours of the day on that work. — If the
4-9J
132
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
■€
; 9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
manufacturer goes on and works those men another five minutes after they have
worked 8 hours on the government work, then he is working them more than 8 hours
a day, and it seems to me the measure would prevent that being done ? — A. Yes.
Q. Is there a way out of that, I am waiting and anxious to see if there is not
some way in which it could be simplified beyond shutting down, but I do not see how
you are going to do it; it may be desirable to shut down, I am not saying whether
it would or would not, I am not taking a position one way or the other, but I do not
see any reasonable way in which it could be worked.
Federal and Provincial Jurisdiction re Hours of Labour.
i '3^ By the Chairman:
Q. Do you know anything about the jurisdiction of the different governments in
the matter of the regulation of the hours of labour? Do you happen to know whether
the Dominion Government has power to pass a general eight-hour law, or whether
the hours of labour in factories and shops are regulated by the provinces ?— A. I am
inclined to think they are regulated by the Provincial Governments.
Q. You were a member of a Provincial Legislature? — A. Yes.
Q. And you think the Provincial Government have the power to enact an eight-
hour law? — A. Yes, I am inclined to think so.
Q. And the Dominion Government has not that power, is not that the fact? —
A. Yes, I am inclined to think so.
Q. And it is only over a limited area that the Dominion Government has juris-
diction?— A. Yes.
Q. I think we all agree that the Dominion Government has no power to fix the
hours of labour in the matter of industrial employment, generally; any legislation
which fixes the hours of labour generally must be enacted by the province in order to
be effective. — A. Yes, I think it would be, that is my own opinion.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. They have legislation already in some of the provinces, haven’t they? —
A. Yes.
Q. Could it not be worked out this way: supposing you permit a man after
working 8 hours on a government contract to work for any longer period if he choose
to do so, on other work ; would that meet the difficulty I have pointed out, say, of a
man running the engine room, to begin at the initial movement of the factory itself;
how would it work out if provision were made that the workmen should work 8 hours
on the government work and no more, but that after or before the time he did the
8 hours on the government work he should be permitted to work any additional time
he chose to for the contractor. Would that be desirable or would it be possible?—
A. I do not think that would better the condition of the workingman; no, I do not
think that would benefit him in any way.
Q. It would give him the option that if he chose to work a longer period than, 8
hours and get more money for it he could do so.
By the Chairman:
Q- There is another question I would like to ask: If the province were to enact
an eight-hour law in regard to an industry, so far as that industry is concerned it
would remove all difficulty in regard to the Dominion Government contracts, would it
not? — A. Yes.
Q. And that would be an effective way of meeting the situation? — A. Yes, it
certainly would.
Q- that extent would it meet the situation? — A. Any law passed in that way
would certainly be of assistance.
Q. And in the absence of legislation by the provinces the most that the Dominion
Government can do is to make regulations in regard to its own work? A T think so
Witness discharged. ‘ ’
MR. McNIVEN.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
133
APPENDIX No. 4
Mr. John Armstrong, Toronto, called, sworn and examined.
Duties and Experience.
By the Chairman:
Q. What position do you hold, Mr. Armstrong? — A. I have been for the last three
years — since last October I am Chief of the Bureau of Labour of the Ontario Govern-
ment.
The Chairman. — Mr. Macdonell, I think you asked that Mr. Armstrong should be
called, perhaps you had better conduct his examination.
Mr. Macdonell. — You might lay the foundation, as you have with the other wit-
nesses, as to his profession and knowledge of labour conditions.
By the Chairman:
Q. What is the nature of your duties in the position you now occupy ? — A. I col-
lect statistics from the manufacturers, from the town and township clerks, and from
organized labour, and I am called in to settle trade disputes and when I am requested
to give my advice I do it; I attend to all correspondence in regard to the labour laws
of Ontario; I have had a very large volume of correspondence from Europe lately, and
the increase in the number of schedules also increases the volume of correspondence.
Every state in the United States and South America and all over Europe have Bureaus
of Labour.
Q. So you are brought into first hand contact with both the employers andj the
employees with regard to industrial conditions? — A. Yes.
Q. Would you state to the Committee what your qualifications were for the posi-
tion you now occupy, what experience have you had as a workman ? — A. I have had an
active experience — I am still a member of my union, the Typographical Union, and I
was corresponding secretary of the International Typographical Union at the age of
22 ; I was President of that body at the age of 24, in the year 1879, at Washington ; I
assisted in organizing the Dominion Trades Congress many years ago, and I assisted
in organizing the Trades and Labour- Council of Toronto. I have taken a very active
part in social ideas and in the organization of mv fellow workmen and I have also
tried to encourage a good feeling between the employers and the employees for thirty
years, that is outside of the position I occupy now.
Q. Were you not a member of a Commission appointed by the Federal Govern-
ment at one time? — A. I was a member of the Boyal Labour Commission appointed
by this government.
Q. Appointed to deal with questions of capital and labour? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember what year that was ?— A. I think it was in 1886 or 1887 ; the
reports are in your Library here, I think the Commission was appointed in 1886 or
1887 and we came to Ottawa the following year and made our report; the evidence
was printed the following winter.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Was the late Mr. E. E. Clarke a member of that Commission? — A. No.
Q. I thought he was?
The Chairman. — I do not think he -was a member but he had something to do with
its appointment; there were quite a large number of representatives on it.
A. Both capital and labour were well represented on it.
Four Labour Bureaus in Ontario.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you travel about much in connection with your duties? — A. Sometimes. I
attended the Convention of the United Bureaus at Eochester, and I think Mr. Coates
was also there as representative of the Dominion Government.
134
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Do you in gathering information for your Department, have occasion to visit
the different localities in the Province of Ontario? — A. Not for the purpose of gather-
mg information but I go there on other matters. We have four Bureaus, one at Lon-
don, one at Berlin, one at Hamilton and1 one at Ottawa. Sometimes I go around and
visit them.
Q. What do they do; what is their work?— A. Their work is to make a record of
the unemployed, and another record is kept of the names of employers of labour who
are m quest of help. Any one can go there and ascertain where employment can he ob-
tained, and it is free which I think is a great blessing, for some of those employment
agencies in Toronto, where they are very bad, sometimes fleece a poor servant girl out
of the last dollar she has when she is looking for work.
Q. Have you seen this Bill of Mr. Verville’s?- — A. Yes, I have read it over.
Q. Have you considered this question of shortening the hours of labour? — A. I
have, sir.
Q. What are your views with regard to it, in a general way? — A. I think that all
governments and all corporations who are representatives of the people should be the
most exemplary employers, and should, in that respect, show an example to the indivi-
dual contractor and employer by both advancing the wages and shortening the hours.
Q. All corporations representative of the people, you say? — A. Yes, such as the
city corporations and the public school boards.
Q. You feel they should all set an example? — A. Most decidedly.
Q. What example would you have them set? — A. I would Lave them set an ex-
ample by shortening the hours under the prevailing number of hours that the trade
generally seeks for, and also that they should give an increase in the matter of wages.
In many instances that is done in the T nited States now. I know that the Washington
government has done it for years in connection with the printing bureau to my certain
knowledge.
Q. Where the trade is working 8 hours a day, would 570u have the government
shorten it down to 6? — A. Some statisticians have computed that if the working class
of humanity in the whole world would work for seven hours a day they coidd supply
all the products necessary for humanity in that seven hours per day.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. If the lazy fellows would all work? — A. And the non-producers.
Printers'’ Eight-hour Union Law.
By the Chairman :
Q. In so far as your observation goes is there any agitation for an eight-hour day
among the workers in Ontario? — A. Yes, much more than for an advance of wages.
Take the printing business, my own trade, they could have got on the other side a
large advance of wages, but they did not want it, they wanted 8 hours; they spent
two years in 1r\ ing to conciliate the Masters’ Association, and every time our repre-
sentatives went to see them the employers unfortunately thought it was a sign of weak-
ening on their part and they exhausted themselves, for two years. The printers— I
think it was five years this coming summer— at their annual convention in Toronto
passed a resolution, ‘ That we sell eight hours of our time to our employers and do what
we please with the other sixteen hours.’ They fought for two years for that and they
won out; and when it was won on the other side eight hours prevailed all over Canada
and we got it without a struggle, and in many cases with an increase of $1 or 75
cen s a week besides. Of course m Toronto it was a book and job end difficulty, they
made an arrangement for 8 years or 5 years, by which they get an advance every
year, even in the face of the eight-hour day being granted
Q. When the reduction was made to 8 hours a day was there a corresponding
reduction in the rate of pay per day?— A. No, there was an increase P
MR. ARMSTRONG.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
135
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. I see, the two things went together.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Did they get the same rate per day? — A. Yes, they got the eight-hour day and
they got an increase; they get an increase from year to year for 5 years under the
agreement with the Master Printers’ Association in Toronto, and I think it also
obtained in Hamilton.
Ql You are talking now with regard to the Printers’ Union?— A. Yes.
By the Chairman:
Q. What hours were you working in Toronto when the arrangement rwas made?
— A. 9 hours.
Q. And when they succeeded in getting an eight-hour day did they receive for the
3 hours the same as they got for 9 ? — A. Oh, yes they get more now for 8 hours than
they got for 9.
Q. I mean did they get as much for 8 hours at the time it went into effect as
they were getting for 9? — A. It was a little while after.
Q. They preferred to make a sacrifice in wages for the time being? — A. Yes,
the way it was is this: Their previous contract expired some 5 or 6 months after,
and they could not attempt to do anything more at the time, but when it expired
they got a decrease of time and an increase of wages.
Printers Wages Under Eight and Nine Hour Basis.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. There was a reduction in the meantime, iwas there? — A. There was no reduc-
tion, they made an arrangement on an eight-hour basis, and when the time exipred
under the old contract they made another arrangement and they got an increase in the
rate of wages, so that they got for the 8 hours more than they were receiving for the 9.
Q. Do you know whether the Master Printers charge more for the printing now
in Toronto than they did before the eight-hour day came into effect? — A. I cannot really
say that, competition there is very keen, it must he an extraordinarily clear-headed
man there who could increase the price and compete with his fellows; if there has
been any increase it is very small, the competition is very keen indeed.
Q. You do not believe there was any increase in the cost of printing to most
people? — A. The tendency is to make it cheaper; machines have come into existence
and one machine will do the work of five men.
Q. Are they getting their establishments running in better shape? — A. Yes, of
course they put it up by machine, which sets type much cheaper than it could be
done by hand.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. That machine you are speaking about would do the work much quicker than
by hand? — A. One man with a machine would do as much as five men by hand.
Q. And the machine will do more work in 10 hours than in 8? — A. Oh, yes.
Q. Therefore it will cost more to put that printing out, whatever time it took,
with an eight-hour day than with a ten? — A. Yes
The Printers’ Short Life — Its Cause.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Do you believe it is possible for a man to do machine work for more than 8
hours in a day and to do his work right, from your experience? — A. It would be a
great drag on his system. Yes, I believe he would go to a very early grave, I know
several who have gone there. The average age of a printer in America, you know, is
37 years.
136
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. Is that 3< years of work or 37 years of age? — A. Thirty-seven years of age,
taking the average all over America.
Q. Why is that? — A. His work, the confinement and the unsanitary conditions
that prevail which I beli.eve are improving — but besides that there is the type-set-
tmg machine with the antimony coming up in your face all the time and the gas,
which is very injurious. I have known several men who have died in Toronto, they
were anxious to make as much money as they could, thinking that they would
save some money and retire and go into some other business, they worked longer than
they should have and it killed them.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. That does not apply to all factories, take the canning shops where they use
acids. — A. You mean the canning factories?
Q. No, not the canning factories, but the men who manufacture the cans, where
they run all the year round. — A. Yes.
Q. Men who are making those cans and working there all the year round continue
that work for years? — A. A great many young women work there, doing a man's
work, but they do not get a man’s pay.
Q. I am not discussing that, but the length of years that the workmen live who
are doing that kind of work. I do not think that is quite right because I know some
parties who are working in tinshops, men and women too, and they are as healthy
and as strong as they were years ago when they started at it.— A. They stand up and
move round in their work, the type setter has to sit down.
Q' they I*aTe to work on a lathe? — A. I would not consider it as bad or as
unhealthy as the printing business, such a shop is generally a large open place; go to
Kemp Bros, in Toronto and you will see one large room about 200 feet long with high
ceilings, whereas in a printing office it is the very opposite.
Q. Do you not find that the sanitary condition is improving to-day? — A. Yes, the
sanitary condition has improved and the working men are helping that improvement
too.
Machinery— Output— Hours of Labour.
By the Chairman:
Q. \ ou say that by the use of the new machines one man can do as much work
m one day as five men could have done before? — A. Yes.
Q. I suppose as a result of the introduction of the machine it should be possible to
have the same quantity of work, done in fewer hours ?— A. Yes, there is no doubt in
J5 years there will be such a saving by the use of machinery that you will have either
to reduce the hours of labour or to stop the propagation of the race.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. I know that in many cases where they have adopted these improved machines
they are employing more men?— A. What business is that in, please?
Q. In the canning business. I might say that with a machine that fills 60 cans
of corn in a minute, doing, away with all the help that formerly had to be employed to
do it by hand the result is that we are now using more men.— A. The demand for
your product is greater, probably.
Q. But it is a fact that although the machine cuts off the help it has increased
the business tremendously.
The Chairman —That is not the point I was trying to bring out by that question
but rather, that it should render possible the production of the same quantity of goods’
in a less time. One of the effects of the introduction of machinery as a whole one of
Are' RW OW 7 Sh°Uld haYe HiS day’S W°rk Sh°rtened’ but the
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
137
APPENDIX No. 4
complaint of the working people is that in many cases the introduction of
machinery enhances the profits of the employers and the men who do the work haven’t
any benefit from it in the way of shortened hours.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. I understood Mr. Armstrong to say that machinery was reducing the amount
of help required, and I was giving him an illustration to the contrary.— A. Do you say
that you are employing more men with improved machinery than you did heretofore
when the goods were made by hand ?
Q. A es. A. Aou are employing more people now. Suppose your machinery was
immediately taken out of your shop, would you not employ more hands than you are
employing now to put up the same amount of goods?
Q. ATes, to put up the same number of cans.— A. You would employ more than
you do now?
Q. To put up the same number of cans, but X do not think I would employ more
hands foi the simple reason that if the work were done by hand it would so enhance
the cost of it that the price would go so high we would not be able to sell the goods. —
A. And you would have to curtail the output.
Q. Ares, we could not get enough help to do the work and the price would be too
high so that we would have to curtail our output. You mean that the introduction
of machinery has not curtailed the hours of labour to the extent it should?— A. It has
not curtailed the hours of labour to the extent it should.
Mr. Macdonell.— It is on outside work, buildings largely, that the hours of
labour have been reduced.
The Chairman. Yes. take the cotton mills in England, for instance and there
were at one time two shifts to do the work, the mills were running 24 hours, and the
shifts worked there always 12 hours right through.
Prevailing Extent of the Eight-hour Day.
By the Chairman:
Q. Can you give any idea of the hours prevailing in different parts of Ontario; is
there an eight-hour day to any extent ? — A. Generally the building trades have an
eight-hour day, from the hod carrier to the bricklayer; in Toronto there are between
6.000 and 8,000 mechanics working 8 hours by agreement between the employer and
the employee, they have signed an agreement for a certain length of time and they
renew it at its expiration. I strongly approve of that system.
Q. What I am trying to get at is the extent to which the eight-hour day is already
existing. If it were general, if the eight-hour day existed everywhere in the different
parts of the Dominion there would be no need for this measure at all, because it is only
in regard to S hours on government work. — A. It does not obtain in every trade
throughout Ontario.
Q. What trades does it obtain in?— A. Except in the inside trades, I do not
think it obtains in the tailoring or in the shoemaking or in the plumbing trades.
Q. Take the building trades, does it obtain there? — A. I have statistics with
regard to 350 of the various trades in my report from all over Ontario which is a
good indication to go by.
Q. Here is a statement which was submitted by one of the witnesses on the last
day the committee met, compiled from figures of the existing rates of wages in Ontario,
Toronto, and- other places, and looking over the list of the building trades it appears
that every trade in Toronto has an eight-hour day with the exception of the sheet metal
workers, which are 9 hours, whereas in Ottawa the trades have 9 hours with the
exception of the stone cutters who have 8 hours, and in Goderich they all have 10 hours
with the exception of the plumbers who have 11 hours, so that it appears to vary
according to the locality. — A. Yes, it does vary, but there are several indoor trades in
Toronto that have an eight-hour day.
138
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Yes, there is another table here for Kingston, Brockville and Cornwall, there
are three localities which also vary, most of the trades have an eight-hour day in Kings-
ton, although some of them have nine hours and in Brockville they all have nine hours.
In Cornwall as in Goderich they all appear to have a ten-hour day? — A. Yes.
Q. How do you account for the hours being shorter in some localities than in
others? — A. Because they are better organized, I would say they are nearly all non-
organized places where the hours are longer. Where the workingmen have their trade
organizations they resort to conciliation and they are assisted by the other trades, but
where they are not organized it is pretty hard for them to get the eight hours.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. Would it be desirable to have uniformity in the hours of labour? — A.. Yes, but
all localities are not educated up to that point, you see that in some they work eight
hours and in others they work nine and ten.
Shorter Hours, How Best Obtained.
By the Chairman:
Q. Are the workingmen thanking themselves or do they thank the government for
the advance that has been made in regard to the hours of labour? — A. Generally I
think they thank themselves for every labour measure that was ever passed, no matter
whether provincial or Dominion.
Q. Take the eight-hour day, has it been brought about by legislation or by organi-
zation on the part of the workmen themselves? — A. Organization.
Q. That is a more effective method do you think than an eight-hour day measure?
— A. Both are very effective if carried out.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Both are welcome, you think? — A. Both are welcome.
By the Chairman:
Q. Have they considered the effect on existing conditions which this measure would
have if it became law? — A. Mr. Chairman, to tell you the truth I really do not think
there is anything radical about this Bill.
Q. You do not think there is anything radical? — A. Ho, sir.
Q. Do you approve of it in its entirety ?— A. With regard to the building of roads
and railways I do not think that I am in a position to pronounce on that to a great
extent. I would far rather work in the open in seasonable weather at nine hours than
I would in a factory at eight hours. Still I think that is an infinitesimal affair. I
do not think the government would make two bites at a cherry. I think they should
pass it all round. \ ou were talking, Mr. Chairman — just allow me — you made a
point about this saddlery business and the Poisons were also mentioned.
Incorrect Scale of Wages Made Bight.
Q. Yes. A. I would like to just draw your attention to a matter about that factory
where they work for the ordinary public and in the same factory do government work.
In the last year of Mayor Coatsworth’s regime the Poison Company contracted to build
a steam dredge to cost $57,000 for Toronto. The late Mr. Prank Poison, who was liv-
ing at this time, was required by the Board of Control to put in the wages bill.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. Showing the wages paid?— A. Showing the wages paid in these industries.
He had to submit a statement showing the rates of wages but the mayor would not
sign it until such time he was more than sure on that matter. Engineer Bust was
instructed by the Board of Control to consult me on the matter. I went around to the
various labour bodies connected with the industries that were to be emploved on the
MB, ARMSTRONG.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
139
APPENDIX No. 4
building of that dredge and I found out that Mr. Poison’s scale of wages was con-
siderably wrong in two or three instances. I got the original documents from the pre-
siding officer, got their printed constitution and by-laws. Sometimes the scale of
wages were attached to them. Whenever it was not I got the original documents with
the seal of the union. I then went to Mr. Bust and told him that Mr. Poison was
wrong m some of his figures and the latter had to alter his own figures to the prevail-
ing rates of wages obtaining in the industries that would be employed in the con-
struction of this steam dredge.
Pattern-Makers and Moulders.
By the Chairman:
Q. That was in regard to the rate of wages? — A. Yes, at the time.
Q. Supposing this Bill had been in force and you were administering it, would
it have been possible to make arrangements with Mr. Poison for the men who were
making the nuts or bolts that had to go into that dredge to work only eight hours ?
A. We will take the pattern makers. When they made the patterns they knew very
well it was something for the corporation and of course they are all expert
Q. How many hours do the pattern makers work? — A. Eight.
Q. So there would be no trouble about that?— A. No. The difficulty was the wages
I think.
Q. We are taking now this first phase of the case as to the number of hours?—
A. On the hour basis?
Q. Are there any classes of labour in Mr. Poison’s works working nine hours a
day? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What class are they? — A. The moulders, I think.
Q. Very well, then, let us take the moulders? — A. Yes.
Q. They are doing a quantity of moulding? — A. Yes.
Q. And suddenly work of this class is required for some of the government
dredges? — A. Yes.
Q. Supposing this were enforced? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you think it would be possible to have matters so regulated that the men
who had to do with the moulding for those particular dredges would work only eight
hours while the others would work nine? — A. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it would
be very difficult indeed to distinguish between them. In a broad sense it would de-
pend upon the honesty of the contractor. If a contractor would be guilty of doing
such a thing as that he is not worthy enough to get a contract.
Q. Guilty of doing what? — A. Taking the man on government work labouring
eight hours, and working them another hour on a job.
Q. I do not think you understand my point, Mr. Armstrong. Assuming that Mr.
Poison is turning out, or the Poison Iron Works is turning out, work according to
pattern and one of the pieces is intended to go into a Dominion government dredge ? —
A. Yes.
Q. Would1 it be possible for him or for anybody in connection with the firm to say
in advance: ‘Now this particular piece is intended for a Dominion government dredge
and you must only work eight hours because an eight-hour law is in force in regard
to all work that has anything to do with government contracts.’ Do you think such a
thing as that could be made workable? — A. Well, it is a finely drawn point, Mr. Chair-
man.
Q. But it is an actual condition that we have to consider? — A. Yes, I understand.
Well I think it could.
Q. How would you go about it?— A. If the contract was to any extent I would
select ten men. ‘ Here is a contract for eight hours at the same rate of wages.’ I will
put ten men on this government work for one week, and make it even all over the
shop. The men that you put on say the first week on government work can go back
140
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
to nine hours on public work. Then I would put another ten men, on the government
work who had been working nine hours on other work and in that way give them all an
equal show all around on the eight hours. I think that would be a fair way and it
would not create any jealousy between the men.
Q. But taking the case I have cited of workmen turning out a number of things
at the same time, would it be possible at all for the firm to say ‘ Now this part that
you are doing at this moment is for the government work, therefore you must only
work eight hours on it?’ — A. Well the firm, Mr. Chairman, would tell the men that.
Civilian and Military Boots and Saddles.
Q. Would it be possible for them to tell as the work was carried on and they pro-
duced the multitude of things desired — could you take the things after they are pro-
duced and use part of them for one job and part of them for another? — A. On a large
job a man is generally kept on one piece for quite a while. At a shoe factory a man
is kept for years making heels for a boot.
Q. Making heels only?— A. Making heels only.
Q. Yes? — A. On a large job a man may be making one piece of metal, or he may
be kept a week or two making one or two pieces.
Q. Suppose the government decides to purchase one hundred pairs of boots for the
Dominion Police, how are the fellows who are working on boot heels to know when they
strike the hundred pairs of boots for the Dominion Police? — A. He would be a very
poor man if he could not tell the difference between a civilian and a military boot.
The military boot has a broader heel than the civilian boot.
Q. Do you think there is any difficulty in administering the law as it stands? —
A. If there would be any difficulty it would be very rare. If there was a case where
it came up it would require very close defining, I admit that.
Q. That is your calm expression of opinion as an expert in labour matters, that
there would be very little difficulty in administering this measure as proposed by Mr.
Verville? — A. Yes.
Q. Is that what we are to understand ? — A. I would think so. There might be one
or two cases where a small job might be done by the government and the workmen
might think it was for civilian work. There might be one or two cases like that, but
on broad principles I think the Bill is possible. You were talking, or some of the
gentlemen were talking, about making saddles. The case was put that if the gov-
ernment ordered a couple of hundred saddles for the volunteers, how could the work-
men tell for whom they were being made.
Q. I think I was speaking of that? — A. Well there is quite a difference between
civilian saddles and1 military saddles and a man making a portion of a military saddle
would know it was part of some contract and would have the intelligence to ascertain
from some of his friends around whether it was government work or not; but there
are cases I admit it would be pretty hard to draw the line. I know one contractor
who is making
Q. Can you classify those cases? — A. Yes, classify them.
Q. Can you classify them for us? That is what we want if possible.— A. The
larger the contract the more easy it would be to classify.
Q. I think it would be?— A. Yes. There is one case of a contractor down on the
Esplanade. In Toronto there are a good many contractors who will never get a col-
lapse from softness of heart. Well, one contractor got a contract for corporation work
and the civic by-law provided for the payment of 15 cents per hour for unskilled
labour. He was only paying his men 13| or 14 cents and this man was small enough
to take his labourers off the corporation work at 15 cents an hour and put them on at
other work every other hour. But that would not obtain again in twenty years. The
small contract would be much harder to define properly than the large contract.
MR. ARMSTRONG.
COMMITTEE RE bill No. U— HOURS OF LABOUR
141
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Tou iwere saying- you thought that the government and the public corpora-
tions are setting the example? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you regard that as really the effective way of achieving the eight-hour
day?— A. Well, it is the forerunner.
Ontario Government Regulations re Hours and Wages.
Q. Has the Ontario Government adopted any regulations in that regard? — A.
Thej have adopted a regulation in this respect that they pay the prevailing rate of
wages and require the hours of labour on all their work that prevails in the locality
where the work is being done.
Q. That is similar to the Dominion Fair Wages law? — A. Yes, just the same.
Q. Has the Ontario Government passed a law similar to the Bill introduced
byoi?’' Vervllle?— A‘ 1 understand that Mr. Studholme, of Hamilton is bringing in
a Bill as regards eight hours as a provincial matter.
Q. Is there any such law in existence at the present time? — A. Ho, sir.
Q. The member to whom you refer is bringing in a Bill is he?— A. He is bring-
ing it in at this session.
Q. Do you think it would be a good thing for the provincial government to
enact a similar legislation to this?— A. Well, a matter of this kind I really think
should be enacted by the Dominion.
Q. You think it ought to be enacted by the Dominion Parliament? — A. I do, sir.
Q. This Bill in its application is limited to contracts for work which the Dom-
inion Government is letting? — A. Yes.
Q- What you have said would confine a measure of this kind to Dominion Gov-
ernment work and is equivalent to saying that provincial government work should be
subject to similar legislation ?— A. I know this Bill applies to Dominion Government
voik but the object of Mr. Stud hoi inc's Bill is to make the eight-hour dav prevail in
all other classes of work.
Q. I am speaking now only of government work. Take this same Bill, if it
were introduced into the provincial legislature do you, as an expert, think it should
apply only to contracts let by the government there? — A. If a Bill like this came
It to the Ontario legislature and you asked me to give my opinion I would sav de-
cidedly yes, or a corporation or a school board should be required to grant the eight
hours.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Have you read the Bill which is before us ? — A. Yes. I will tell you that or
nearly all the work, particularly in the cities, where the Ontario government does
work, the eight hours prevail.
By the Chairman :
Q. Where is that? — A. In the Ontario government’s works in the cities the eight
hours prevail generally in the building trades.
Q. Does the Ontario government do any work in Cornwall, Brockville or King-
ston?— A. In Guelph they have a Model Farm.
Q. The eight-hour day does not prevail in Guelph? — A. Ho, I may say that if the
Dominion Government passes this law the provincial governments would very soon
follow on the same lines.
Meaning of Bill Ho. 21.
Q. What is your idea as to what the Bill means? — A. I was going over it this
morning (Reads) ‘ Every contract to which the Government of Canada is a party,
which may involve the employment of labourers, workmen or mechanics, shall con-
142
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
tain a stipulation that no labourer, workmen or mechanic in the employ of the con-
tractor or sub-contractor or other person doing’ or contracting to do the iwhole or a
part of the work contemplated by the contract, shall be permitted or required to work
more than eight hours on any one calendar day, except in cases of extraordinary
emergency caused by fire, flood or danger to life and property.’ Of course that kind
of work is government contract work. It says here in section 3 (Reads) : ‘ This Act
shall apply to work undertaken by the Government of Canada by day labour.’ I
look upon that as the government doing its own work under its architect, doing away
with the middleman or contractor. I would look upon that section as applying to
work of that kind. But the Bill apparently provides for an eight-hour day whether
the government does the work directly itself under its own architect or whether it
gives the work out to a contractor. I would consider the eight-hour law prevails
there.
Q. You have just read the clauses of the Bill. Now, give us in your own words
an idea of what the Bill really amounts to. What do you think that measure pro-
poses ?
Mr. erville. — I do not think that is fair, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman.— Why is it not fair ?
Mr. \ erville. — I do not think it is fair for you to put a question like that. Mr.
Armstrong is not a lawyer and you are trying to put technicalities to him.
The Chairman. — Mr. Armstrong has said in this committee that he thinks the
Bill should be passed in the form in which it is presented here. Now Mr. Armstrong
may have one idea of what that Bill contains and this committee may have another.
I want to find out what he thinks the Bill really stands for.
Mr. \ erville. Exactly. I do not believe Mr. Armstrong understood your ques-
tion when you asked a few minutes ago would it be proper for the Government of
Ontario to have a Bill of that kind.
The Chairman. — What was there difficult to understand?
Mr. \ erville. The province of Ontario has larger scope in enactments of this
kind, it has not the same scope the Federal government has.
The Chairman. — In what way?
_ Mr. Verville.— The provincial government can pass an eight hour Act for fac-
tories.
The Chairman. — Exactly.
Mr. Verville. — And we cannot.
The Chairman. — I asked, supposing the provincial government did not go to the
length of enacting an eight-hour law with regard to industries generally, would it be
advisable to take the steps we propose to take and make some special regulation in
regard to work coming within its jurisdiction, which is a perfectly fair question and
I think Mr. Armstrong understood it.
Mr. Verville. — We do not want to be unfair.
The Chairman. I cannot see anything unfair in asking Mr. Armstrong to tell us
what his idea is of this measure. He is giving evidence as regards the measure itself
and. his evidence is no good unless he knows what he is talking about. All that I am
asking for is for him to give us his opinion of this measure.
Mr. Marshall. — As a practical man.
The C hairman. A es. I do not think I am asking him an unfair question. As-
suming Mr. Armstrong has a wrong idea of what that Bill proposes, all the evidence
he has given here will to that extent be discounted in so far as it bears on this particular,
measure. I want to get from him his statement as to what he thinks it really means
and possibly we will all agree with him. I do not think Mr. Armstrong really sees
the extent of tire provisions of the Bill and I think the evidence which he has so far
given, goes to indicate that he had one thing in mind and that we have had another
MR. ARMSTRONG.
COMMITTEE RE bill No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
143
APPENDIX No. 4
Mi. erville. The point is bringing the line on which the provincial govern-
ment has legislated into the matter.
The Chairman. — What is your objection?
Mr. Verville. As the promoter of this Bill if the scope of the Federal parliament
had been larger I would have presented a Bill for the enactment of an eight-hour day
generally.
The Chairman. — Certainly.
Mr. Verville. — Very well. The scope of the province is larger than ours.
The Chairman.— The provincial legislature could do precisely the same thing as re-
gards government contracts in the province as this Bill does in the case of federal con-
tracts in the Dominion. The same legislation could be carried out with respect to
government works in Ontario and could be extended to municipal councils and other
corporations representing the public interest.
Mr. Verville. Exactly. But the point I want to make clear because this evidence
is going to be printed and become public property, is this : I do not want the idea to
be conveyed that I introduced a Bill which is simply applicable to government contracts
when a measure of larger scope could be enacted.
The Chairman. — No. You misunderstand me, Mr. Verville.
Mr. Verville. — Then make your meaning plainer.
The Chairman. I will make it plainer. The Bill introduced by you goes just as
far as the powers of this parliament permit.
Mr. Verville. — Exactly.
The Chairman.— There is no misunderstanding on that. Now you say that the
provincial legislatures have power to go very much farther than the Dominion parlia-
ment has in regard to the matter of enacting eight-hour legislation. That is right is
it not.
Mr. Verville. — Certainly.
The Chairman. If you had been a member of the provincial legislature instead
of a member of the Dominion parliament you would have introduced a general eight-
hour Bill applicable to the whole province that is all.
Mr. Verville. — Yes.
The Chairman. — That is all right. Your position is perfectly clear. All I am
pointing out to Mr. 'Armstrong is there may be in the Ontario legislature at the present
time some man like Mr. Studliolme who would like to have a general eight-hour law.
There maj be others who think that possibly they could not get the provincial govern-
ment to enact an eight-hour law, but they might go one step forward in the eight-hour
movement by inducing the provincial government to enact a law requiring the obser-
vance of eight hours on its own contracts. I am asking Mr. Armstrong whether if
there are men of that opinion, it would not be desirable to introduce in the legislature
c. similai measure to this. I do not think he understood my question.
The Witness.— Mr. Chairman, of course, I have not given the Bill deep thought
line by line but I say that if it intends to put in force the eight-hour law on all work
done by the Dominion government I approve of it.
By the Chairman:
Q. What do you think Mr. Verville’s Bill proposes to do? — A. Well, if there is any
technicality in it I would like to be informed of it and base my opinion on that techni-
cality.
Q. Irrespective of technicalities what does the Bill propose? If you were obliged
to tell the House of Commons to-morrow what this Bill proposes to do in the way of
changing conditions from what they are at the present time, what would you say? — A.
I would say that it proposes to enforce the eight-hour law on all government work done
by the Dominion government and the same to be inserted in all contracts awarded by
them.
Q. On all government work? — A. Yes, sir.
144
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 31— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Just how far does government work extend in your opinion? We have had that
question up. A. Yes, we have had that.
Applicability op Bill to Materials Furnished.
Q. So far as the government contracts for public buildings are concerned would it
extend to them? — A. It would.
Q. Now in connection with these government buildings which are being put up,
window sashes and frames and similar materials are required. Would the Bill apply
to the labour engaged in the making of those materials according to your point of
view? — A. That is bringing it down fine.
Q. That is a point we want light upon? — A. I understand. I would say that it
should.
Q. Not that it should but does the measure do that? — A. Oh, that is the idea.
Q. I am trying to get from you just what in your opinion this measure proposes.
We have all had difficulty with it and therefore you need not be surprised if you meet
with difficulty also. — A. I understand.
Q. One of the objections some of the committee have to the measure as it is drafted
is that they find it difficult to determine just how far it proposes to go, and not only
the members of the committee, we are not the only ones. A. I would say that it covers
the man who makes the sashes and doors under the eight -hour law. It says here : ‘ Or
other person doing or contracting to do the whole or a part of the work.’ Well the
man that makes door sashes is doing part of the work of the building.
Q- So the Bill would apply to the men who make the doors and sashes? — A. I
should say so, if it did not it ought to.
Q. No, but the point is just what it does. Assuming that this building is being
put up in Ottawa. Take this public building at the end of Metcalfe street which is
being put up. Some of the doors and sashes for that building have been made in
factories here in this city. If this Bill were in force would the eight-hour provision
apply to the men engaged in the making of these doors and sashes in that factory? —
A. It is bringing it down pretty fine. I would say that it ought to apply.
Q. But does this Bill make it so? Is it the intention of this Bill to go so far?
Mr. Veryille. — We are supposed to decide the intention.
1 he Chairman.- We have got an expert here, we are trying to get expert advice.
The Witness. — What part of the work, is embodied in this work, whether
it is part of a building or part of the work going into the building, it is pretty hard
to say.
Q. That is what we want to find out, we cannot say what it means. — A. I do not
think it implies the making of a sash, ‘ doing or contracting to do the whole or a
part of the work contemplated by the contract.’ That would be a part of the work, a
part of the building. I do not think it covers the manufacture of a door or sash. At
least that is my opinion.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. That is what we want to get. Would that not apply to the stone, which is
part of the building itself, cut probably ten or twenty miles from here? — A. But it
says: ‘ The work contemplated by the contract.’ It may say in the specifications
that the windows or other materials would go in that. I think it covers the building.
By the Chairman :
Q. We will assume the contract has been let. This Bill provides that the contract
must contain this stipulation : ‘ No labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of
the conti actor or sub-contractor, or other person doing or contracting to do the whole
or a part of the work contemplated by the contract shall be permitted or required to
work more than eight hours on any one calendar day.’ Now let us see, follow the
MR. ARMSTRONG.
COMMITTEE RE bill A*o. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
145
APPENDIX No. 4
case down. The government has awarded a contract for the erection of a public
building. The contractor lets a sub-contract to supply the government with sashes
and doors. Now this Bill says that this sub-contract as well as the contract must
contain a stipulation that no workman or mechanic in the employ of the sub-con-
tractor shall do more than eight hours’ work. So it would apply there? — A. I would
say so, to a sub-contract.
Q. Does it go farther than that ? Supposing that a man has in his factory a lot
of men who are not only working on government work but on private work as well;
would it apply to these men doing private work? — A. For
Q. Eight hours — A. No.
Q. You think not? — A. Only doing work for the government?
Q. Do you think according to the text of this Bill it would not?— A. I do not
think so.
Q. Let me read this sentence, ‘ that no labourer, workman or mechanic in the
employ of the contractor or sub-contractor,’ would not that mean any employee of
the contractor? A. Yes, but I do not think that has reference to employees beyond
those employed in the work.
Q. You may feel that it would not be desirable to have it so, but reading that
as law on the books would it be open to any other construction than that it
applies to men in the employ of the contractor? Just let us take it in regard to a
contractor, here is a contractor that has 300 men employed, he takes 20 of them and
puts them on a government job, and this government contract has a stipulation in it
which says, ‘no labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of the "contractor or
sub-contractor,’ now we will make it personal and say Mr. Armstrong instead of the
contractor, ‘ no labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of Mr. Armstrong, shell
be permitted or required to work more than eight hours i riany one calendar day,’
would not. that include all your employees ? — A. I think if it went before a judge
and jury in the courts they would come to the conclusion that it only covers the
government contract.
Q. That is not the conclusion I have come to, my conclusion is if it were restrict-
ed to government work it would not be open to the objection it is open to, but insofar
as it goes beyond government work I think it is open to objection.— A. If it goes be-
yond government work decidedly I would say it is open to objection.
Q. Don’t you think it does go beyond government work as it is framed? — A. It
may be construed in that way, but I do not feel myself in a position to say so, I
think myself if it were to go before a judge and jury, if I were on the jury I would
decidedly say it had reference to the government work, I would not say it has
reference to all the employees of an establishment doing- work for the" private
individual.
Q. In giving your evidence and in recommending this measure for the adoption
of the House you do so assuming that it is intended to apply only to government work *
— A. Yes.
Applicability of Bill to Sub-contracts.
Q. Now in regard to the other point as to the sub-contractor did you intend when
you suggested that it should apply to government work that it should go beyond
the mere men employed by the contractor himself and immediately engaged on the
work of the contract? — A. If the contractor gives out a portion of the work to a sub-
contractor the original contractor is responsible for the work of the sub-contractor.
Q. Yes, that is for the work of construction? — A. Yes.
Q. But take it beyond that for the next stage, the work that has gone into the
mills that is used for the construction? — A. Yes, I think when it is for government
work that the sashes, for instance, should be made on' an eight-hour basis.
Q. That is what I wanted to make clear, that you would carry it right back? —
A. Certainly.
4 — 10
146
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Do you think that the workmen employed on government work would approve
of a measure which would reduce their hours of labour and also reduce their wages
pro rata if the measure were made to apply to tradesmen that were engaged on a ten-
hours’ basis and it was proposed to reduce them to eight-hours? — A. By the government?
Hours and Wages.
Q. By the government, and that the government would also reduce the wages
proportionately ; would a measure of that kind be approved by the working man ? — -
A. Ho, the great tendency now is, and I think all governments are strongly of that
opinion that with the shortening of hours there should be an advance of wages, or
there is a tendency that way; suppose 10 men work eight hours a day instead of 10,
there is work for 2 extra men
Q. But what I want to get at is this: supposing this law were to be put into
effect and the effect of it was that wherever men work ten hours to-day they would
hereafter be obliged to work 8 hours? — A. Yes.
Q. And not only that, but instead of getting 10 hours’ pay as at the present time,
they would only get 8 hours’ pay ; would the workingmen who were affected by it
thank the government for a thing of that kind?- — A. The government would not do a
thing of that kind, that is drawing it too fine; no government could live and do that
kind of thing, as a government.
Q. You feel that the resentment of the workingmen would be so strong that the
government could not live?
By Mr. Verville:
Q. What do you mean? — A. No government would do that — that question is
away off, I think.
By the Chairman:
Q. It is very much to the point, to my mind? — A. Oh, yes, it is very much to
the point — I’ll tell you, there are cases where men would prefer, I have known of
cases where men have preferred, a slight reduction in their wages in order to get the
eight-hour day instead of nine; I have known of cases of that kind in Toronto which
is tantamount to the wages being cut.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Take a man who is getting say $2.50 per day, he would not stand for that,
would he? The man who was getting large pay might submit to that? — A. I have
known of men in years gone by who were getting less than $2.50 per day who pre-
ferred a reduction in the hours of labour to an increase in wages.
Q. The complaint, so far as I can judge in that part of the country I come from
is that they do not get long enough hours. — A. I do not agree with you there.
Q. Well, I know the section I am living in better than you do, you may know
better about the section where you live, but in my section of the country the great
complaint is that we are not giving them work enough, they want to earn more money
and they want more hours’ work in order to do it? — A. Why can’t they get more
money without being required to work longer hours?
Q. It would increase the cost of production considerably to do that? — A. Then
let the public pay for it.
By the Chairman :
Q. The public might not under those circumstances be prepared to pay the in-
creased cost, they might buy from abroad? — A. When machinery comes in to take the
place of hand labour so that the output is greater with less labour employed in the
production the wages should be increased accordingly.
ME. ARMSTRONG.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. .1 — HOURS OF LABOUR
147
APPENDIX No. 4
What Labour Measure Workmen Would Welcome.
Q. As I understand your evidence with regard to this measure it would not be
feasible, nor would it be welcomed by labour throughout the country for the govern-
ment to introduce a Bill which would shorten the hours of labour that meant also a
pro rata reduction in the wages, is that right?— A. Well, I do not know any instance
of that nature, but I do know of instances where men have preferred a shorter work
day to an increase of wages, knowing full well that the wages would advance in the
neai uture and that wages fluctuate whereas if they once come down to eight hours’
w01l' ^ ’s a rare thing to see men who are working 8 hours jumping the hours up
to 9 or 10.
Q. I do not know whether you quite grasp my meaning? — A. I grasp it all right.
Q. Then you do not answer the question. I want to find out— there are two pos-
sible alternatives in a measure of this kind ; one for the government to say we are going
to make an eight-hour day, and we will see that in so doing no man loses anything of
the total wage he is. getting at the present time; in other words that he is to receive
the same remuneration for 8 hours as he is receiving at the present time whether
working 9 hours or 10 hours. A measure of that kind would undoubtedly be ac-
ceptable to the working classes, it might involve some expense on the part of the State,
but it would be acceptable? — A. No doubt about that.
Q. On the other hand, supposing the government brings in a measure saying we
will give you an eight-hour day, but we feel that we cannot go further than to say that
if you are going to work eight hours you must get eight hours’ pay, according to the
rate per hour that is customary in the industry in that district; would a measure of
that kind be acceptable — ? — A. As an individual, Mr. Chairman, I would prefer the
shorter hours and the cut in wages.
Q. That is your opinion as an individual; how would that view square with the
view that would be taken generally on a measure of that kind by the working classes?
— A. I think it would be acceptable to a great extent.
Q. Would it be acceptable to such an extent that it would be desirable to intro-
duce a measure along those lines ?— A. I cannot say that. In some trades it might be
preferable, I think it would be, that is my opinion. In unskilled lines it might not,
but in skilled work it might.
Q. Would it be acceptable to the extent that the workingmen of the country would
like a measure of that kind put upon the statute-books? If that were done, what
would be the effect of it?— A. I would say that the majority of skilled industries,
mechanics, would prefer that, I think they would, knowing full well with regard to the
money question that the wages would not remain stationary as long as the eight hours
would be stationary.
Ontario’s Feeling re Bill No. 21.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You are from Toronto, and this Bill has been on the Order Paper now for
many years? — A. Yes.
Q. But this is the first time that it has been before the committee, although you
have heard of this Bill before? — A. Yes.
Q. You have heard of the eight-hour Bill before? — A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever heard of any working people in Toronto or elsewhere, that
were against the eight-hour Bill? — A. Never.
Q. Have you ever heard of any working people that were against it because it
would reduce their wages?— A. No.
Q. In the many discussions you have had with these men, have they ever told you
that they were willing to accept that Bill as it is? — A. I know that they ‘are willing
to accept an eight-hour day in preference to an advance in wages.
4— 10i
148
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. But from your knowledge of their opinions, do you think they would accept
that^Bill as it is? — A. Oh, yes, that has obtained for years in my opinion, they want
an eight-hour day.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. I wish to ask a question and to mention it in the way of a specific amount per
day. You were speaking about the skilled workmen; let us, for illustration, suppose
they get 40 cents per hour for a 10-hour day; that is $4 per day, at present. If that
were reduced by arbitrary legislation to an eight-hour day, it would mean that their
daily wage would be reduced to $3.20? — A. Yes.
Q. From your knowledge and intercourse with the workmen, do you think that
even with the skilled workmen that would be acceptable ? — A. A corresponding reduc-
tion of wages with a corresponding reduction of hours?
Q. Yes? — A. I believe they would prefer that, a corresponding reduction of wages
rather than forego the eight-hour day.
By the Chairman:
Q. That is the skilled workman? — A. Yes, well, I will tell you, there are certain
places where there are skilled workmen and unskilled engaged together ; take the build-
ing trade, for instance, the hod-carrier is what is called an unskilled workman, and
he would have to come under that eight hours, too, because the bricklayer would lay
off work after eight hours, they only work eight hours, so that the unskilled workman
in that case would come under the eight-hour day.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Now, I want to ask you about the unskilled man, presuming he is getting 20
cents per hour, for 10 hours per day, that is $2 per day; now that would mean that
the unskilled workman would be reduced from $2 a day to $1.60 per day, with which
to support his wife and family? — A. You will find that in unorganized labour particu-
larly some of them will prefer to work 10 hours instead of 9.
Q. Do you think that a compulsory law providing that they should not work more
than eight hours would be acceptable to them? — A. I believe so, certainly.
Acceptability of Eight Hours' Pay.
By the Chairman:
Q. Would it be acceptable to the unorganized labour, the unskilled labour of which
Mr. Knowles is speaking? — A. Well, they would work the eight hours if that were
The law, they would not want to work any more, but they would make a strenuous
endeavour to enhance their wages, and perhaps they would organize and get them-
•selves into shape and get into line with organized labour, I have known cases of that
-kind.
Q. In the meantime it will be 40 cents a day less for their families to live upon,
■do you think that would be acceptable to them, the compulsory resting of two hours
from their labour and the consequent loss of that 40 cents a day? — A. Well, I cannot
exactly say in the case of unskilled labour, but I have known unskilled workmen to
put a price on their labour and stand by it. If they did lose for a little while
40 cents a day, they would probably combine, as their fellows did, and say : ‘ Our
labour is worth so much, we will put a price upon it, if you do not want to pay that
price you need not take it, but unless you do pay it you will not get our labour.’
Q. \ our evidence is that a measure of that kind would be viewed differently by
•different groups of men; some of them would prefer it, and others would not, they
-would not be unanimous on the point.?— A. No, they would not be all unanimous; but
the great majority of them would be; in fact skilled labour, organized labour would
prefer eight hours to an advance in wages.
MR. ARMSTRONG.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
14 a
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. You are speaking now not of labour generally throughout the country, but
of labour which would be affected by the measure? — A. Yes, I am under the impres-
sion that they would prefer the reduction of hours to an increase in wages.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. The witness is speaking all the time about the workingmen preferring a re-
duction of hours to an increase in wages, I do not quite understand what he is allud-
ing to, he seems to have some object in speaking that way. — A. I have known cases
where men would forego an increase in wages for the sake of getting a reduction of
time to 8 hours a day, is that what you have reference to.
Q. Not forego it as much as tolerate it, perhaps. — A. Well, they gave it up pre-
ferring to have the reduction in hours.
By the Chairman:
Q. That is they gave up a part of their earnings in order to get shorter hours ?
—A. Yes.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Don’t you think if the Bill passes it would be the idea of labour to get just
the same for 8 hours’ work as they now get for 10 hours ; is not that the whole thing
in a nutshell? — A. They have a perfect right always to act together and to raise the
price of their article.
Q. That is what it means, is it not? — A. I would not say that it is taking ad-
vantage of the workmen, but the article that the workman has to sell is his labour
and he has the right to put his price on it, and he combines with his fellow who has
the same article to sell in order to get a better price for it.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. That question of mine is not answered yet. Mr. Marshall asks you if it is
not the general idea of the workingmen, skilled and unskilled, that if they get a
reduction in the hours of labour they are not going to be reduced in wages; is not
that the general idea with reference to this Bill? — A. I could not say .that, I could
not say that is the idea of the workingmen in regard to this Bill
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Of course you know, Mr. Armstrong A. I do not think this Bill has
been discussed in my presence by the great body of the workingmen, but the great
majority of the workingmen are in favour of shorter hours.
Q. I think that the great knowdedge you have of the working class and with your
great experience you must know that their idea, right from the start, is that they will
get just as much for 8 hours’ work as they are getting now for 10 hours. That is the
view I take of it, but I do not think this Bill goes far enough. I think it is dis-
criminating, that is what I think about it, and if it passes it just means that we will
have added about one-fifth to the cost of building in any work that we do, because
the public will have to pay, as you said a minute ago. If the reduction is made the
men will be compelled to put a price upon their labour and they will stand out for
it, because there is a large number of men that are getting hardly sufficient wages now
to support their little family and they could not stand a reduction and live. — A. Well,
all along the line the cost of living has gone up, take what they pay for rent alone.
By the Chairman:
Q. Is not this the view that the workingmen take of the matter: that it is gov-
ernment work and the government might just as well pay the same wages and reduce
their hours, is not that the point of view they take? — A. My idea is that any gov-
ernment is and ought to be the best employer and their employees should know that
150
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
they are getting the best wages and that their salary is sure. I have known men
work a week and two weeks for a contractor and could not get their money. Now the
men employed on a government work are sure of their money no matter how small
it is.
Q. Now if the government put on the hooks a law reducing the hours of the
men from 10 to 8 on government work would ten minutes pass before an outcry would
be raised that an injustice had been done the men if the two hours wages were
knocked off. — A. It would depend upon what class of men they were. Some men are
better posted on the labour question than others.
Q. Wouldn’t it be an injustice? — A. It would be an injustice to reduce their
wages from 10 to 8 hours in proportion to the reduction of the hours, it would be a
great injustice; I do not expect the government would do that.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Do you think the workmen would consider it an injustice if it were done? —
A. I think they would be inclined that way considering that it is a government mea-
sure.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. I want to ask you another question, why should a man who is working his
factory on a ten-hour basis, if he gets government work, have to pay the men working
on that government work the same for 8 hours as they would receive for 10 hours
on other work ? — A. On government work ?
Q. Yes, why should he be compelled to do that? — A. Why should they be com-
pelled to reduce the hours of those employed on government work?
Q. Yes ? A. I consider that the money of the government belongs to the people
at large, and that the government should be the most exemplary employer of labour
and show an example to all other contractors and employers of labour, that has been
general all the world over.
Q. You do not seem to understand me very well, Mr. Armstrong. I woidd like
to ask you why the labourer on a government contract should get more than the
man working alongside him on another contract? Why should he do it, that is the
question ?
Volume of Work.
By the Chairman:
Q. Is there any difference in the labour itself, or is it that one is engaged on
government work and another is engaged on private work? — A. That brings up
another question, you take the volume of work that a man working 8 hours a dav
will produce for the year, and that produced by a pian who works 91 or 10 hours,
and I believe that the man working- 8 hours will put out as much work in the year
as the man who works 10 hours, and he will be able to do as good work.
Q. T ou said a few minutes ago that the man could not do as much work in eight
hours as he could in ten? — A. Well, that is on a machine.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. We will take a machine that will run 300 days in the year, and there is a
human pait of that machine, that is the man or woman engaged in running it; do
you suppose if that machine is run ten hours a day for 300 days in the year, and if it
is run eight hours a day for 300 days, do you suppose at the end of the year that
machine will have done more work if you keep the same parties on it all the
time?— A Oh, no; I know a machine that is running in Toronto all the vear round
three shifts a day, but each shift has eight hours work a day.
MR. ARMSTRONG.
COMMITTEE RE DILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
151
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. How do you account for that, most of these machines are speeded up to a cer-
tain speed, they are fed automatically, would not that machine do more in ten hours
than in eight hours? You cannot speed that machine beyond a certain number of re-
volutions per minute whether it is working eight hours or ten hours ; will not its rate
of production per hour be the same? — A. All right, then, allow one man to work eight
hours and when that period has expired put another man on in his place.
Q. But do you think you will get more work out of an automatic machine in that
way, it is set at a certain speed? — A. You can get more work, steadier work, out of
the machine; I know of machines that are going twenty -four hours a day, but the
operator does not work that time, there are three shifts of operators in the day.
Q. There are many things you do not understand, I could take you up to a coun-
try place where the machines are operated in a different manner. — A. I know that there
are men in the country who are working longer hours.
Q. You cannot make me believe that it is possible for the machine to turn out as
much work in eight hours as it can in ten, if it is speeded up to the same number of
revolutions per hour, it must do more work in ten hours than in eight hours. — A. Yes,
the machine will, but you don’t work men as long as you would a machine, a machine
will go on continuously.
Q. The question is whether you are going to get as much work done in eight
hours as you will in ten. — A. Yes, that is all right, but put a second man on, you do
not expect to work a man the same as you would a machine, do you.
Q. You do not seem to understand the question.
Witness retired.
Mr. Louis Guyon, called, sworn and examined: —
By the Chairman :
Q. What position do you occupy? — A. I am chief inspector of factories in Quebec.
Q. How long have you held that position? — A. 22 years. T have been chief in-
spector for 6 years.
Workingman — Employer — Government Official.
Q. What experience have you had, speaking generally, of industrial matters, to
enable you to give evidence as an expert before us here? — A. Before I was inspector I
was connected with labour personally, I have been contractor, superintendent of a fac-
tory, and I have learned a trade, machinist.
Q. You have had experience both as a workingman and an employer? — A. Yes.
Q. And as a government official? — A. Yes.
Q. So that you can speak from those different points of view with regard to a
measure of this kind? — A. Yes.
Q. In connection with your work have you had occasion to take any notice of the
hours of the workingmen in the different trades? — A. I have.
Q. Can you give us an idea of what hours prevail in the different trades in the
province of Quebec? — A. Ten hours is about the general run, nine and ten hours.
Q. That is in most of the trades? — A. In most of the trades.
Q. Would that include outdoor work as well as the factories? — A. I am speaking
about the factories more than anything else because we have no jurisdiction over any
work except what is don e^ in the factoies.
Q. What would you say to the hours of labour, for example, in the building
trade? — A. I could not give you anything certain, I have no data in connection with the
building trades.
152
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
. Q- the course of your observations have you noticed any agitation for a short-
ening of the hours of labour in your province? — A. As far as I can look back in my
career,, my first career as a mechanic, I think in ’76 ; in 1878 we had the nine-hour move-
ment in Montreal which threatened to tie up the whole business in Montreal city.
We can I think get this information by going through the files of the papers, I think
that is the date, but there was a very strong move in that direction at that date. Later
on when the Knights of Labour came through the country their organization aimed
at all kinds of ideals outside the salary business, the bettering of the conditions of the
men, the bettering of the conditions in the factory and greater leisure moments for
employees.. I believe that the Knights of Labour made very strong and urgent appeals
in connection with the shortening of the hours of labour. Later on the organizations
were formed into trade unions, they drifted into trade unionism, and of course the main
object of which, has been, the most important object in trade unionism has been, the
raising of salaries and bringing of political pressure to bear upon all issues connected
w 'tli t1£me unions; that is the main idea, and I think the idea of shortening the hours
of labour has. been to some extent lost sight of; however, it has always been a very
popular question in any labour union.
Q. Have you ever seen any special agitation at the present time for an eight-hour
day in the trades or through the province generally ?— A. Of course I do not come
into contact with the labour unions now as a public officer. I deal with grievances that
are brought into the office frequently, but I could not say for certain what are the
questions discussed, or whether this question has been discussed in their unions. I
have merely heard of it in certain branches.
(,). A hat is your own view of the eight-hour day as applied to working people gen-
erally ?— A. From a government standpoint, do you mean?
Q. Speaking generally, as an individual?— A. I think it is coming.
Q. Do you favour an eight-hour day? — A. I do.
Reasons Favouring an Eight-hour Day.
Q. On what grounds would1 you favour it? — A. On all those grounds upon which
t le s loi tening of the. hours of labour have been favoured ever .since the question first
came before the public, and I would also favour it because the conditions of working
people all tend to show, if you look back at the work in general in the different coun-
tries of the world, there has been continual progress made that way and I think it is
the great hope of the working class, for more leisure will mean mental and physical
improvement.
Q. Fou have a good deal to do with industrial accidents, you are an expert in that
branch m particular among others. Have you in your experience found that any ac-
cidents are traceable to the effect of excessive hours of labour?— A. I have in quite a
number of cases.
Q. Would they apply to other than cases in factories?— A. No, they would not. I
have often heard that before the large railroad companies placed a limit on the ser-
vices of their employees on trains and places of importance of that kind, quite a num-
ber of accidents were traceable to the excessive length of hours of the workmen.
Q. What are the cases in your mind?— A. In connection with my business so far
as factories are concerned, we have had quite a number of serious accidents in con-
nection with working excessive hours in saw mills.
Q. In saw mills? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you think there are any reasons to be urged in support of an eight-hour
day which would apply with greater force to the building trades than to employees in
factories? A. No. I look upon it favourably from all points of view, for any trade.
Q. One trade as much as another?— A. As much as another.
Q. Do you think that some trades are more in need of a shorter work day?— A
I am sure of that. J '
ME. GUYON.
COMMITTEE RE bill No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
153
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. What classes of trades do you think primarily? — A. I would class all those trades
that affect the health of employees and that bring them in contact with more elements
of danger. The attending of large furnaces, work in rolling mills, the manufacturing
of white lead and paints, noxious labour of all kinds in factories which are very hard
to control all urge upon the government, or anybody that can pass a measure of that
kind, to do it now, because I think that shorter hours of work in all these industries
would be beneficial to humanity at large.
Q. You think there is special need on humanitarian grounds in regard to these
classes? — A. Very strongly.
Q. Would that apply equally to the building trades do you think? — A. Well it
would in a large measure if we waive the health point of view. Ordinarily the extra
hours that are worked by the building trades involve a person’s health, but then you
have got to look at the other points : the better facilities for conducting and over-
looking, the hundreds of things that surround an ordinary workingman’s life which
he did not dream of years ago. I think, that these are strong reasons to be considered.
Q. There are special reasons in connection with industries where health is affected
primarily ? — A. Yes that is the chief reason in my estimation.
Q. Have you had an opportunity of looking at this Bill which has been intro-
duced in the House of Commons? — A. I have read it.
Opinion re Meaning op Bill 21.
Q. What is your opinion of it? — A. I think it is a very good measure. I do not
know exactly how all the Bills in the House of Commons pass, but I know that in
connection with provincial legislation any measure of this kind that is drawn up is
always followed up by explanatory regulations. That is where a point appears to be
obscure or appears to mean or go further than it really does, there are a certain
number of regulations which make this law workable. In fact our Factories Act in the
province of Quebec is a series of measures. To interpret this measure we have a
series of regulations. By reading the dry text of the Act you might assume that the
idea of the legislature was so and so when it was not because in the following case you
will find the regulations will perfectly explain this matter.
Q. What is your idea of the meaning of this measure? — A. You mean the whole
Bill?
Q. This Bill respecting the hours of labour on public works? How far does it
propose to extend the regulations of hours ? — A. Well, as I read it it would seem that
it would reach the maker of any material or anything that would go into a contract
or a public building, or anything that was being made by a contractor for the govern-
ment. It seems to me it would reach that.
Q. Would there be difficulty in enforcing a measure of that kind? — A. I do not
think there would be.
Q. You have had a good deal of experience respecting factories. You say that
a ten-hour day prevails mostly in the factories of Quebec, would there be any difficulty
in enforcing a regulation which would require the employees in that factory engaged
on government work to work eight hours while the other employees are working ten? —
A. I have listened with great interest to the evidence which has been given here. In
that connection I am particularly well informed having had to do work of that kind
and work under contract. How in 1878 I was one of the tool makers in a large arms
factory in Providence, Bhode Island. We were making for the Turkish government
150,000 rifles. We made all these rifles under government supervision. They were at
the same time making rifles for ordinary use and all kinds of arms and there was no
difficulty whatever. The contract which went through there was made according to
the size and regulations as to what the arm was to be and there did not seem to be any
trouble at all in connection with the supervision of this work. Very truly there was
no such thing as the limitation of hours for government work; it all went on for the
same day. But at the same time that work was kept entirely distinct. There was
154
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
another instance which struck me at the time. In Montreal we have prison work
that is being done, that is we have a reformatory. In connection with this reform-
atory there are a certain number, probably 150 or 200, delinquent boys, who are
prisoners in the institution. There is a contractor who does this work and uses this
labour, and he has 40 or 50, probably more than that, probably 80 men working, and
there does not seem to be any trouble at all in running that factory.
Q. What does he manufacture? — A. Oh they make shoes and they do a little
printing. I do not see how it could be possible — for instance if we go to the making
of clothing, there is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that any manufacturer that would have
an order to-morrow and so equipped his factory would keep that entirely distinct from
his other work and carry that contract on with all satisfaction possible. There would
be no trouble about it.
Government Contracts in Factories.
Q. That is in regard to certain classes of work? — A. Certain classes of work.
Q. Take the case of the manufacture of rifles which you have just mentioned,
were other rifles being made at the same time in that factory? — A. Pretty much so.
Q. Mas it possible to tell the pieces which were to go into the rifles for the
Turkish government? — A. Yes, because the representatives of the Turkish govern-
ment were there. First of all there was not a piece that went into a rifle intended for
them that had not passed a certain standard, of gauge which a Turkish officer had in
his hand and tried on the arm.
Q. What effect would it have upon the discipline of the factory generally and the
carrying on of the business if the regulation had been in force at that time that the
men engaged on these rifles for the Turkish government should work only eight
hours per day whereas the other workers in the factory were working ten? — A. Well
it is very hard to tell you what that would have caused. Of course there would have
been great anxiety on the part of those working shorter hours to get on the Turkish
job, there is no doubt about that. There would be no disadvantage to the ordinary
workers in the factory, because the better class would have got the better job. It is
really hard to say what would have taken place.
Q. That is exactly the kind of case we have to face. If this measure were to go
into force in the form in which it is drafted, do you, as an Inspector of Factories, I
think it would be in the interest of the factory workers and the work of factories
generally, that there should be a regulation that would make the Bill work that way?—
A. les, I think so. I think that organized labour throughout this country are looking
to the government as the pivot upon which this measure has got to live or die, and in
the event of this measure going through I have no doubt that the workingmen em-
ployed by government contractors doing work in large factories where other men are
employed would necessarily bring that factory in line and would so force the people
at arge to organize and demand this. As a general measure it would be a question
of time.
The Piece Workers.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. By that you mean that if this Bill becomes law it will be followed by a gen-
eral law applicable to every factory in the country?— A. I think so. It is my opinion
because the natural result would be that the provincial governments would be forced
to do the same thing in regard to their contracts, and if that came to pass and every
provincial government had a provincial act regulating their own works it would natur-
ally follow with the manufacturers. And then again, gentlemen, we have the piece
workers whom we are forgetting. Mow the piece worker does not really care very
much, there is not a man in
MR. GUYON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
155
APPENDIX No. 4
By the Chairman :
Q. Does not care about what ? — A. Does not care whether the hours of work
are shortened or not. In fact he would prefer
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. He wants longer hours? — A. Ho, he does not, sir, he does not care. In this
case he could always make enough on his job.
By the Chairman:
Q. Does he only work eight hours? — A. Yes. Supposing the piece worker were
to be told ' \ ou are going to work eight hours now and you have been working ten
hours.' If you are a piece worker you will be wanting more money for the job
because you are going to be shortened up on your work. That is the position of the
piece worker and he will get along with the eight hours.
By the Chairman:
Q. Would he supplement it by doing other work? — A. There would be a little
more put to it and he would come out all right at the end of the week because
to-day a man is paid a certain price to do a certain piece of work and if he has to lose
half a day it does not appear in his pay at all.
Q. Is it your idea that the piece workers in Quebec to-day are working in such a
way that if to-morrow their time is reduced from! ten hours to eight it would not
make any difference in their pay ? — A. It would not make any difference in their pay
or output.
Q. Hot reducing their hours from ten to eight? — A. Well I may be putting it
too much at two hours, taking two hours off. As a rule now our piece workers do not
usually work ten hours. There are no people working ten hours on piece work. The
factory runs ten hours but they are through an hour or half an hour before them.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. I do not think that applies to all factories, the piece workers generally work
ten hours. — A. They are out of the factory at a quarter past five.
Q. They may be in some cases but not in all. I know in some factories they
work the full ten hours. — A. They are not the people that are so very anxious about
that.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. They do not work sixty hours a week? — A. Oh, no, they do not.
Extent of Government Work in Factories.
By the Chairman:
Q. Have you any idea what proportion of the work done in the factories of
Quebec is performed on contracts for the government ?— A. I do not know.
Q. Do you think it is one per cent? — A. On government work?
Q. Do you think one per cent of the total work done in the factories of Quebec
is work done for the government of Canada? — A. Well, I have no opinion on that
Mr. Chairman.
Q. Wou'd you think it was one per cent? — A. I do not think it would be one
per cent because really the census does not give us full credit.
Q. T do not think that it would be really one per cent. Assuming that the govern-
ment were buying one one-hundredth of the total output of the factories of Quebec
would be to assume that they were buying supplies pretty extensively. Well now,
that' being the case, the only extent to which this measure coidd influence the move-
156
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
ment for shortening the hours in factories iwould be on work amounting to less than
1 per cent of the work in the factory. Do you think that a regulation of that sort
would be the means of bringing about a reduction to an eight-hour day on all work, if
it were limited to so small a percentage of the total output? — A. I do think so, be-
cause I look upon the moral effect more than anything else; it would have a tremen-
dous effect on the whole Dominion.
Q. Just let us consider it, I believe if one were to figure it out it would be below
one-one hundredth of one per cent.— A. It would be very small, particularly in time
of peace when there is nothing being done extra.
Q. It would be very very small. Now assuming that as a fact, would the amount
of possible confusion and possible annoyance and disruption which would inevitably
follow a regulation of that kind be offset by the good which this regulation would ulti-
mately achieve in bringing about a shortening of the hours of labour in factories?—
A. I am fully convinced of that.
Effectiveness of a Provincial Measure.
Q. As between that and shortening the hours of labour by an Act of the province
itself which has the power to pass an Act, which do you think would be the most effec-
tive way of shortening the hours of labour?— A. If the federal government had the
power I would be in favour of having a government measure fixing the legal working
hours for the whole Dominion. Of course, I quite understand that our legislatures
provided in the Factories’ Act for the regulation of the factories, when they were
called upon to pass those measures.
Q. They are the only authorities that have power in that matter?— A. In fact I
think at that time it was recognized the Dominion Government had no power to pass
that law for the provinces, consequently there was a law framed by the Dominion
Government and it was sent to the different provinces for them to organize, and I
think it was organized immediately the Commission was named.
_ Q- The constitution being what it is to-day, and the Dominion government not
having power to enact a general eight-hour law, but the provinces having the power to
enact a general eight-hour law for each province, which would be the more effective way
to bring about an eight-hour day, for the several provinces to legislate generally for an
eight-hour day in each province or for the Dominion government to approach the sub-
ject along the lines of this measure — A. Well, of course it would require considerable
work on the part of the working people to bring the provincial governments in line, but
I am convinced that if the Dominion government passed an act limiting the hours of
work on their contracts it would not be long before the provincial governments would
do the same, and I think the provincial governments would be the proper authorities
to pass general legislation.
Q. That is not the point, I do not think you quite grasp what I mean. We are
assuming that all this legislation has for its object the shortening- of the' hours of
labour generally, that this measure is only one plan for bringing about a general short-
ening of the hours of labour, I think that is the purpose of it, and as such it is com-
mendable from a certain point of view ; assuming that is the object would that object
be attained more effectively and more quickly by the provincial governments legisla-
ting and saying that 8 hours shall prevail throughout each province, or by this "mea-
sure being made applicable to the extent to which the Dominion government can make
it applicable. A. Well, I think it would be equally effective except that I “ould
favour the provincial idea.
Q. You think this would be equally effective?— A. Yes, but I would favour the
provincial measure.
Q. How could it possibly be equally effective? I mean to say this measure can
apply only to that fraction of one per cent of the work which is being done in thetfac-
MR. GUYON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 157
APPENDIX No. 4
tory, but the provincial law would apply to 100 per cent of it? — A. Oh, yes, as it
stands now.
Q. That is what I mean, that is as far as we can go. — A. Yes, I think the pro-
vincial law would reach it.
Q. If what you are really after is the shortening of the hours of labour for in-
dustries generally, provincial legislation is the most effective way of doinu it?—
A. Oh, I think so. '
Q. That is the point, but you feel that if this were to become law it might be a
lever by which the object sought might be idtimately attained? — A. Exactly.
Q. Is there any reason why the provinces should not adopt a measure such as this,
the same as the Dominion ? — A. I do not see any reason.
Q. You think it is desirable that they should?— A. I think so.
Q. Have you any regulations in Quebec with regard to government contracts? —
A. Hot that I know of.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. You' have heard Mr. Armstrong’s testimony about Ontario, have you anything
similar to that in Quebec? — A. Ho, we have not.
By the Chairman:
Q. Y ou know the system adopted here with reference to the fair wage clause? —
A. I do not think we have anything like that.
Q. Do you think anything along that line would help to attain the same object as
aimed at in this measure?— A. I think so.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Would the passing of this Bill, the enactment of a law for federal contracts
keep back any similar measure for the province?— A. Would it have that effect?
Q. Would it have the effect of keeping back any law that may be presented in the
provincial houses? — A. Ho, I do not think so.
By the Chairman:
Q. It would, I should think, rather advance it? — A. I think it would be an ad-
vance in the movement.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. I suppose you know it has been started in that way in other countries ? — A.
Yes, I heard the law discussed when two hours were clipped off the hours of labour in
1900 in France, but they did not put it in force immediately except on all work done
by females, boys and children in factories, but it was made effective four years after-
wards on other works.
By the Chairman :
Q. Why did they put that limit? — A. Because they are very conservative there,
and they wanted to allow the people who had entered into long contracts to prepare for
the change.
Q. Do you think that was a wise precaution? — A. I think it was.
Q. Do you think that is a wise precaution to adopt here? — A. Well the conditions
in different countries are different, we have not been working long hours here as they
have, and I do not think the conditions are quite the same here as they were in France.
Q. How do the hours of labour in Quebec compare with those in Ontario,
generally? — A. I think the hours are a trifle shorter in Ontario, they are better
organized so far as labour is concerned in Ontario'.
158
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. You think it is due to the organization of labour that the shortening of the
hours has taken place? — A. Yes.
Q. Then a measure of this kind would probably have a greater effect in Quebec
than in Ontario?— A. I think so.
Hours and Wages Problem.
Q. You have heard the discussion here on the two problems, first as to a measure
being introduced which would reduce the hours of labour and the wages pro rata, and
secondly, the possibility of a measure being introduced which would reduce the hours
of labour, but would provide that the total payment per day should be the same as for
the greater number of hours existing prior to the change? — A. Yes.
Q. How do you think the former measure would be accepted or viewed? — A. It
would not be popular.
Q. How about the latter? — A. I think the workingman would want to have the
same wages; I think the organized labour would be willing to accept the conditions
that were offered, but I think that the unorganized people would object strongly. Or-
ganized labour would feel that the reduction would only be temporary and that if the
law were passed they would take care of their own affairs and look after that them-
selves.
Q. Speaking for your province, what proportion of labour is organized? — A. I am
not prepared to say exactly. Of course I know that the larger cities of Quebec and
Montreal are very well organized, but I do not think we are as strongly organized in
proportion as they are in Ontario.
Q. I suppose it depends on the trades largely? — A. Largely, yes.
By Mr. Macdonell: ,
Q. From what you have just said I would judge that your opinion is this that
if this Bill were passed reducing the hours of labour and making no provision for
maintaining the existing wages per day the effect would be that the measure would not
be welcome to unorganized labour, but it would be welcome to organized labour? — A.
Well, organized labour would be more prompt at accepting it; of course I presume
that if there was a lowering of wages the lower class of labour, of workers who are
largely unorganized would be affected.
Q. And they would object? — A. They would feel it harder and they would have
great reason to object. A man that is getting $3.80 or $4 a day and loses 80 cents of
it would not feel it as much as the man who is getting $1.25 would feel it if you took
25 cents away from him, by doing that you would take his very blood away, he could
not stand it.
Scope of Bill 21 re Contracts in Factories.
Q. Have you considered this Bill carefully, have you read it? — A. Yes, I have
read it.
Q. Do you regard it as a Bill applying only to work done on a government public
building, public works rather, or do you regard it as having a more far-reaching effect?
A. Well, in reading it over it would seem that it would affect even the goods that are
coming to a contractor, goods that are manufactured outside of his own control for
this contract; it seems that it would apply to that as well, in fact the way I read it
here I would imagine that the second or third man that was manufacturing goods
for the job would come under the reading of that act.
By the Chairman:
Q. Would all the employees in his employ come under it? — A. But at the same
time is seems to me that the work proper that is being done on the contract would be
the part of the work which would be affected so far as the shortening of the hours of
labour is concerned.
MR. GUYON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
159
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. T ou mean that is the part that should be affected, or do you mean to say that
is the part that would be affected under this Bill? — A. Well, under this Bill here it
seems to me that the men that would be furnishing work for a contract, it would seem
by what I read there, that the Bill aims at that, that even the manufacturer that is
supplying the contractor would have to do that, but again it seems to me that would
be going a great deal farther than this law intends it to go.
Q. You mean that it goes farther than it should go ?— A. Yes, I think it should
simply cover the construction that would be in the hands of this contractor.
Q. If you were introducing a Bill in the House you would aim at having it deal
piimarily with the contract and the men employed immediately on the work, is that
the idea ? A. That is what I think, because it would lead to so many things we could
not control, it would require an army of functionaries to control them.
Q. That is exactly the point we want to get at, and you as inspector, can give us
very valuable assistance on that point in endeavouring to further the eight-hour move-
ment on government work. It is in your opinion advisable to go a certain length and be
effective rather than to go beyond that length— A. I think the Bill should better
apply to the work proper, that is to the work the contractor has engaged to do for the
government, letting alone the furnishing part of the work, the accessories needed in
that particular work.
Q. By leaving alone you mean omitting?— A. Yes, because I am afraid it would
be almost uncontrollable, unless an addition to this Bill m the shape of a regulation
should say exactly in what sense it should apply, and there should be a schedule at the
end of an act of this kind which would simplify the whole matter, and we would know
exactly what would come under this heading. We had to do that in the case of the
Factories Act, at first we had to specify what industry was an industry within the
meaning of the law, and it was through knowing that we were able to map out all the
industries, but the year that we amended that act and said that all factories outside
domestic factories should come under the meaning of that act, we did not want that
schedule any more.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. That is why you made the remark in the early part of your evidence about
the necessity or wisdom of having a schedule or regulation explaining this Bill? — A.
Exactly.
Other Governments Would Legislate.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you think that if a measure of that kind were introduced here it would
have the effect of leading other governments and public bodies to follow the ex-
ample of the Dominion Government? — A. I am sure it would.
Q. Do you think that in that respect it would be a material contribution to the
welfare of the working people? — A. It would be a great and noble thing, there is
nobody knows any more about that than the factory inspector.
Q. Do you think it would mean much in the way of additional cost to the gov-
ernment?—A. No I do not think it would to a great extent. I think that a man. who
works eight hours and has not been ground down by excessive work, by excessive toil
* — and particularly on government work where a good deal of it1 is done in the open
air in the hot broiling sun — I think that a man that has done eight hours’ work
would the next day feel a good deal fresher and do better work than the man who had
worked ten hours and would have to do the same class of work the next day. That
is my opinion. I think it would work all right in connection with factories where
people are not engaged in such heavy work because they have the help of the mach-
inery.
] 60
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Long Hours re Accidents in Factories.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. You mentioned a short time ago that the accidents were greater where the
men worked longer hours. Do you think the accidents would be any greater for ten
hours’ work than they would be for eight? — A. Well the accidents in factories, of
course, are the only ones we have to deal with and they present themselves for
several reasons. We have, for instance, the lack of preventive appliances in connec-
tion with the protection of machinery. That is one source. Then we have the cen-
tralization of unskilled labour from the rural parts into large towns, the bringing
in of unskilled men unacquainted with machinery. That is another source. I do
not pretend to say that the excess of labour involves very frequent accidents, but we
must have quite a number of accidents in heavy work in large rolling mills for in-
stance.
Q. The reason I ask you of course you are an inspector and I have some idea
of what you see when you are travelling because I have had a wide experience in the
factory business myself. Now the man or woman, or boy or girl that gets hurt it is
generally in their first or second hour’s experience because they are unskilled. It is
not the boy or girl that has been working for years that gets hurt, it is the boy or girl
that comes in unskilled. What I want to get at is this : I do not think you are right
in stating that excessive hours cause the accidents, that ten hours would cause more
accidents than eight. I am speaking from experience and from what I have seen in
our own factories.- — A. I mentioned that fact as merely a corollary to the whole
affair. The accidents I put at the very minimum in connection with the excessive
hours and only in certain industries. They will certainly contribute to a certain
extent but not to any extent in comparison with the unskilled hands or the lack of pro-
tection of machinery. Of course there are a few instances, in 22 years of inspection
work I have seen a few cases which, however, are nothing to the himdreds and hun-
dreds of cases I have inspected.
Q. I would like to know if I am right in understanding from you that you do
not consider any more accidents result from ten hours labour than from eight.— A.
No I would not make that a question. I have noticed a few but I would not make
that a question. We know where the accidents come from; they are due to lack of
installation.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. lake in the textile factories. The accidents will happen in the e^rly or the late
part of the day. Or you may take rolling mills and industries of that kind. I suppose
you have no data as to that, you do not take the hour at which an accident happens or
anything of that kind? A. No we do not. We have reason to believe, however, that
quite a number of these accidents are produced by excessive fatigue of the toilers.
Q. You have statistics to prove that? — A. I think that is right.
Q. C ommon sense teaches that ? — A. I have heard it discussed at conventions
where people have made a study of these things.
Textile Workers — Women — Children.
Q. One more matter, I would like to ask you if the textile workers, for instance,
in the province of Quebec, ever made a motion of any kind to shorten the hours of
labour? — A. I believe they have repeatedly. I think they are moving now in connec-
tion with the changing of the hours of labour which are badly arranged for women and
children.
Q. Even when they made that move for shortening the hours of labour, the first
time they made the move for 54 hours of work, we will say, were they not even willing
to accept a reduction in pay and still get the shorter hours? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In those factories where there are women and children? A. Yes
ME. GUYON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURi $ OF LABOUR
161
APPENDIX No. 4
By the Chairman:
Q. I think the women and children do get excessive hours in many of the
textile factories in Quebec and it would be very much in the interests of humanity
to have those hours shortened? A. We are suffering you know from the importation
into the cotton factories in the province of Quebec of the old style that they were work-
ing under in England and we have got to eradicate it.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. What hours are they ?— A. They have the Saturday afternoon and they work
eleven hours and sometimes twelve, and of course all other matters in connection with
the employment of boys and girls in these factories makes it pretty severe for those
employees. We are taking these boys out of these factories and putting them to night
school in the evening. But when boys work so long in the factory, work for ten or
twelve hours and go to the night school at night and try to get the result of the multi-
plication table you know what that means.
Mr. Macdonell. — It is a great and crying evil. You send women and children to
factories. They go on at daylight and do not leave until after darkness sets in and
consequently in the winter months they rarely ever see the sunshine. The poor crea-
tures, more than half of them boys and girls, become stunted and dwarfed and never
attain to their full maturity in mind, body, intellect or anything.
Mr. Verville. — And that is the material you have got to build up future genera-
tions with.
Q. There is one question, I do not know whether it bears on this, but it does in-
directly and your experience would make what you say all the more valuable. Do you
think it would be an advantage to have all the legislation in regard to labour under the
Dominion government? — A. Well I think it would.
Mr. Macdonell. — You cannot change the British North America Act.
The Chairman.- — I think the greatest handicap in the way of reform so far as in-
dustrial conditions are concerned, lies in the fact that unless one province keeps pari-
passu with every other province you give to the province that is behind in labour legis-
lation an unfair advantage in industrial co'mpetition over the one that wants to do
what is right, and I do not see why we should not get this thing under a law of general
application. — A. I have heard that said before every industrial convention I have at-
tended and I have attended a great many. The Americans are placed in the same situ-
ation. They have splendid labour laws and they have everything in connection with
labour matters and statistics in Washington, but they have all these state laws which
are varying from one state to another. They have a law in Massachusetts of a certain
character which is different from the laws in New York or Connecticut and all this is
wrong.
The Chairman. — Do you think we have sufficiently examined the witness Mr.
Verville?
Mr. Verville. — I am entirely satisfied, Mr. Guyon has given us much valuable
explanation in a very short time.
Witness discharged.
Committee adjourned.
4- -11
162
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
House of Commons,
Committee Boom Ho. 20,
Wednesday, March 9, 1910.
The Committee met at eleven o’clock a.m., the Chairman, Hon. Mr. King, pre-
siding.
The Chairman. — I am glad to see you present this morning Mr. Murray; do you
wish to give evidence yourself ?
Mr. G. M. Murray (representing the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association.) — I
had intended, Mr. Chairman, in presenting the case for the Canadian Manufacturers’
Association, to bring forward, in the first instance, a general argument, but in work-
ing this argument up I find it will take so long that it might be the means, if I go
on first, of preventing the hearing of some gentlemen I have brought from the Hamil-
ton Steel and Iron Company. As their evidence, I think will not take more than an
hour in the ordinary course of events, with your permission I should like to bring
these witnesses forward first and then such time as may be left over can be given to
the hearing of my own remarks.
The Chairman. — I think the members of the committee would like to further
your convenience in the matter.
Mr. Murray. — Very well. This is a memorandum of the witnesses whose evi-
dence I want to bring forward this morning (handing in a statement.)
Mr. F. B. McICune, Hamilton, called, sworn and examined.
By the Chairman:
Q. What position do you occupy? — A. I am superintendent of the open hearth
department of the Hamilton Steel and Iron Company.
Q. How long has that been in existence? — A. The steel plant, about eleven years
and the blast furnace, about fourteen or fifteen.
Q- How long have you been connected with the company? — A. About ten years.
Q. How many men are employed? — A. For the whole plant?
Q. Yes? — A. Approximately fifteen hundred.
A. Give us an idea of the business you do ? — A. Do you mean the gross business
of the plant?
Q. Yes? — A. It is about four millions a year.
Q. Have you seen this Bill Ho. 21, an Act respecting the hours of labour on
public works? — A. We, of course, do some government work down there once in
a while. The objections of course
Q. You have looked at these provisions, have you? — A. I am looking at the Bill
now, Mr. Chairman.
Q. Look over it carefully. Do I understand you to say that you had not seen this
Bill until this morning?— A. I had not seen it in that shape any more than Mr.
Murray — not as condensed as that.
Q. Is the evidence you intend to give us based upon what some one has told you
in regard to the Bill or what you have seen of the Bill yourself?— A. I do not know
that I just understand your question.
Q. What I mean is this: Tou have come here this morning to give evidence in
regard to this Bill Ho. 21 which is the measure this committee has been appointed
MR. McKUNE.
COMMITTEE RE BILL Vo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
163
APPENDIX No. 4
to look into. Now, do I understand that until this morning you had not seen the
Bill itself? — A. No.
Q. And the evidence you intended to give in regard to it was based on what some
one told you about it? — A. Yes.
Q. You have now had the opportunity of looking at the Bill? — A. Yes.
Q. What have you to say in its favour? — A. I have not very much to say in its
favour.
Objections to Bill No. 21 — Reasons.
Q. What have you got to say against it? — A. Well, the objection we would urge
is that we would not undertake any government work under those conditions.
Q. What conditions? — A. That a man would not have* to work any longer than
eight hours; we could not do it. That is supposing we take into consideration our
work. The heats run from six to twelve hours, or six to eight hours, or six to ten
hours, there is no set time for them. Supposing we set an arbitrary time for tapping
or changing turns. Say it was two o’clock. If we were tapping at that time or forced
to change turns and some of the men were late we would not be able to let the men
on duty remain at work until they were relieved. As it is our men work eleven or
thirteen hours, and the men who are being relieved stay until the other men come.
Now, as I understand the Bill the men in the turn would have to. stop at the end of
eight hours. Is that not correct?
Q. You notice- this Bill is intitled, ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on
Public Works.’ Your concern has nothing to do with public works? — A. No.
Q. Well, is it your idea that the Bill deals with something other than those?
What does the title lead you to believe? — A. As I understand it the Bill deals with
all government contracts.
Q. That is our understanding of it. As drafted the Bill deals with all govern-
ment contracts? — A. Well, we deal in some government work, such as railroad fasten-
ings and so on — fish plates, tie plates and spikes.
Q. For what department of the government?— A. For the Transcontinental Rail-
way and so on, contracts which have been let by the government. We do quite a bit
of that, and I think we have some government business yet in hand at our works.
Q. And you think that if the Bill in the form in which it is drafted were passed,
it would apply to your establishment, and if applied you would not be able to execute
these contracts? — A. Not at all; we would have to cancel them. We could not live
up to the eight-hour clause with these contracts we have now. We could not live up
to this condition of the Bill.
Q. You could not put a set of men on the government work and have other men
do the ordinary work? — A. You cannot do that; it is impracticable.
Q. Why is it impracticable ? — A. In the first place, we work along two turns, and
we would have to organize another turn. We run continuously, we do not stop at
any time except Sunday. We would have to organize a third turn, and we could not
get the men. We would have to get skilled men such as first helpers and metal men,
melters, men to whom we pay high wages, and we have a lot of them. We would
have to go and get that class of men and then we could not get them unless they felt
sure they were going to have at least a year or two year’s -work. Supposing you
worked three months. You could not get government contracts that would last that
long in our business where we make 75,000 tons or 100,000 tons of rolled steel a year.
You would have to disorganize your forces at least once a year.
Difficulties Under an Eight-hour Regulation.
Q. In your business would you be able to distinguish in making some of these
articles you have spoken of between what you are making for the government and
what you are making for a private firm? — A. It is absolutely impossible. The ore
4 — 111
164
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ko. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
we get, some of it comes from the Michipicoten district, and some from the United
States, and the coal from Pennsylvania. There are probably three or four or five
different mines it comes from. It is brought in and delivered with four or five hund-
red thousand tons of three or four different kinds of ore. Now, if I understand the
Bill we would have to trace the ore, the coal and the coke and see that it (was mined
and coked under the conditions provided in this Bill. Is that right?
Q. Some have placed that interpretation on the Bill ? — A. Whenever we used 2,200
pounds of coke would we have to see that that coke was coked under the eight-hour
law in Pennsylvania?
Q. You will have to ask Mr. Verville; he is responsible for the Bill?— A. These
are the conditions and we have absolutely no control over the hours of labour in the
coal mine. We cannot go to the coal mines and say: ‘ We want that coke coked in a
certain time.’
Q. Without going back as far as the coal mining. Take the finished article
itself. The Bill would apply to fish plates, you say? — A. Pish plates or tie plates.
Q. When you are making these fish plates, coidd you manufacture a certain
number for the government and then go on turning out others for other people, could
you distinguish between the two? — A. You take fish plates. We might roll them and
have 150,000 pounds covering eight different people.
Q. Yes. — A. We have standard 7 or 8-inch-rolls and 1J inches thick. Usually we
have 150 or 200 of that one size; we generally wait until we get a bunch. Now, it
takes time and expense to change those rolls. We would wait until we get
those and roll them out in one or twro turns or whatever it takes. The difficulty there
would be that in order to roll so as to distinguish between these to be made on an
eight-hour basis and the remainder, we would have to reorganize our force, hire new
rollers and so on, and perhaps only' have ten days’ work. After that you would have
to do away with your extra men. You could only fool with them but once. After
that you would not be able to do it. They would say: ‘ We will not go back there to
work for a week or ten days.’
Q. You say your men work from eleven to thirteen hours? — A. It is optional
with them; they can suit themselves. They prefer working thirteen hours at night
and eleven hours a day. They want to work that way and they work straight along.
During that time they may have a spell off of anywhere from two to five hours. The
night men start at six o’clock at night and work until seven in the morning.
Q. What I am trying to get at is, do they do eleven or twelve hours’ night
labour? — A. We pay them for thirteen hours’ work at night and eleven hours during
the day.
Working Hours — Meal Hours — Wages,
Q. Do you pay them by the day? — A. By the hour.
Q. And you pay them for twelve hours’ work? — A. For thirteen hours’ work when
they are on at nights.
Q. What time do they take off for meals? — A. They can suit themselves about
that; we have no set time at all. They have plenty of time to eat whenever they want
to. We do not object to their eating whenever they want to.
Q. Then I understand these men wmrk steadily for eleven, twelve or thirteen
hours at their option, and within that time they can take whatever time they please
to eat? — A. Yes.
Q. Are they allowed a certain time for their meals? — A. We generally allow
them a certain time. Suppose we tap a heat at six o’clock at night, they have to work
till ten. Then they may have a spell off from ten to eleven and work from eleven to
twelve. After that time they will eat.
A. The work is intermittent, depending on the furnaces?— A. Depending upon
how fast the furnaces are running. °
MR. McKUNE.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
165'
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Murray:
Q. During that spell these men, I understand, can do anything they like? — A.
Yes.
Q. They can eat, sleep, or even play a game of baseball? — A. They simply have to
do so much work and after that they can sleep and eat and we do not bother them.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Can they leave the premises? — A. ISTo.
Q. Then they cannot play baseball?— A. We do not expect them to go home.
Q. Mr. Murray suggested that the men could play baseball during the spells when
they are not working ? — A. They do not go off the ground altogether ; we have a plant
that covers seventy-five acres. We would not expect them to go home and go to bed
and be obliged to send after them. That would be unreasonable.
Q. What do you pay these men?— A. Those fifteen hundred men will average, I
should say, approximately, $2.50 a day. Our minimum pay is 15 cents an hour on a
straight ten hours’ work.
Q. Then the workman gets $2.50 a day? — A. On the average.
Q. For a period of twelve hours? — A. A period of twelve hours.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. \ ou pay them so much an hour? — A. Well, some of the work is on a tonnage
basis.
Mr. Smith. — Mr. McKune has given the average.
The Witness. — If I were making up the average of our 1,500 men for a month it
would amount to about $2.50 a day.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. For twelve hours? — A. For twelve hours it may run a little more than that.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Take the case of the men who are paid by tonnage, would their pay amount
to an average of 15 cents an hour? — A. No. The minimum rate paid for labour is 15
cents an hour.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. But taking the general average.— A. The general average for the 1,500 men
would be $2.50 a day.
Q. Per day of twelve hours? — A. Yes. It may be a little more than that.
Q. Divided into two shifts? — A. Yes.
Q. Can you conceive of any great difficulty in dividing your men into three
shifts? — A. It would mean of course one-third more of skilled men. They are
scarce at present and hard to get.
Q. You think you would have difficulty in getting men? — A. There would be
difficulty in getting these men and you would have to guarantee them twelve months
or a year’s work.
Cost of Production Under Two and Three Shifts
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Do you guarantee that to all your men? — A. The two shifts? They do not
need it. With two shifts we can afford to go out and compete for business.
Q. Do you give them a guarantee of any kind? — A. None except that
going to allow them 365 days work.
we are
166
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
* 9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. What would the addition of another shift add to the cost of production? A.
Thirty-three and a third per cent. That is supposing that a ton of finished bars
cost — the actual labour on that was $10 it would add $3.33.
Q. Per ton? — A. Per ton.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. On what basis do you work that out? — A. Suppose we started at the coke,
the coal, and the ore, the cost of transportation and the labour of putting it through
the blast furnace, through the open hearth and through the mills. The cost there <
would be approximately $10. That is not official, but I would say it would be $10
and you just add thirty-three and a third per cent to that.
Q. Supposing you had three shifts wording eight hours each would it be possible
to have continuous production? — A. The work is continuous now.
Q. But you say you have intermittent work? — A. That is quite right.
Q. I asked you if you had three shifts of eight hours would it be possible to
carry on continuous production? — A. Not any more than it is now. It takes so long
<*> make a heat. A heat will run from six to twelve hours, or from six to eight hours.
We cannot get that out as quickly as we would like, it depends upon the furnaces.
In that way you cannot settle an arbitrary time to tap the heat. You must tap
it when it gets into a certain condition whether it is two o’clock or three o’clock. If
we had to change turns at two o’clock and those men going off had to stop right then
it would simply mean that there might be nobody to handle the heat. Supposing
the next turn men did not turn up? Six o’clock is our time to change and the men
in the next turn might not come until ten minutes after six, but the other men have
got to remain in their place because the heat has got to be handled and taken out
of the way.
Q. That seems to me to be a matter, of management. If the men are supposed
to be there at six o’clock they should not arrive at ten minutes after six? — A. Sup-
posing they were late. How would you meet that condition.
Q. In the very large industries they are not allowed to be late. If they are late
they can go back again; in consequence they have perfect discipline. I do not see
anything in that objection? — A. Supposing you have men at work whose places were
hard to fill? You cannot go and round up men and pick them up on the street
corner. Take our melters, rollers and1 first helpers, they are skilled men and the next
man to one of these cannot take his place. The second helper or third helper cannot
take the place of the first helper and the same way with the men at the ladles; it is
practically a job by itself.
Q. We have necessity for skilled labour in every department of production and
yet there are enterprises running at eight hours a day. They have the same difficul-
ties as you have explained, and yet those industries are operated1 successfully. I am
trying to get at the point as to whether the same thing cannot be done in your busi-
ness and if not, why?
By Mr. Murray:
Q. I take it some of these men live at a remote distance from the steel plant? —
A. Yes.
Q. And how do they reach the steel plant? — A. By street car.
Q. And the street cars do not always run on time? — A. That is one of the trou-
bles. The men may leave their homes on time and yet be delayed fifteen minutes on
the way to work.
By the Chairman:
Q. That is not the point raised by Mr. Smith. I understand you are working
day and night ? — A. Yes.
MR. McKTJNE.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
167
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. And you work continuously and work in two shifts? — A. Yes.
Q. When you shift from one to the other these difficulties you are raising at the
moment must arise? — A. Yes.
Q. Now, suppose instead of having two shifts you had three? — A. Yes.
Q. Would you not get over the difficulty as between the three shifts in the same
way as you get over the difficulty with the two shifts now? Leaving out altogether
the question of hours, cost, or anything else, if you were working your plant hy three
shifts instead of two, would you not be able to manage as between the one shift going
on and the other coming off just as you do now? — A. I would say this
Q. That is a point, I think, Mr. Smith was anxious to have met.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. You are running your business at present with two shifts? — A. Yes.
Q. We want to consider the interests of your industry? — A. Yes.
Q. If this Bill went into effect you would have to run your business by three
shifts instead of two? — A. Yes.
Q. What I want to know is the difference in the cost of production and the diffi-
culty of conducting the business if this change were made? — A. The additional cost
would he 334 per cent more, that is just exactly what it would cost.
Management and Discipline.
By the Chairman:
Q. As far as the management is concerned, and the discipline and the arrange-
ment of the men, if you could get the men and were prepared to pay the money that
was necessary, you could manage it just as well on an eight-hour basis as on the
other plan, perhaps better, could you not? — A. Under this Act which says a man must
only work eight hours on government work when two o’clock came he would have to
stop. Well, supposing the other man was not there, what good is this. I would have
to say to the other man : ‘ You must stay there until you are relieved whether it is
three o’clock or half past three or six o’clock at night.’
Q. If we assume this Bill went into effect and that it was wider even than it is
so that the men in the factory would have to work on the eight -hour basis, the point
that we are trying to get at now is, can you run your business with men working in
eight-hour shifts instead of twelve-hour shifts? We will say nothing about the cost
of it at all, could you, as. a matter of discipline and management run on an eight-
hour instead of twelve-hour basis? — A. I would say yes to that, Mr. Chairman, pro-
vided you cut this provision out.
Q. I see your point. The gnat you are straining at is that if you happen to strike
just at that hour A. And we were tapping a heat.
Q. And a man was in the act of pouring out a ladle he would have to drop that
ladle at the second? — A. Exactly.
Q. No law in the world is administered in that way. Take to-day there are some
industries regulated as to hours. — A. We have got that handicap over us if you pass
this Bill.
Mr. Smith. — The law provides for extraordinary emergencies.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. I understand your point to be this: at present you have got control over your
help? — A. Yes.
Q. You require them to perform twelve hours full work? — A. Yes.
Q. If this Bill becomes law they will say: ‘You cannot compel me to work longer
than eight hours, I must stop.’? — A. That is the point I am making. When it comes
to two o’clock the men will say: ‘You can keep on if you have a mind to but I must
stop; the law says so.’
168
COMMITTEE RE BILL WoT2l— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Smith:
3- You can have your men, stop within any length of time and they are quite
willing to do it? — A. We have absolute control of our men.
(-c- Do they always comply with your request to stop any length of time? For
instance, if you want men to work fourteen, fifteen or sixteen hours, are they always
willing to do it? — A. Are they always willing?
Q. Yes? — A. Well, we always
Q. Do they make any protest? — A. We always listen to our men; they have the
right to make a protest; we give them that privilege.
Q. Have they any union? — A. No, sir. Not any union except the bricklayers’
union. We have had no union and no dissatisfaction there at all.
Q. Supposing the men attempted to organize a union, would you he willing to
work with them? — A. I do not think we would be willing to, except it was something
we considered was in the interest of the company.
Q. Supposing the men came together and represented their wishes to you as a
union, would the company have any objection to that? — A. Well, I cannot speak for
that. I am the superintendent of the steel plant.
Q. I was just asking your opinion? — A. I cannot speak for that at all. That
would be the manager’s place.
Q. When a man applies to you for work, you do not ask him whether he is a
union man? — A. It does not make any difference. We have no union in our mills,
and therefore wre have no trouble from strikes, no trouble and no dissatisfaction.
Long Hours in Similar Establishments.
By the Chairman:
Q. How do the hours of labour in your establishment compare with the hours
of labour in other industrial establishments in Canada? — A. Wherever there is con-
tinuous operation there are long hours just the same.
Q. Are there many plants like yours in Ontario? — A. Yes.
Q. How many? — A. There is the Algoma, which is about half as large again
as ours, the Swansea Rolling Mills and the Belleville.
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. How do your hours compare with those of the Dominion Iron and Steel
Company?— A. The hours are the same. Our men prefer to work thirteen hours
at night and eleven in day. They prefer to work at night and then they go home, go
to bed right away and sleep all day. They get up at five or half -past five and go to
the plant. We do not care whether they work the thirteen hours or the eleven.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do they wnrk on Saturdays right up to midnight? — A. Yes, we generally
stop over Sunday.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Do I understand you to say that the manufacturers of this class require
their employees to work twelve hours? — A. Yes.
Q. All over Canada? — A. Yes.
Q. Six days a week? — A. Yes, and seven days a week in some respects.
Hours at Work — Hours at Home.
By the Chairman:
Q. How much time do
From my own experience,
sufficient time.
these men get to see their families and homes?— A.
Mr. Chairman, I would say that they seem to have
MR. McKUNE.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
169
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. What is your idea of ‘ sufficient ’ ? — A. Well, I would leave at half-past six
and be at home till seven o’clock in the morning.
Q. Do you think that is sufficient time for a man with his family? — A. Well,
of course, that depends. I was speaking for myself.
Q. You said you thought they got sufficient time, I am trying to get your idea
of what is sufficient? — A. Well, that is a matter of opinion.
Q. If it came down to yourself, would you think that was sufficient? — A. I have
found it so.
Q. Quite sufficient to see your family from six at night until seven in the morn-
ing?— A. Yes, I am speaking only personally, you know.
Q. For every day in the week? — A. And a break on Sunday.
Q. IIow much break on Sunday? — A. Anywhere from twelve to twenty-four
hours.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. You do not work on Sundays? — A. Some few of the men do and the blast
furnaces work on Sunday. They must work on Sunday; their work is continuous for
365 days of the year.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. I suppose some of these men require three-quarters of an hour to reach their
work? — A. Before they reach their work?
Q. \res. It will take about three-quarters of an hour? — A. We like them to live
as close as they can, but that is left to themselves.
By the Chairman:
Q. You said they use the street cars? — A. Our plant at the east end is a little
way out?
Q. You said they have to use street cars? — A. Some of them do.
Q. That would cut another quarter of an hour off from their time at home?—
A. Yes. That is up to the men
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Supposing you let the men off at five o’clock in the afternoon, would they go
straight home? — A. I do not think so; I do not think they would go straight home.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. What makes you think so? — A. I am judging that they would stop off on the
way; they do so now. That would not improve it any, but if anything would make.it
worse.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Would you think that a good reason to lengthen the men’s hours? — A. From
my experience the best men we have and from whom we get the best results are the
men who stay at work at least 325, 330 or 340 days a year. These are the best men
we have. Just as soon as you begin to close down on Saturday morning and not start
up until Sunday night late, or until Monday, we have constant trouble with that
class of men. It seems to give them too much time off; too much chance of spend-
ing money or to get around.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you think a man ought not to have a chance of spending his money? — A.
I think he ought to have some.
170
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ro. 'll— HOURS OE LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. S tawfield:
Q. How are the conditions in the United States in similar industries? — A. Very
similar to these.
Q. Do they work the same hours? — A. Yes, the same hours.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. There is no place, that you know of where they are working three shifts?--
A. I do not know of a place where it is practised.
Steady Work.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you regard this as a pleasanter job than the work of a bricklayer, mason
or carpenter? — A. As a rule our works can get all the bricklayers, helpers and such
employees whenever we want them. All that is necessary is to let them know that
we want some men for the steel plant and they are down there after the work; they
leave the job where they are only working for five or five and a half days a week.
Ihe reason is they cannot make time enough; they do not get their ten hours and
the work is not steady enough and is broken up by bad weather and other conditions
all during the summer season. At our works we can give them good steady work,
and at the end of the year they are considerably ahead as compared with the five or
five and a half days a week.
Q. Of the two classes of work which do you think is the more congenial? — A.
Which is the more preferable?
Q. Yes? — A. I would say ours.
Q. You think your work is pleasanter than carpentering? — A. We have no trou-
ble to get our men at all; they stay right with us.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. It is all inside work? — A. No, we have outside work, too. Some of our labour-
ers are outside a good deal.
Q. If this Bill becomes law, what will he the effect so far as you are concerned?
Your company does business with the government? — A. Yes.
Q. And you do business with others, do you not? — A. Yes.
Q. Supposing you have part of your help working on a government contract for
eight hours while the rest are working ten hours, what will the effect be?— A. It is
not practicable. A\' e would simply have to give up government orders. Supposing
we had a government order for 500 tons. That would not' he Very much. We would
not touch an order of that kind. We would hardly consider it unless we had a year’s
work, guaranteed for a year or two, because it would disorganize our force. Once
we started the eight-hour system they would all ask for eight hours, and we could
not agree to it at all.
Q. It would create disturbance ? A. It would create disturbance and we would
lose the control of our men.
Short Hours as Opposed to Long Hours.
By the Chairman:
Q. Supposing this Bill were limited in its application only to public buildings
being constructed for the government, would you have any objection to it? — A. Sup-
posing we wanted to use reinforced concrete bar
Q We will say that the law would not apply to materials to go into the building
or to those engaged m making the materials, but only to the actual labour engaged
m the construction of a public building, would you have any objection to the measure
m that particular ?-A. I think, Mr. Chairman, I ought not to express an opinion if
that is what you want. It does not enter into what I am givin- evidence on ’
MR. McKUNE.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
171
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. You are a citizen of this country, and we want to get your opinion. You
are an expert man on this industrial question; would you have any objection to the
Bill if it were framed in that way? — A. I would say that I would, yes.
Q. On what ground? — A. I think it would be establishing a bad precedent. It is
something they will take the cue from to bring about the condition we are speaking
of here. The government does work on an eight-hour basis and they pay so much.
You take a man that works on a trade on the street and gets $1.75 or $2 a day for
working nine hours. That pay does not compare with what we pay him. We pay
$1.50 a day, but he gets steadier work at our place.
Q. Do you believe in short hours? — A. Do you mean eight hours a day?
Q. Short hours as opposed to long hours, or eight hours if you like; do you
believe in the eight-hour day? — A. If it is practicable. Well, I do not know that 1
ought to express what my own personal view is.
Q. That is all that is of any value to us, your own personal belief.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. According to your evidence, long hours are a safeguard to the individual him-
self?— A. Long hours? We get better results from our men where we have them
work 11 and 13 hours.
Q. That is what I say, your evidence goes to show that long hours would be to
the advantage of the individual himself? — A. That is the point. The steadiest men
we have are the men that work the long hours, work regularly. They are the best
men we have.
By the Chairman:
Q. Your own personal opinion is valuable because this question is a many-sided
one. The question of the hours of labour is one that affects the home life, the moral
life and the physical life of those who are subject to these conditions. What is your
opinion as to the effect of an eight -hour day as against twelve hours; if you had to
organize the whole of an industry on the one basis or the other, which would you pu t
it on? — A. I would put it on the twelve-hour basis.
Q. You would have everybody work twelve hours instead ol eight? — A. Tim
melters work twelve hours and the labourers ten as it is now.
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. ITow about your office staff? — A. I would not work them twelve hours, but
ten or nine hours if they want to.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. How many hours do jrour office staff work now? — A. They go to work at eighl
o’clock and quit at five or five-thirty, that is the office staff.
Q. Do they get an hour or an hour and a half for dinner? — A. They do not stop
for dinner. They just eat a little luncheon and go along. That is just in the main
office. Our clerks around the departments work just the same as the men do.
Mr. Verville. — I know, but I am speaking of the clerks in your office.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Do you find the men generally complaining of the long hours?— A. Ho, sir.
Q. Do you find the general complaint to be that you do not give them work
enough? — A. Yes.
Q. That is the general complaint? — A. Yes, that is what we find. Suppose it is
our outside labour and a rain storm came on and we wanted to send those men home,
there would be the worst howl you ever heard. In other cases they send the men horn?
because they cannot work right through or they cannot he furnished with work insid'
which we do, so as to give them steady employment all the time.
172
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VI!., A. 1910
By Mr. Verville:
Q. So that they shall receive a certain amount at the end of the week? — A Good
steady work.
Q. The question is that they receive so much at the end of the week for their
families? — A. Yes.
Q. lor that reason they want the work inside? — A. They want to make a lar^e
amount.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. They want to get the money? — A. They want to get the money.
By the Chairman:
Q. Supposing a half dozen of the men came to you and complained that thirteen
hours was rather long, and that they would prefer to work twelve hours, what would
you say?— A. If there was enough of them I would let them work twelve. I would
say, ‘ That is up to you. Do you want to work twelve? All right.’ But they want to
work thirteen.
Q. Suppose they were working twelve and came and asked to be allowed to work
eleven hours ?-A. We could not do it. We could not arrange our turns to work
eleven hours any more than to work thirteen and eleven. We could work fourteen
and ten.
Q. Then there would not be much good of their complaining? — A. Yo.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. I wais just going to ask you as between the eleven and thirteen-hour shifts
Do you find the men expressing any preference as to which shift they will work?
( an a man choose which shift he likes? If so, which would he join? — A I would
rather think the majority of them want to work thirteen hours so as to make more
pay.
By Mr. Murray:
Q. Your experience with the men is that you do not think family considerations
would induce them to ask for a reduction in hours? — A. No. I do not think so.
Q. It is rather the other way, they would ask for an increase in hours so' as to
earn more money to support their family? — A. Yes.
Mr. Verville.— It is an unusual thing to allow an interested party to question
lo J « t''' ,'0.18, blf°re the H Mr. Murray is going to be a witness I
do not think that he has any right to put questions to the witness himself.
Jvlr. Knowles. — What harm does it do?
■The Chairman.— It is a matter for the committee to consider. When the point
Ttdtil ’ r, “ 0n ,he i[ help to the elucidation
oi the tacts, which is what the committee is after.
Mr. VEimLLE — But Mr. Murray is a paid officer of the Manufacturers’ Associa-
tion, and that makes all the difference in the world.
The Chairman.— This is for the committee to consider. I think it will help
matters along if we allow Mr. Murray to ask any questions he likes. I am stromdy
m favour of allowing anybody who wishes to ask questions. ° y
Mr. Knowles.— There is no danger, I think, of Mr. Murray abusing the privilege
Mr VERViLLE.-When a man is a paid officer he has got to conduct his h ZZf*
Nevertheless, ,f Mr Murray is going to he , witness he can take a note of these a”ngs
and bring them before the committee himself. gs
The CHMRMAN-It is for the members of the committee to say With re<mrd
to Mr. Murray putting questions I do not see that it in am- wm- offw li -T' ™
of the witness, nor any question no matter who it is out W- J ‘ m ^ ! 16 evldeilce
nizance of the answer that is given to it I think thn r ■’ r ' 6 on^y cog~
, • , e . u feiven lo it. x tnmk the more information we can obtain
from every point of view the nearer we shall get to the troth M
MR. McKUNE. ‘ ‘
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
173
APPENDIX No. 4
Mr. Verville. — My reason for the objection is that when the witness took the
stand at first he saidi that he had not seen the Bill and was simply giving his opinion
of it from what he was told.
The Chairman. — Were yon not pleased to hear him say that?
Mr. Verville. — I was.
The Witness. — I had not seen the Bill in the shape in which you have got it here.
Mr. Verville. — This Bill was never in any other shape.
The Chairman. — Perhaps it would suit your views if we went on and allowed
members of the committee to ask questions andl afterwards— Mr. Murray might put
such questions as he desired.
Mr. Verville. — Afterwards, certainly.
Mr. Murray. — The only reason I interjected any remarks at all was because you
yourself, Mr. Chairman, suggested that I might do so.
The Chairman. — I think that is so.
Mr. Knowles. — I think it should not be used as a precedent, but if counsel comes
here and wishes to be allowed to ask questions in a civil way, permission should be
granted. I would not like it to be taken as a precedent that objection should be
raised because any person is here for remuneration.
Mr. Verville.— You are creating this precedent.
Mr. Knowles. — I am quite content with the decision in this case because I do
not think Mr. Murray will abuse the privilege.
The Chairman. — I think we can go on now and if the question comes up again
we can deal with it as it arises.
Moral and Material Gain Under Short Hours Basis.
By the Chairman :
Q. You said a moment ago, Mr. McKune, that if you were arranging the organ-
ization of an industry you would do it on a twelve-hour basis rather than on a basis
of eight hours. Of course this committee is here to consider the eight-hour question
in all its bearing? — A. Yes.
Q. It is important to see from what point of view you approach the subject in
giving a statement of that kind. Is it your idea that society is better off, that people
are on the whole better off by working twelve hours than by working eight? If we
could arrange matters everywhere according to our liking do you think the welfare
of the community would be promoted by everybody working long hours rather than
short? — A. That is if it is going to be universal, if everybody is going to work eight
hours in all manufactures?
Q. Yes. All movements of one kind and another have an ultimate object in view
and I presume one of the aims of this eight-hour movement is to get the industries
of the country on an eight-hour basis. Supposing that were general, do you think
the community would be better off than if every body was working twelve hours, or
do you suppose the movement should be in the other direction to try to lengthen the
hours of labour and get everybody working twelve hours instead of eight; what is
your view? — A. I do not know that I would like to express it. The conditions have
to be considered. Here is Germany working twelve hours or thirteen hours, here is
England working twelve or fourteen hours and the United States working twelve
hours. If you cut down our time of employment and say we have got to work eight
hours it puts such a different complexion on the matter that I do not feel competent
to express an opinion.
Q. What you were saying would have an important bearing on the effect of a
movement of that kind if started in one country rather than in another, but let us
assume we are all working towards one end, towards the betterment of the con-
dition of the mass of the people? — A. I see the point that you are making.
174
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Do you think we should aim at shortening of the hours of labour or at keeping
them up at a higher figure, if possible, than they are now? — A. I think the experience
so far as to most of the people that have worked eight hours is that they are not
better oft’. Taking bricklayers and other mechanics, carpenters, and so on, who work
eight hours, it is a question in my mind if they are any better off than when they
worked nine or ten hours.
Q. Is it your idea that men are greedy for work? — A. I think they are greedy
to do a good bit of work.
Q. Is the primary end to be 'aimed at in life that workingmen shall spend most
of their time working, or ought they to have leisure for some other things, as well
as work ? — A. I do not know, Mr. Chairman
Q. I think that is a very important point? — A. I do not know that it is a fair
question to ask me for an opinion on that.
Q. Then I will put it in another way that is perhaps fair. My belief is that
work is only incidental to living, that men work in order that they may live, in
order that they may enjoy the opportunities which life affords of social happiness
and intellectual and moral improvement and betterment, and that work is a means
to that end, not that everything exists for the purpose of enabling men to make
dollars. and cents; do you agree with my view or not?— A. Well, I would agree with
your view if you were able to control those things, if you were able to tell a man he
was to work eight hours and that he was to do certain other things on an eight-hour
basis. But you cannot control that, and nobody else can. Those men may be dis-
sipated.. Men may work for eight hours and then spend the next six hours in
dissipation.
Q. That is the point. Do you think that shortening the hours of labour tends
to everybody m the community becoming dissipated ?— A. So far as I have seen, in the
trades where they work eight hours, it has not done much to improve the moral
and religious upbuilding of these men. I would say it certainly has not.
Moral Gain Under Long Hours Basis.
Q. And do you say that very long hours tend to make men dissipated if they
work for more pay?— A. We have not found it so. I think it has just the reverse
effect. They will go home and go to bed. If they only work eight hours they will
spend a third of the time somewhere else.
Q. Your idea is that men should work and go to bed?— A. I think they would
be better there certainly than in some other places. Do you not think so?
Q. Do I understand you to say that the hours of labour should be so regulated
that, when the average man gets through work it would be better for him to go 'to
bed in order to keep out of mischief and be a good working machine for the rest of
the time? A. We have found it to be an advantage for men to be working for
eleven, or twelve or thirteen hours. There is that advantage that confronts us. The
best men. that we have got are the men who work thirteen hours or eleven hou-rs.
We find it works out very well, and we have had no complaints from them.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. That does not make any difference. Your average is twelve hours a day? —
A. Exactly so.
Q. .There is no point in that at all. Your men are not placed under any dis-
adiantage. They work twelve hours a day, and in your opinion it is better for the
men themselves, that they should work that length of time in order to be secured
against dissipation and be more able to carry on production for vou -the next day.
That is the substance of your evidence.
Mr. Marshall.— He gives his reason for that, Mr. Smith. He savs some of these
men are dissipated, and if they are working they are not drinking
MR. McKUNE.
COMMITTEE BE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
175
APPENDIX No. 4
The Chairman. — If that reason means anything, Mr. Marshall, it simply means
that the ideal to be aimed at in the life of the average working man is to keep him
working so long that lie will have leisure for nothing else than to go to bed.
Mr. Verville. — In other words, make a horse of a man and after that put him
in a stable.
Mr. Knowles. — I do not think it means that. The witness might mean a man
would have six hours of recreation apart from work and sleep.
The Witness.— What we have found is that if you stop work on Saturday morn-
ing you would not see that man again until Monday morning, nine times out of ten.
I would not say hut probably half the time he would not show up on Monday morning.
The Chairman.— I hope no member of the committee thinks I am trying to in
any way get the witness to say something he does not believe. If I have understood
his evidence as given here it is defending a twelve-hour day against an eight-hour
day. I am trying to draw out from him what his point of view is in that regard.
There are other witnesses who have given evidence here that have defended an eight-
hour day, and they have given us their reasons, saying they thought that an eight-
hour day would result in moral and intellectual improvement and a greater opportu-
nity for social relations in the lives of men. This witness thinks that would not be
the effect of an eight-hour day, but that keeping a man at work for a longer time will
prevent him from becoming dissipated. These are two entirely different points of view.
The Witness. — That is my view.
Mr. Knowles. — I interpreted his statement as meaning that in any event there
is opportunity for a certain amount of recreation apart from work and sleep. There
may be a question as to whether an excess of hours for recreation may not be a dan-
gerous thing I do not think the witness means that there should he no hours for that
purpose.
The Witness — No, we have our holidays and so on.
Mr. Verville. — What time in the day have they for recreation?
Sleep and Meals.
By the Chairman:
Q. How long do you think men ought to have to sleep? — A. I want about eight
hours.
Q. How long should a man take for his meals? — A. I should judge, half an hour
would give him all he would want, less than that.
Q. For a meal? — A. Yes.
Q. Take the three meals, would he want less than that? — A. He takes two meals
at home. The other he has at the expense of the company.
Q. That gives eight hours to sleep and one hour to eat. And you say these men
take a little time to go back and forth from their work? — A. Yes.
Q. And if you deduct that, it leaves the workmen a little over two hours for recrea-
tion and the society of their families ? — A. Suppose we changed turns at seven o’clock
in the morning and there did not happen to he a heat coming until eight-thirty, that
man might leave at twenty minutes to seven.
Q. But those are the natural conditions under your system of work at the pre-
sent time? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you think that kind of thing is calculated to make intelligent citizens out
of men, having only that fraction of two hours and a half to spend in their homes?
I think that is a very important point.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Mr. McKune, have you ever had any experience where men have worked eight
hours? — A. Directly under me?
176
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21—HOUR8 OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Yes 1 A. Mot any more than the bricklayers.
Q. \ on have had experience with bricklayers who worked eight hours?— A. The
bricklayers worked eight hours and the helpers ten.
Q. What would be the moral difference between those bricklayers A. And the
helpers ?
Q. Jhe men who worked ten hours under you and those who worked twelve? — A.
I did not notice any difference morally.
Q. ^ on did not notice any? — A. Mo difference, morally.
Q. So the eight hours has not lead to any deterioration among the men who
worked for that period of time? — A. That is as to the particular men that worked for
me? j here were only two or three men, there was not any big number. I did not see
any difference between the men that worked eight hours and those who worked ten.
Q. Have you had any experience with enterprises that worked men for ei<dit
hours? — A. Ho.
Factory and Continuous Process Labour.
By the Chairman:
Q. Would your argument in favour of twelve hours as opposed to eight, hold
equally well in the case of factory labour, do you think?— A. Well, of course, they do
not work twelve hours in factories, they only work ten.
.Mr. S i anfield. 1 lie committee needs to take into consideration the business this
witness represents.
The Chairman.- 1 hat is just why 1 am asking this question.
Mr. Stanfield.— In this connection I might relate a little experience that a
certain gentleman told me he had. Ife went to a place at two o’clock, and until half-
past four, ninety per cent of the men did nothing but sit around and smoke for those
two hours and a half. In the ordinary factories those men would be working all that
time.
Hie Chairman. I hat is why I asked him the question whether his workmen
would work equally as well in the case of shorter hours. My own opinion is the
witness is not doing himself justice in presenting the views' he has as to twelve
hours’ labour. If one looks into it, certain reasons hold good in the case of that par-
ticular employment not applicable to other employments. I do not see that those
reasons are sufficient to justify any man working twelve hours a day. There may be
certain reasons which make twelve hours necessary in this particular industry alone,
whereas the hours may be eight or ten in others. I am asking whether the arguments
m support of twelve hours would apply equally well to all other industries?— A. If I
understand it, other industries only work ten hours. You see, taking the International
Harvester Company
Q. They only work ten hours where you work twelve?— A. It is not a continuous
process. Ours is a continuous process and must be run that way. Supposing we
worked ten hours we would have to start some time during the night and we would
have to wind up some time during the next night. Our heats run anywhere from
eight to twelve, thirteen and fourteen hours.
Q How about the operation of the railroad, is that a continuous process?— A.
They have got a certain run just as our men have got a certain heat to attend to
We put them on for twelve or thirteen hours and they only work ten hours out of
that.
Mr. Smith.— Coal mining is a continuous process.
Mr. Stanfield.— Well, it is a different class of work though.
Mr. Smith.— One man has got to continue the work of another; the whole tech-
nical process has to be maintained.
Mr. Marshall.— I understand that Mr. McKune is only giving evidence on what
he knows himself. This is what we want; he is a practical man and he is Ujllim- us
only what he knows of his own business. b
ME. McKUNE.
UOm.au i iejiij iwj hiul, Bo. 21— -HOURS OF LABOUR
177
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Verville:
Q. What is the percentage of your workmen who have to take the street cars to
go to work and to return home? — A. Perhaps I am safe in saying fifty per cent,
probably forty per cent. I would not want to set any arbitrary or definite amount.
By the Chairman:
Q. To sum up just what you have said in regard to this matter, do we under-
stand that if this law were made applicable to your industry you would not be able
to accept any government contracts because of the impracticability of putting it into
force without disorganizing your whole establishment? — A. That is quite right, sir.
Q. If it were made applicable only to public buildings, construction work, you
would be opposed to it because you think it would be establishing a precedent which
might lead ultimately to shortening the hours in your business? — A. That is my
opinion.
Wages Paid per Hour — Effect on Cost of Production.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. You stated that if the eight-hour law were established in your factory in-
stead of twelve hours it would increase the cost of your production one-third? — -A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Still, if your men are paid by the hour, how would that/5 happen ? You pay
them for eight hours not for twelve? — A. Just take 15 cents an hour at eight hours.
That is $1.20 as against $1.50. You know how long a man will work at that.
Q. You just pay your workmen per hour and the Bill does not propose that you
should give them twelve hours’ pay for eight hours’ work. The Bill says nothing
about wages ? — A. But you know the results.
Q. You have given evidence that you pay your men per hour? — A. Most of them,
not all.
Q. If the hours of labour are reduced to eight you pay them 15 cents for eight
hours? — A. You are not going to get a man to work eight hours for $1.20 when he
can get $1.50 somewhere else.
Q. I hat is another question? — A. It is another question, but it is very important.
Because if men are getting $1.50 per day
Q. Wait a moment. You calculate the increased cost of your production on the
assumption that you would have to pay more for eight hours than for twelve? — A.
Yes.
Q. Well, you would not have to do that because you pay them by the hour, and
if they just worked eight hours you would pay them for that time at 15 cents an hour;
you would pay them 15 cents an hour for twelve hourts? — A. That is just the labourers.
Q. I am speaking of the men who are paid 15 cents per hour. So that the cost
of your production would not be increased ? — A. I would say that would probably affect
ten or fifteen per cent of our men that worked ten hours. The rest of our men are
on shifts.
Q. That is another aspect of your business. lrou said in your former evidence
that most of the men were paid by the hour? — A. Hot all of them. I will say prob-
ably one-half or a little better.
Q. I understood you to say that they were all paid per hour and the point I
was making was that if you paid them by the hour a reduction to eight hours would
not increase the cost of production to the extent you said it would? — A. You could
not get our skilled men to work for eight hours because they can do better. All that
is necessary is for them to go across the line and they will receive the same pay as
they are getting or better. Supposing you paid your men $4 a day for twelve hours
and you cut the hours down to eight. That would mean a reduction of pretty nearly
a dollar a day.
4—12
178
COMMITTEE RE BILL „.
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. In other words, the men would want just as much pay for eight hours as for
twelve? — A. Exactly. The men would want just as much.
Q. You cannot cut a man down; you have got to pay him so much or eise he
cannot live? — A. Exactly.
Mr. Smith. — The Bill does not make any provision for cutting down or raising
wages.
Mr. Marshall. — Men must have sufficient to keep their families.
Mr. Smith. — That is the very point I want to get at. Reduce the hours of labour
and then leave it to the men to organize to obtain a reasonable maintenance for him-
self and family.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. I understand you to say that a compulsory eight-hour day will result either
in your losing your men or their losing the increase of the pay per hour? — A. That
is quite right.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Could they get work anywhere else under those conditions? — A. I think it
would be only a question of time before they would demand the same pay as they are
getting. If the government fixed the hours at eight, it would be only a matter of
time before they would say that they wanted the same rate of pay for eight hours
as for twelve.
Q. IIow long have you paid those men 15 cents an hour? — A. Six or seven years,
probably.
Q. They were getting less before that? — A. We have paid more than that and
some less. We paid $1.35 some years ago and then $1.65. That was for a very short
time. $1.50 has been the ruling rate.
Q. Was it in consequence of the increased cost of living that you paid them
$1.65, as you say, for a day of ten hours? — A. We were getting better prices and the
labour was scarce. What this Bill would bring about is that it would make a
scarcity of skilled men and labourers, and owing to the necessity for continuous
operation of our plant we would have to accept their demands or shut the plant down.
Q. Do you ever close your plant during the year, or work the whole 365 days?—
A. Of course we make a break on Sundays.
Q. Only on Sundays? — A. Saturday night and Sunday.
Q. The plant works for the balance of the year? — A. The balance of the year,
except holidays.
Hours in Other Competitive Blants.
By the Chairman:
Q. Does your plant have to compete with plants in the United States? — A. Yes,
and with plants everywhere, the English plants, the German plants and the Belgian
plants.
Q. Would legislation causing you to reduce your hours have any effect on that
competition? — A. Suppose you increase your cost 33J per cent, as I told you, the
cost of labour was $10 a ton. Now, if you increase that cost by 33J per cent, that
means an addition of $3 per ton.
Q. Would it operate to the advantage or disadvantage of the industry in this
country? — A. It would work to the disadvantage of it.
Q. Do you happen to know how many hours they work in the United States
Steel Corporation? — A. The United States Steel Company?
Q. Yes— A. The same as we do, eleven and thirteen or twelve and twelve
MR. McKTJNE.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 -HOURS OF LABOUR
179
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Smith:
Q. What is the practice in England? — A. Very largely as here, the same now.
Q. You say in the steel manufactures in England they work twelve hours a day?
— A. Personally I have never been there.
Q. You will just have to say what you know. I think I know, and I want to
ascertain the extent of your knowledge? — A. I would just say that the melters work
twelve hours a day there, the first helpers work twelve and thirteen and the rest;
but there may be some of the trades, such as bricklayers and the like, of what we
have here that work eight hours.
Q. But speaking generally, what are the hours in the iron and steel trades?—
A. They work twelve hours, but there may be a little plant here and there that
works eight hours.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You are sure of that?— A. I feel perfectly sure, yes.
By the Chairman:
Q. You feel quite sure they work two shifts and work the same number of hours
in the United States Steel Corporation? — A. Yes, I do not think the United States
Steel Company has got a plant that works eight hours. I have been over their plants
and they all work eleven and twelve hours. In fact I have been over their Gary
plant lately and I go down to Pittsburg once in a while.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Have you any idea of the wages paid in the Pittsburg district? — A. Well, we
do not pay 1 think probably I would not like to pass an opinion on that. They
have bigger furnaces and a bigger production, and fifty per cent of the men are
straight tonnage men.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you know anything of the profits of the United States Steel Corpora-
tion, what they would amount to? — A. They amount to something like $100,000,000
a year.
Q. Do you think if part of that money had gone into making provision for an
extra shift of men it would have cut down the production to such an extent that the
country could not have been supplied just as well as it is at present? — A. Well, I
think, that for several years it would give it a tremendous handicap.
Q. The evidence seems to indicate that the long hours of labour in these in-
dustries result in very large profits to a few men and a very large amount of labour
to others.- — A. What you have to consider is the conditions as they now exist. You
have to meet those conditions or get out of business.
Q. Any movement, to me, of any real service must be universal? — A. It must be
universal. England has got to have eight hours in her iron and steel industries and
Germany and Belgium the same. You know they work now eleven and twelve hours
and you have that competition to meet, or else have the thing universal.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Do they work longer hours in the factories in Germany than in the factories
in England? — A. Yes, I think they do.
The Chairman. — Are there any more questions to be asked this witness?
Mr. Murray. — I want to ask a few questions, but there are other witnesses to be
examined and I will forego them in order to get the evidence of the other men. '
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. You say that in England they work shorter hours than in Germany? How
then can Great Britain successfully compete with Germany? — A. According to the
4— 12 i
180
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OE L ABU UK
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
newspapers that has not been the case. If you notice now the English people are very
much agitated over Germany dumping their products in England.
Mr. Smith.— For thirty years they have been agitating about that.
Competitive Producers re Labour Conditions.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Your idea is that Great Britain cannot compete under the present circum-
stances?— A. If I understand it right I do not think they can. I think that is one
of the present troubles that the Germans are displacing English goods pretty much
everywhere on account of their long hours and cheap labour; the cheap conditions
they have there.
Mr. Stanfield:
Q. Are not the Germans devoting more time to technical education than almost
any other nation? — A. Well, they are, yes. They handle goods pretty economically.
Of course they do that in the United States too. They attack the thing from all
sides and get it just about as cheap as it can be made, make it very cheap.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Is there a very large production in Germany? — A. Yes. Germany produces
some ten to twelve million tons of pig iron.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Why cannot you pay as much as the United States Steel Corporation? You
get a better price, I suppose, than they do? — A. I don’t think so. We do pay pretty
nearly as good a price as the United States.
Q. A"ou said a moment ago you did not pay as much. — A. They have a larger
plant and their men get a little more per ton. The number of tons more will make
his pay a little higher.
Q. Do you think that on the average your men get as well paid as the United
States Steel Corporation? — A. I would say yes. I would say that our men on the
whole are as well paid as those of the United States Steel Corporation.
Q. You get a better price for your product on account of the protection we have
in Canada, your product commands a higher price in this country than does their
product in the United States? — A. There is a lot of our stuff not protected.
Q. Some of it is protected and you do get a better price, do you not? — A. Well,
that is another thing you will have to ask the manager about. He makes the prices
and so on. If you ask me how much we get for bars, I would have to say I do not
know.
Q. You know how the price for bars in Canada compares with the price in the
United States? — A. Say the Pittsburg price is $1.40. In Canada it would be $1.70.
We have got to compete with that condition.
Q. Your price then is set so as to compete with the Pittsburg product,' that is
practically what you said? — A. Yes. Of course if United States steel was shipped
to San Francisco the price would be $1.40 at Pittsburg plus the freight. If you make
a contract with them at Pittsburg the price is $1.40 and you have got to pay the
freight and whatever the duty is.
Q. The freight would not raise the price to $1.70 in Canada?— A. Well it is
about 18 cents, 18 or 20 cents.
Q. What is the $1.40 for ? — A. That is the Pittsburg price on bars, $1.40. That
is $28 a ton.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. To that you have got to add the freight?— A. The freight and that would
bring it up to $32.
MR. McKUNE.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
181
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Would they not pay the freight in the United States?— A. They make the
price $1.40 at Pittsburg. Aou take care of the product yourself and pay the freight.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. The buyer pays the freight?— A. The buyer pays the freight.
By the Chairman :
Q. Do you know anything about the iron works at Hankow, China? — A. I have
read something of it, I understand they are making a fairly good pig iron.
Q. Do you know whether the United States or this country has felt the com-
petition from that industry yet? — A. I do not think very much.
Q. Have they begun to ship anything in yet? — A. They have shipped some I
understand here. They have shipped probably five or ten thousand tons. Take the
United States and take Canada. Supposing the labour here comes to $10 and the
labour in China would be $4 a ton and probably less than that you see it is a big
difference.
Q. I paid a visit to the factory at Hankow. They were employing some 6,000
men in the steel works and they were working just the length of time that your men
are but as near as I can remember the wages are only one-fifteenth of what is paid
on this side. For every such man working here they had fifteen Chinamen working
there and doing pretty much the same work as the white men on this side. The
whole plant was as up to date as the Pittsburg plant. At that time they were ship-
ping pig iron into Hew York and putting it in at a profit after paying duty. What
are you going to do to hold your own against that competition, when they develop
this plant, I understand the company now has some 20,000 employees and they hope
to have double that number shortly. How are you going to hold your own against
that competition? — A. Do you mean for export?
Q. How will the manfaeturers on this side hold their own, will it be by decreas-
ing the price of labour or lengthening the hours of labour, how are you going to meet
that competition? — A. The only way you can meet it is by putting on a protective
tariff, and not by compelling people to work eight hours.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. A very handy remedy is it not? — A. That is one remedy.
Q. It is very handy too? — A. But you don’t reach that point by forcing people
to work eight hours.
By the Chairman:
Q. Are you a Canadian yourself, Mr. McKune? — A. Yes, but I was bom in the
States. (See letter of Witness — June 2, p. 381.)
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Do you think then that if this Bill becomes law it would add1 about 33J per
cent to the cost of your production? — A. Ultimately, yes.
Q. You have been employing men for a long time and you never find men coming
to you and saying, ‘I want eight hours, T am working too long?’ — A. We have not
found it so.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Supposing they were paid by the day instead of the hour, do you think they
would want a reduction? — A. Ho.
Q. As it is now, you pay more to the man who works more. The longer he works
the more money he gets ; but supposing he was satisfied that he could get as much for
eight hours as for twelve, would he want to work any more? — A. He might if he
thought he could get the same. The results are just the same as paying by the day.
182
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. You have never gone into the question as to the effect outside of your business,
as to what it would add to the cost of building? I am speaking now that if this Bill
becomes law it will extend over the whole country, that is what it means, I think. It
is only the thin end of the wedge. If this Bill becomes law it would have to become
universal, because it would never do to discriminate? — A. You cannot localize it, that
is one thing sure.
Q. Have you ever gone into the figures closely to ascertain what it would add to
the cost of building generally throughout the country or manufacturing? — A. Well,
if you take the cost of buildings and go back ten, fifteen or twenty years, you will find
it has been on the increase. Whether tnat is entirely due to eight hours is a question,
1 think, that they will have a great deal to do with it, because the cost has gone up much
higher. As I told you, this $10 cost of steel represents the cost of labour on the
finished bars. Now as to the building, there is the stone, and the sand, and the wood,
and the labour and so on, which has kept on increasing and has added to the cost of
building.
Q. I suppose that applies to the man behind the counter? — A. Yes.
Q. The head of that concern must pay his help. If he is paying as much for
eight hours’ work as for ten hours he must charge more for his goods? — A. You would
think so.
Q. How is the labouring man going to be ahead if he is going to pay more for his
groceries and for the things he needs from the shop? — A. I have found out that our
men seem to be better satisfied and better off working under the conditions in which
they are working. They are not dissatisfied, they are making good pay, they are keep-
ing their families, the most of them are apparently respectable and they are living
good moral lives themselves.
By the Chairman :
Q. Do you think you could get any of them to come here and give evidence to
that effect? — A. We have got one of them here now.
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. I would like to ask if you have ever taken any notice when you shut your
plant down for a holiday what percentage of your hands stay off the next day; have
you ever taken any note of that? — A. We find that we are always handicapped for two
or three days afterwards to get the thing going again, to get it worked up and going
smoothly. When it is going to be a holiday, and they want to go off, and you let them
off for a day or two, then the difficulty afterwards is to get the thing worked up and
running smoothly again. You always find trouble of that kind.
The Chairman. — We have had some experiences of that kind in the House of
Commons.
The Witness. — That is the trouble we find, and you would only multiply it by
putting the work on an eight-hour basis. We have one of our engineers here and he
can speak for himself as to that.
Pittsburgh Prices.
By Mr. Murray:
Q. In answering some of the points raised by Mr. Knowles about the price of
steel at Pittsburg, you made a statement which I think may perhaps have created a
W(rong impression. 1 ou stated that steel, and I presume you mean bar steel, sells at
about $1.70 in Hamilton as against United States steel selling at $1.10
at Pittsburg. The inference, I think, that was drawn was that on account of
the protects e tamf aou aie able to get a higher price in Canada, and therefore there
ME. McKTTNE.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
183
APPENDIX No. 4
was no reason iwhy you should not pay as much, if not higher, wages. You are, I
suppose, familiar with the processes and size of the orders down at Pittsburg? — A.
Yes.
Q. Would it be an unknown thing for them, for instance, to work from the
beginning to the end of the week on half-inch rounds or three-quarter rounds? — A.
They specialize there. That helps to cheapen up the production.
Q. What would be about the average length of time your rollers rwould be employed
on any one order? — A. Wo consider wo would have a very good order if wo ran a day
on it.
Q. Frequently you have to change rolls several times? — A. Take it when times
were a little dull, we would change every couple of hours.
Q. Would there be days when you would change the rollers half a dozen times? —
A. We change the orders oftener than that.
Q. How much time is absolutely lost for a large proportion of your working staff
when you change rollers? — A. I would say from half an hour to two or three hours.
Q. And during this time these men are paid just as much as though they were
working? — A. The day eft hour men are paid, the tonnage men are not.
Q. But the day and hour men are paid? — A. The day and hour men are paid just
as though they were working.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. What percentage are tonnage men? — A. Probably 50 or 60 per cent.
Q. Over half? — A. Yes, over half of them are working tonnage.
By Mr. Murray:
Q. So that the cost of production of bar steel in Pittsburg, working continuously
week in and week out on one set or particular kind of steel should bo very much
lower than the cost of production in Canada for the reason that they specialize there.
— A. And there is the less cost of assembling the materials.
Q. But that specializing is an actual fact? — A. That has a great deal to do with
it, having a tremendous market where they can specialize and cheapen up the cost.
A man cannot become proficient and work in one line and keep it up all the time as
we are situated. Where our mill produces three thousand tons they would produce
probably five or six thousand tons. But we cover a hundred different sizes and shapes
and so on; they probably have one.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Would it not be better for a Canadian to get his supplies in the United States?
— A. I would think so, if you are going to stand still in this country.
Q. You can get it cheaper there than in this country? — A. You cannot get it
cheaper when you pay the freight rates and so on.
By Mr. Murray:
Q. Do you know anything of the ore in Pittsburg, as compared with Hamilton?
— A. It is all sold at so much per unit. Then the United States own their ores and
naturally they have a profit there. They also own coal and coke of the very best and
have a profit there.
Q. Do you know anything about their transportation arrangements? What
about the steamers that carry the ore? — A. They own those too.
Q. So they have facilities for handling and transporting their ore and other
materials at the very minimum of cost? — A. They have facilities looking ahead to
twenty years from now.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. The combination is larger over there than it is here?— A. The combination?
Q. Yes, the combine? — A. Well. I did not know that we had any here.
184
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Smith:
Q. What do you pay for coal per ton? — A. Do you mean duty?
Q. Yes, what does it cost? — A. I would say $3.50. You can buy that coal in
Pittsburg from $1.50 to $1.75, but you have got to add the freight rate and duty to
that.
Q. It would be a good thing if the duty were taken off coal; we do not produce
it in Ontario ? — A. I am not a tariff authority.
Mr. Stanfield. — You are getting beyond the question now.
Mr. Smith. — These are all important matters.
The Witness. — I think it would be.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. We would not have to pay so much in Canada for manufactured steel if the
duty were taken off ? — A. If the price in Pittsburg was $1.40 you would have to add
the freight.
Q. It would be cheaper to add the freight? — A. I do not see that you can make
it any cheaper. The price would be $1.40 and the freight added to Ottawa would
be 25 cents a hundred.
Q But the freight you said was 18 cents?— A. That is at the Bridge.
Q. That makes the price $1.50. Where does the other 22 cents come in? — A.
$1.50? Let us see. I suppose there is a little duty on that. Do not get me to commit
myself to something I am not familiar with.
By Mr. Murray:
Q. You stated, I think, that the price at Pittsburg is $1.40?— A. Yes.
Q. The duty is 35 cents? — A. I do not just know, but the freight rates are 18 to
22 cents.
Q. As a matter of fact the duty is about 3o cents and the freight rate at a very
low price would be 15 cents a hundred? — A. Fifteen cents.
Mr. Knowles.— I think that is going too far. Mr. Murray has told the witness
what he does not know himself.
A. I have said the freight was 18 cents, but I do not want to commit myself.
By the Chairman:
Q. Did you come from the United States to take charge of this work?— A. Yes.
Q. And you became a naturalized Canadian afterwards ?— A. Yes. (See letter
of Witness, June 2, p. 381.)
Mr. Daniel W. Evans, called, sworn and examined.
By the Chairman:
Q. What is your business or occupation? — A. Iron and steel roller. That is fore-
man.
Q. Foreman? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Verville :
Q. Belong to the same company? — A. Yes.
Occupation — Opinion of Bill.
By the Chain
man :
Q. In what branch? A. In the finishing department.
Q. The finishing department of the steel plant ? — A. Yes.
Q What is the name of this plant?— A. The Hamilton Steel and Iron Company,
Limited.
MR. EVANS.
COMMITTEE RE RILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
185
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. How long have you had that position? — A. Ten years.
Q. Have you seen a copy of this Bill of Mr. Yervilles? — A. No, sir, not till this
morning. I got one here and just read it this morning.
Q. How do you expect to be able to come here and throw any light on the matter
if you have not seen the Bill? — A. Well, I just read it this morning. What I came
for was to give evidence as to what the eight-hour question would have to do with
my own business.
Q. Did not the secretary send you a copy of the Bill? — A. No, sir.
The Clerk. — A copy of the Bill was sent to the company.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You were asked by the company to come here and give evidence ? — A. Yes, sir.
By the Chairman:
Q. You have looked at the Bill since you came here? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you think it is a good Bill? — A. No, not for my own business, it is not.
Q. How about the average working man of Canada? — A. Well, it is possible that
it is a good thing for the workingmen of Canada if they can get the same price for
working eight hours as for twelve.
Q. How about the industries of Canada? — I do not think it would work out.
Q. Why not? — A. Because we would be handicapped ; we would not be able to
compete with other industries, that is in foreign countries.
Q. Why would you not? — A. Because we would not be — they could ship their
goods in cheaper than we could make them.
Q. Your idea is, that if this law went into effect it would place a handicap on
industries in this country that compete with industries in other countries? — A. Yes,
sir.
Wages — Tonnage Basis.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. How many hours do you work? — A. Twelve hours a day. I am there twelve
hours a day, from six o’clock in the morning to six o’clock at night.
Q. What wages have you?— A. What wages? Well, it is based on a tonnage
basis. The wages in my department are governed by the Amalgamated Association
of Iron and Steel Workers of Pittsburg. That is the head office is in Pittsburg,
and if we were to get these eight hours, of course we would have to put on another
shift, which would mean that we would take off a third off the present wages to give
it to the third shift men. We could not work our firm
Q. How much do you make now in twelve hours a day? — A. My average wage?
My average wage for twelve hours would be about $15 for myself.
Q. Fifteen dollars a day? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You are getting the money? — A. I would like to get a little more. If I were
a member of parliament I might.
Mr. Verville. — I don’t know whether you would or not.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. I just want to ascertain the facts. You are working on a tonnage basis? —
A. On a tonnage basis, yes, sir.
Q. Have you a contract, are you at the head of a contract? — A. Have I a
contract? Yes, sir.
Q. What staff of men are there working under you?— A. In my department I
have both turns covering the 24 hours that are contracted for by the Hamilton Steel
and Iron Company. I have nothing whatever to do with them only I have charge
of the men.
186
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. You have charge of the men? — A. I have charge of the men.
Q. And you have a contract with the company? — A. I have a contract with the
company.
Q. What do you pay the men? — A. They are paid in accordance with the scale
of the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers in Pittsburg.
By the Chairman:
Q. You are a sub-contractor? — A. I am not a contractor at all, I am paid the
same as any other man.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You get $15 a day? — A. From $10 to $15 a day, we are paid on the tonnage
basis. There are some days I would not make $5 a day. I will cite an instance.
Yesterday from six o’clock in the morning we did about five minutes work.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Let me ask you what you would consider your average wage? — A. The aver-
age wage, what my own is?
Q. Yes. — A. $2,500 a year.
By the Chairman:
Q. Are you the employee Mr. McKune had reference to when he said he had
an employee here who could speak as to the effect of the eight-hour system? — A. No.
it was the engineer he was speaking about, I think.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. What is that amalgamated society you ’spoke of at Pittsburg? — A. The
Amalgamated Society of Iron and Steel Workers. It is a combination, that is a
union of iron, steel and tin workers. The head office is on Fourth Ave., Pittsburg.
Q. What body are you affiliated with. The American Federation of Labour.
Practicability of the Eight-hour Day.
By the Chairman:
Q. The American Federation? — A. The American Federation.
Q. Are you a member of it still? — A. I certainly am, sir.
Q. Do you think in connection with the work being done with the steel plant
it is possible to distinguish between work performed for the government and work
performed for private parties?— A. No, not in my department. We will get an order
for certain work. They will send in an order for inch angles or two-inch angles
and we may be making inch angles for somebody else, probably the Hamilton Bridge
Works. That will all go into one bulk and could not be kept separate at all.
Q. If we had a law which made eight hours applicable to employees working for
the government and left matters as they are at present in regard to other employees,
would that cause any confusion in your establishment ?— A. Yes, sir. We could not
get the men to work. If we had a straight work such as the tin workers, eight hours
would be practicable. They work eight hours. The tin workers, they have a straight
thing to go along with and there is no hindrance to that at all. These men turn out
just so many boxes of tin in eight hours. They run twenty-four hours and the three
shifts will keep pretty much up, while in our business, the Hamilton Steel and Iron
Company, we start at about six o’clock in the morning. As I said before, the first
shift would come on at six o’clock in the morning, and when they quit would not
have made possibly fifty cents while the rest would make $2. This would make my
first shift sore and they would go to another shop, to another place ; it would dis-
organize our force.
MR. EVANS.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
187
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. In practice it would be difficult? — A. Yes, it would be difficult.
Q. Looking at it from the point of view as to what is possible in practice could
not the arrangement be made of having three shifts of eight hours? — A. It would
not, Mr. Chairman, because one shift would be getting more than the other and it
would cause dissatisfaction.
Q. You are talking about the cost, whereas I am dealing only with the actual
arrangement from the point of view of management? — A. Management?
Q. Yes, can you not manage that business just as well with three shifts of eight
hours each as with two shifts of twelve hours? — A. Possibly it could be managed if we
got straight orders enough to run on. But in our twelve hours we change orders
from half a dozen to a dozen times, and so forth. It would take me from fifteen
minutes at the least, to one and a half or two hours at the most to change the ma-
terial from one work to another.
Q. If I understand you rightly your objection to the eight-hour day is not to
be placed on grounds of factory organization but on other grounds? — A. It is not
practicable in our business, not in our line.
Q. I do not know whether you mean the same by ‘ practicable ’ as I do. I mean
as a matter of practice, other things being equal, you could work on an eight-hour
basis just as well as on a twelve-hour basis? — A. Mr. Chairman, I would! like to ex-
plain that we tried the same thing in Milwaukee, South Milwaukee. When I was
working for the South Milwaukee Horseshoe Company, we started on an eight-hour
basis, we had to give it up we could not work it at all.
Q. Was that the steel plant? — A. Yes, making horseshoes and making merchan-
dise at the same time.
Q. It did not work out? — A. Mo, because one crew would be dissatisfied and they
would quit, so we went back to the twelve-hour system. The same with the Brown
and Bownell Company, Youngstown, Ohio.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. The men on one shift would get more money than those on another shift ? — A.
Exactly.
Q. And that meant? — A. There would be dissatisfaction.
Q. Could they not agree to divide their earnings at the end of the period? — A.
No, sir. That is not human nature.
Q. I could mention to you thousands of coal miners who dig coal by the ton.
One man loads two tons and his 'partner on the next shift loads twenty tons but they
divide their earnings at the end of the period. — A. I never did and I have dug coal.
Mr. Marshall. — Do you think that would work out satisfactorily.
Mr. Smith.— I know it as a matter of fact. I am speaking of what I know.
Mr. Marshall. — I admit that, but the thing is not practicable. It does not look
reasonable and there is no common sense about it. If you are making all the money
and I ask you for part of your earnings, you would say: ‘You did not do any work.’
Mr. Smith. — I am giving the facts from my experience, a long and very practical
experience where thousands of men are digging coal by the ton and doing other things
and they pool their earnings and divide it equally. That has gone on for fifty years.
By the Chairman:
Q. Supposing this Bill were limited to hours of labour on public works in the
sense of construction work on public buildings, would you see any objection to it?
A. I would.
Q. What would be the objection ?— A. Because I think it would increase the price
of steel and iron.
Q. How would it do that? — A. Because you would have to increase the price, if
you had to pay for your labour.
188
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. I do not know whether I have put the question as I should. Assuming this
measure had nothing to do with materials going into buildings at all, but simply the
work of construction on a building, the actual labour engaged, skilled and unskilled,
in the construction of a building, and not the labour employed in the furnishing of
the materials, would you see any objection to a Bill of that kind becoming law? — A.
I would not.
Q. You would see none? — A. No.
Q. Do you think it would be a good idea? — A. I think it would be, because it is
human nature. Every man would like to get as much as he could for the time he
puts in every day. That is the way I feel about it.
Q. "S ou think that would be the opinion of the man who would be employed under
it ?— A. Yes.
Q. How about the man who is paying the taxes of the country? — A. He would
have to foot the bill.
Q. Do you think the two things weighed together would throw the balance in
favour of the workingman getting all he can? — A. Well it is practically the working-
man that has got to pay the taxes and if he only worked eight hours a day he would
not get money enough to do so.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. He is doing it now? — A. He is doing his share. I am doing my share anyway.
Q. Are you a Canadian?— A. I am a Canadian. I was born in the old country.
Q. "1 ou have been in this country a good many years— A. I have been in this
country twenty-three years.
Q. In Canada? A. Well not in Canada, I came from Milwaukee to the Hamil-
ton Steel and Iron Company.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Do you pay taxes?— A. I do a little.
Q. What taxes do you pay to the Dominion government ?— A. I do not know. I
pay it in Hamilton, it is all charged up to me down there.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You are paying all right?— A. I do not doubt it.
Q. Has the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers any agreement
with the 1 nited States Steel Corporation? — A. No, sir. All the mills run by the
I nited States Steel Corporation are what we would call non-unionist. ?
Q. That is to say open shops? — A. Open shops, yes, sir.
Q. They can either work as union men or not?— That is the idea.
Q. There is no discrimination of any kind?— A. No discrimination of any kind.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Are you workng under the Trades Union agreement ?— Yes, sir.
Q. Have you any agreement with this company you are working for? A. With
the Hamilton company, yes, sir. Our scale is what is called the sliding scale, and our
officials examine the books of the Iron and Steel Company every six months every
sixty days I should say— and if the selling price of iron and steel has gone up we will
say one point, why ve get a two per cent advance. If it goes down one point, we get
a two per cent reduction. It is going on on the sliding scale.
Q. That is the agreement between the union and the company? A. Yes, sir
By the Chairman:
Q- Do I understand that beyond the point where this measure ceases to affect
the business that you are concerned in, that you are not objecting to it yourself is
that right?— A. Yes.
ME. EVANS.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
189
APPENDIX No. 4
Union Hours — Wages.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. You are a member of a trades union, are you? — A. A member of the Amal-
gamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers.
Q. Do they agitate for a reduction of hours in that union? — A. We do that every
year.
Q. That is the policy of your union? — A. Our union has a law laid down that we
have what we call the charging hour, our furnaces are charged at six o’clock in the
morning and from charging time, that is our law, it is 91 hours from the time we
start work, those are our hours.
Q. That is the union hours? — A. That is the union hours, yes; we are there, of
course, from six o’clock in the morning until six o’clock at night.
By Mr. Knoivles:
Q. How many members are there in that union? — A. I could not tell you.
Q. Will you give me an idea? — A. Well, about 15,000 or 20,000 or more.
Q. How is it supported, by contributions from each member? — A. We pay 50
cents a month.
Q. Then what you contribute to the union does not depend upon what you get?
It is not on a sliding scale? — A. Ho, it is $6 a year for each man.
Q. Six dollars a year from 15.000 members? — A. From 15,000. or possibly more.
Q. That money goes in salaries, does it not? — A. Well, quite a bit of it.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. What was the reason the Amalgamated Association asked for shorter hours?
— A. What was the reason?
Q. Yes? — A. I do not remember they ever did ask; it has always been that way
since I remember.
Q. But you have just stated, a moment ago, that they have been agitating for
shorter hours for a good many years? — A. Not the Amalgamated Association; I do
not think that I made any such assertion.
By the Chairman :
Q. Do you think that shorter hours are a good thing? — A. I think so.
Q. You favour shorter hours rather than long? — A. I do.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. How many men have you under you? — -A. I have about 60. All my men are
working upon piece-work.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. What is their average wage? — A. Their average wage will be — do you mean
through the different departments?
Q. Take them altogether? — A. About $5 or $6 a day.
Q. Do they work six days or seven in each week? — A. They work six days a week,
that is taking them altogether.
By the Chairman:
Q. Comparing the class of work which your men do with the work of the building
trade, which would you say would be the more congenial trade? — A. I think our work
is more congenial than the work of the building trade.
190
COMMITTEE RE BILL
xtot
x xx u u xi w or
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Habits of Rolling Mill Men.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. W hat is your opinion about the effect, morally and socially, of shortening the
hours, is it beneficial? — A. To give you my experience of short hours, I will say that
you know as well as I do, possibly, that the rolling mill men are a class of men that
drink a great deal.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Do they drink any more than anybody else? — A. Yes.
Q. Why do they do that ? — A. I do not know why, but it seems they always do.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do they work at any other class of work as long, or longer, than you do? — A.
Yes, I guess they do.
Q. What ones do that? — A. Mr. McKune’s men work longer than we do.
Q. But as a class of men? — A. Our work is not long, we do not work as long as
some others.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You say that your men drink? — A. Yes.
Q. Do they drink more than their employers ?- — A. I could not say, I was never
out Avith my employers.
Q. Perhaps they cannot get the same kind of stuff? — A. Oh, yes, they do, they
drink just as good stuff as their employers do.
By the Chairman:
Q. You were going to say something about the habits of the men?— A. Yes, if
we get shorter hours, I think, Mr. Chairman, they would be apt to stay longer on the
(wayside, and would get more time to drink than they do at the present time.
Q. Do you want us to understand from that that the workingmen in general use
the extra time they get through shorter hours for drinking? — A. Not in general, but
the conditions are different in our rolling mill business.
Q. You think they would, if the hours were shortened, spend considerable of that
time in drinking? — A. Yes.
Q. Your objection to shortening the hours in the rolling mills would be on the
score of temperance? — A. No, sir, it is not practical, because we would not have
enough men to do the work.
Q. Let us leave out the cause of the objection, the effect of a reduction of
hours in the rolling mills will he, you think, to increase the drunkenness ?— A. I think
it would.
Q. You think that would be the effect if time were reduced from 12 hours to eight
hours? — A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. If that were so, would it not be good policy on the part of the union to increase
the hours? — A. Well, of course, our hours have been that way ever since I have been
a member of the amalgamated association.
Q. Yes, but if what you say is true, they had better increase the hours?— A. No.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do they drink at all now? — A. Yes.
Q. If they increased the hours to 14 would the men drink as much? — A Oh yes
if there were 14 hours they would have as much time to go out and get drinks between
each turn as they do now. We have two sets of men, and one set goes on at six
MR. EVANS.
VUMM1TTLL KL BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
191
APPENDIX No. 4
o’clock in the morning and works for a half hour, and then the next set will come on
and relieve them, and the second set will work 25 or 30 minutes, and then they are
relieved by the first set who come back ; that is when they get their drink.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. But can the men go outside the factory to get drink? — A. Yes, sir, they go
out whilst they are off for a half hour, and then they call in on the (way home after
they get through work.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you ever consider the advisability of preventing them drinking while they
are working? — A. Yes, sir, we have tried it.
Q. What was the effect? — A. We would lose a half of them.
Q. Why nvould you lose them? — A. Because if they could not go out and get a
drink they would not work.
Q. That is they need a drink in order to be able to go on with their work? — A.
They do not need it any more than you or I do; it is just force of habit.
Q. Do you think it arises from the class of work they are doing or the length
of time they work?— A. No, sir, I have done all the work in the department from
the bottom right up to where I am at the present time, to foreman, and I have never
been outside the plant for a drink since I have been in the employ of the Hamilton
Steel and Iron Company.
Q. How long have you been there? — A. Ten years.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. What is the effect on the rank and file of the long hours of labour ? I suppose
they want a stimulant of that kind? — A. The effect on the rank and file of our men
is' that you could not get one of them to go and do any other kind of work but the
work they are doing.
Q. It is a question of money? — A. It is a question of money — a question of
wages.
By the Chairman:
Q. Let me see if I am right in this: You claim that the class of men employed
in your business work as long or longer hours than men in other classes of employ-
ment?— A. Yes, they are there as long, but they do not work all the time.
Q. But the time they are away from their homes and around the works is longer
because of their calling? — A. Yes
Q. And you say they drink more, as a class, than any other class you know? —
A. I think so.
Q. When you take these two things together what conclusion are you forced to?
• — A. What do I understand by that?
Q. You say your men work longer hours than are worked in other trades, and
then you say they drink more than men in other trades? — A. Yes.
Q. I am right in that, am I? — A. Yes.
Q. What conclusion does that inevitably drive one to? — A. I do not know whether
you understand that our work is warmer than any other kind of work, and they feel,
as any one else who was in a warm place, that they would like a cool drink and they
go out and get it.
Q. Then it is because of the nature of Iheir work?— A. Yes.
Q. And it is not because of the class of men who are engaged in the work ? — A.
No, I do not suppose it is because of the class of men.
Q. It is work of a kind that causes the men to drink, is not that a reason why
you should shorten the time? — A. I do not know where you are going to shorten the
work; they only work 6 or 7 hours now, and I do not know how you are going to do
it.
192
COMMITTEE HE BILL M T
ii 1/ ( m •:
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Do 1 understand you to say that the workmen so out of the factory to drink
and then come back into the factory and resume their work? — A. Yes.
By the Chairman:
Q. He says they need the drink for their work? — A. I do not say they need it;
I say they feel they need it, and they go out for it, but I do not think they do need it
By Mr. Smith:
Q. What I am getting- at is, are there any regulations of the company in refer-
ence to that? — A. We have regulations, but if the men want to go out and get n
drink, so long as the men do not abuse it, the firm do not make any objection.
Q. What are the regulations? — A. That if a man gets under the influence of
liquor during working hours he will be discharged.
Q. If he is under the influence? — A. Yes.
Q. Can he go off and get a drink without being under the influence? — A. Yes,
I am not under the influence and I have had one this morning.
Q. That is a matter of opinion; 1 might think you are very much under the
influence. That is a very important matter; I never knew of a concern that would
permit its men to go out and drink during working hours? — A. Well, I will tell you,
Mr. Chairman, we don’t know when they go out, that is the trouble. If you put a
man to watch at one exit, they will go out at the other.
Q. There are saloons outside? — A. Yes, there are three of them just across the
road.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. They are there for that purpose? — A. Well it is possible-
Q. Do you not think if the hours of labour were shortened these' people would
spend more time at home than they do now?— A. I do not think it.
Q. Why do you not? — A. Because they don’t do it now. They work twelve
hours at present and I have known them to stay around until nine o’clock at night.
So with shorter hours they would not stay any more at home than they do now.
By the Chairman:
Q. How long do they sleep? — A. That is something I cannot tell you, how long
any man sleeps. I would like to have eight hours myself.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. What is the percentage of these men who stop on the way home every day? —
A. There are quite a number of them, two-thirds of them anyway.
Q. Two-thirds of the men stop on the way home? — A. Yes, sir.
By the Chairman:
Q. You say that is because of the heat of the work they are engaged on? — A. I
do not say that, because they drink as much in the winter as in the summer. So it
could not be the heat.
Q. You said it was the hot work made them feel they wanted to go out and have
a drink? — A. The heat from the iron and steel they work on. Of course it makes
them perspire a good deal. In the winter time, of course, they do not perspire so much
and just as soon as they get through working they are glad to put on their coats, but
they steal out to get a drink.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. The nature of their work makes them desire stimulants? — A. Desire a stimu-
lant. I do not know that it stimulates very much.
MR. EVANS.
193
COMMITTEE IIE BILL No. 2 [--HOURS OF LABOUR
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Smith:
Q. It never made you desire a stimulant according to your testimony? — A. I
never went outside for it.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. And did not bring in any in the morning? — A. Ho, sir, I never brought in
anything. I attend to my business and do my duty to my employers.
By Mr. Smith: .
Q. Is there any regulation in your union directed against a man’s drinking? —
A. T es, sir. If a man is discharged for being under the influence of liquor the union
will not intercede in getting him reinstated.
Q. Does this happen very often where you are?— A. Quite often.
Q. And the union does not intercede on the man’s behalf?— A. Never.
By the Chairman:
Q. A good many of them then become habituated to liquor?— A. Oh, quite a
number.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. What is the percentage of union men under your care? — A. Under my care?
T\ ell, about sixty, I think, that I have working for me who are governed by the
Amalgamation Association of Iron and Steel Workers.
Q. Special men or special work? — A. Special work.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you think that more men are in the habit of getting liquor in your trade
than in other trades ? — A. They would not have as much time to go out in other trades.
A labourer working from seven o’clock in the morning until five o’clock at night has
not much time to do that.
Q. Do you think the class of men working in your business drink more than the
men in other trades? — A. Yes, sir.
Witness discharged.
Mr. Justus Post, called, sworn and examined.
By the Chairman:
Q. What is your occupation? — A. Engineer.
Q. In what establishment? — A. In the blast furnace.
Q. What blast furnace? — A. Of the Hamilton Steel and Iron Company.
Q. How long have you held that position? — A. I have held it in that same com-
pany for twenty-eight years.
Q. You were formerly employed in the United States, were you? — A. Never in
the United States.
Q. You have been with this company twenty-eight years? — A. Yes.
Q. Engineer? — A. As engineer.
Q. Have you seen this eight-hour Bill of Mr. Verville’s? — A. Not till to-day.
Q. You have not seen it until to-day?— A. No„
Q. Have you read over the provisions since you came here?— A. Yes.
Q. What opinion have you formed on them? — A. I hardly know what opinion to
form on them yet.
Q. Do you say that not having seen the Bill until the present time you do not
like to express an opinion on it? We will not force you if you do not like to state
any opinion? — A. So far as I am concerned I am satisfied with the way the thing
is for myself.
4—13
194
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. This committee has been appointed to consider Mr. Verville’s Bill. Our
business is to get different opinions in regard to it from different persons? — A. Well
I have heard nothing said, as far as I have heard, about shorter hours. I have been
around among the men quite a bit in our department.
Q. I do not know whether you understand the point. You are here as a witness
to tell from your experience what you think the effect of this Bill would be and
whether a Bill of this kind is a desirable one for parliament to enact. Now do you
feel that you are in a position to give evidence on either of these points not having
seen the Bill until a minute ago? — A. Of course if a man gets eight hours and gets
as much money for the eight hours as he is getting for the twelve it is quite likely
any man will be willing to do that.
Q. I do not know whether you understand me yet. Perhaps you would rather
not give evidence in regard to this particular Bill but discuss the eight-hour question
itself? — A. Yes.
Experience re Twelve Hours Labour per Day.
Q. Well then we can ask you some questions about that. Of eight hours or
twelve hours which do you think is better on the whole for the workingmen? — A. I
think ten hours is about as well for a man as eight hours would be.
Q. You think it is better than twelve? — A. Of course the more hours you put
in the more money you get when you are paid by the hour.
Q. Looking out on industry generally, do you think it is desirable in any country
to have long hours of labour or short hours of labour for everybody? — A. Of course
I could not say that for everybody.
Q. Yell for the mass of workingmen? — A. Take the class of men that I have
been working with, they have all worked twelve hours. I have worked for twenty-
eight years, and I have worked six years and three months and never lost a day or an
hour.
Q. Do you prefer to work twelve hours rather than ten? — A. Well I have had
nothing happen me by working for twelve hours, any more than I did ten.
Q. Are you a married man? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many children have you? — A. I have five children.
Q. Since you have been working in this establishment you have been working
twelve hours a day? — A. Every day, sir; 365 days a year.
Q. 1 ou work twelve hours a day and Sundays as well? — A. Sundays as well.
Q. Bight through the year? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long do you sleep at night? — A. If I am on nights I go to bed about
eight o’clock.
Q. And sleep till when ?— A. Half past three or four o’clock.
Q. How much do you see of your family on these occasions? — A. I see them in
the morning and when I get up.
Q. If you get up at 3.30 what time would you see them? — A. I see them in the
morning when they get up.
Q. What time do they get up?— A. They get up and go to school.
Q. What time do they get up? — A. 7.30.
Q. And you get up at 3.30 ?^A. Yes.
Q. What hour do you go to work? — A. I leave home about 4.30.
Q. Then how do you see them when they get up if you go to work at 4.30? — A.
They are always home from school before I leave the house.
Q. I do not quite understand you. You say you get up at 3.30 in the morning?
A. No, 3.30 in the afternoon, when I am working nights.
Q. And you go to work at 4.30 in the afternoon ? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what time does school get out? — A. 4 o’clock.
ME. POST.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
195
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. And you have between 4 o’clock and 4.30 to see your family, that is all the time
you have to see your children? — A. When I am working at night.
Q. Have you any boys? — A. I have one boy.
Q. Does he get much of your influence and personal contact during that time? —
A. He gets enough so that I am not ashamed to speak of him.
Q. What I am trying to get at is, as a father do you feel you are doing full justice
to your children in seeing them only half an hour a day? — A. My children are all
married now, they do not require my looking after, all but one girl.
Q. But did you, during the time they were growing up, feel you were doing full
justice by them even though you say they got a half hour of each day ? — A. I was doing
them justice when I was working for the Ontario Boiling Mills, for the same company.
Q. You were certainly sacrificing something for it? — A. I took my family to
church every other Sunday.
Q. Did you feel at that time that you gave all the time you would like to have
given to your family? — A. Circumstances alter that. You have sometimes to sacrifice
your family in order to get them revenue.
Q. That is what I am trying to get at. Do long hours mean the sacrifice of
your family? — A. No, sir; if I had worked only eight hours a day and got the same
pay I could not have supported my family, not on the money they were paying in
those days.
Q. That is if you got paid in the same proportion ? — A. When I first went to work
for that company they were paying $1.25 per day.
Q. Do you think the conditions in Canada are such that to support his family a
man should be compelled to work so that he would only be able to see his children for
a half hour a day? — A. You have to look at it this way, that there are many men
who would not be any more in the house than half an hour if they had the whole week
to themselves.
Q. But you would? — A. Yes.
Q. Why wouldn’t other men be the same as you? — A. I tell you another thing,
there are lots of times a man would get tired lying around the house.
Q. You think he is apt to get tired?— A. He certainly will.
Q. Do you think he would get tired being around the house when he is working 12
hours a day ? — A. Oh, no, not taking it that way at all.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. You are an engineer? — A. Yes.
Q. Have you a certificate? — A. Yes.
Q. From the Ontario Government? — A. From the Ontario Government.
Q. What are your wages? What wages do you get a day? — A. I get $2.86.
Q. $2.86 for 12 hours’ work? — A. For 12 hours’ work.
By the Chairman:
Q. And you Say you are compelled to work 7 days a week, that you have to work
365 days in a year? — A. Yes, I work 365 days.
Q. You work every day?— A. Yes.
Q. And you are compelled to do that? — -A. Well, no.
The Chairman. — I think it is about time this agitation should be directed to
some other industries, that is my idea. I do not think any man should be allowed
to work 365 days in a year, 12 hours a day, whether he wants to at not.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Have you ever been connected with a trades union of any kind? — A. No, sir.
The Chairman. — Are you not affected by the Lord’s Day Act?
Mr. Smith. — They are exempt.
4 — 13J
196
COMMITTEE RE DILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Lour work there would be comparatively easy? — A. Well, of course, it is not
hard work on the hands in any way, but a man lias J a lot on his mind.
Q. Have you any time during the day to go out and have a drink and come back
again? — A. Ho, sir.
Q. You do not think that happens with regard to men handling engines at all?
— A. In my business?
Q. Yes? — A. Ho, in my class of business one is not supposed to drink liquor.
Q. Hone of them are, but according to the evidence that has been given here, that
you have heard, men can go out, get a drink and come back again? — A. Ho, sir.
By the Chairman:
Q. What do you think life would be worth to the mass of men if we all had to
work twelve hours a day for 365 days in a year? — A. It depends on how a man would
put it. in.
Q. Putting in as hard work as you do? — A. That is it, if he had the same time to
be at home, would he put it in at home?
Q. You get away from my point. Do you think it would be in the interests of
the community and in the interests of men, women and children living throughout
the Dominion that all workingmen in this country should have to work twelve hours a
day for 365 days in the year? — A. Ho, I do not.
Q. Then if it is not to their interest, do you think it is to your interest to have
to do it? — A. I do not think it is to anybody’s interest.
Q. Why should any individual in the community be called upon to do that which
is not in the interest of the mass of men to-day? — A. It is just one job, that is all,
that compels a man to do it.
Long Hours a Hecessity for Support.
By Mr. Marshall :
Q. I understand, Mr. Post, that you are not compelled to do that, that you are
doing that of your own accord. Your work is .running an engine, taking charge of an
engine? — A. Yes.
Q. Well, an engineer cannot leave his engine, he must be there? — A. Ho, he can-
not leave, he must be there all the time.
Q. You are not compelled to work, you could shorten your days in the week if
you wished, but you wish to work all along? — A. Oh, yes; no one compels me to work;
if I don’t like the job I can quit.
Q. You gave as a reason that you want to support your family, and you could
not do it at the wages paid if you worked less hours a day?— A. Yes, certainly.
Q. I know something about an engine myself; I have had some experience, and
I know that an engineer has to be at his post all the time. As a rule, though, his
work is light, he is simply watching his engine, keeping it in condition, shutting down
and starting when necessary to do so.
The Chairman. — There is this question there, if the witness says he could not
support his family unless he is working 12 hours a day for 365 days in a year, and
that is the condition prevailing in an industry which is getting support from the gov-
ernment, it seems to me that there is a very serious responsibility on the part of every-
body who has to do with the arrangement to see whether that sort of thing is neces-
sary or not. I might say that either the witness is stating his facts too strongly or
there are pretty serious grounds for an inquiry into this whole question of hours of
labour.
Mr. Marshall— If I understand the witness correctly he is not compelled to
work that number of hours.
ME. POST.
COMMITTEE 11E BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
197
APPENDIX No. 4
The Chairman. — He says if he does not work that number of hours he cannot
support his family.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. That was when he commenced? — A. Yes, when I commenced it.
Mr. Marshall. — I may be wrong, but as I understand it, he is not really com-
pelled to work 7 days in the week, but he does it because he would rather do it than
not.
By the Chairman:
Q. Let us understand it. Are you obliged to work 7 days in the week? — A. No.
Q. If you asked the company to allow you to work six days instead of seven,
what would be the upshot ? — A. I would get a man to take my place on Sunday, as
I did last summer.
Q. They would allow you to do that? — A. Yes.
Q. But you prefer to work seven days rather than six? — A. Yes.
Q. Why do you prefer that? — A. Well, one day is not of much account to a man.
Q. You wan Id rather make money, in other words, than be with your family? — -
A. Certainly, that is it; we need the money.
Q. Is the money necessary to support your family? — A.. A person has to have a
little money besides supporting his family.
Q. Do you feel that in order to support your family and to have a little money
besides, you have, as engineer, to work seven days in a week otherwise you could not
have it? — A. You can judge for yourself the way living is now what you can do at
the rate of $2.86 a day. lrou can judge how much a man is going to lay aside on that.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. What are the wages of the engineers in Hamilton in different industries, do
you know? — A. Well I could not just tell you.
Q. Tell me about what it would be?— A. Take it on an average and they won’t
overrun $1.75 a day.
Q. Do they work ten hours? — A. IV ell, there are none who only work ten hours.
By the time he looks after his engine it will be twelve hours.
By the Chairman:
Q. He has to put on that extra time? — A. Yes, because he has got to get his
steam up, got to clean his boilers, and keep his fire' ready to go ahead in the morning.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Is that all they get in Hamilton? — A. There are many of them who do not
get that.
Q. Not stationary engineers? — A. In small places.
Q. The rate of pay of an engineer would be what? — A. Oh, the average about
$1.75 or $2 a day.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Are you a fireman and engineer? — A. No, sir.
Q. Have you a fireman on this engine? — A. Yes, there is a fireman.
Q. Does he work twelve hours a day? — A. He works twelve hours a day.
Q. What are his wages? — A. He gets $2.40.
Q. As fireman? — A. Yes. He is water tender and there is a fireman besides that.
By the Chairman:
Q. Does he work 365 days a year? — A. That is the time a man has to work bnL
hardly any of them work it.
198
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Verville:
Q. He would be in the same position as you are so far as working seven days a
week is concerned? — A. Yes.
By the Chairman:
Q. Does he work seven days himself?— A. Sometimes he does and sometimes he
takes a day or two off.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. How do they do when a man stops off for a day or two, have they got to put
in another man to do that particular work? Suppose your fireman stops off? — A.
We have to get another fireman to put in his place.
Q. Is he around the place? — A. Sometimes. If it is on a day turn we have none
to put in his place. If it is at night we have got to send for one and let that man
stay there until we get the other one.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. I understand you to say that you get your Sundays off if you wanted them?
— A. I had- my Sundays last summer.
Q. Who took your place on Sundays? — A. One of my oilers.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. One of the men who oils the engines? — A. Yes.
Q. Is he an engineer? — A. Yes
Wages — Hours — Health.
By the Chairman :
Q. Do j ou think it should be part of the business of the government to shorten
the hours of labour in a country if they appear to be excessive?— A. I do not know.
I do not think ten hours a day is too long for a man to work.
Q. Yours is twelve hours? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you think twelve hours is too long?— A. I never found it out of the way.
Q. You do not think it is, is that what you said?— A. If I could get the same
money for ten hours, I would not work twelve, that is one sure thing.
Q. As long as you get the money you are content to work twelve hours ?— A. It
is the money everybody is after.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Yju would be willing to work eight hours a day if you were getting the same
money? — A. Certainly, yes.
By Mr. Murray:
- Q. You stated, Mr. Post, I think, that the average wage of an engineer in vour
city would run from $1.75 to $2.— A. Yes.
Q. I suppose a great many of these men are married? — A. Married ves
Q. With families? — A. Yes. ’
Q. The assumption is that they do support their families on that wage? — A.
Un, yes. °
Q. And what is your reason for refusing employment of that kind and preferring
your present employment ?— A. My present employment?
_A QYJeS that is t0 Say yOU are at liberty ^ wish to throw up your present job?
MR. POST.
COMMITTEE RE Fj LL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
199
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. In which case can you probably get employment in the city of Hamilton? — A.
Yes, sir.
Q. At what wage? — A. I was offered at one time $2.25 in a place.
Q. And your reason for continuing your present employment is what? — A. I
never was much of a runner around. I always lived here all my lifetime. T was
born and raised right where I am working.
Q. If a man came along and offered you a job at $4 a day for the hours you are
working you would probably make a change? — A. I don’t know as I would. I have
a standing offer in Vancouver, I can go right there to-morrow for $110 a month.
Q. Then you are perfectly satisfied with your present position? — A. The com-
pany has always used me right.
Q. How long did you say you had worked with them? — A. About 28 years.
Q. At any time in the 28 years I suppose it was your privilege to leave their
employ if you wanted to do so? — A. Yes, certainly.
Q. The fact that you have not done so is evidence of what? — A. Evidence that
I have no ill will against the company.
Q. You were satisfied with the company?— A. I was.
Q. The argument is sometimes advanced that these long hours of labour under-
mine the health of operators? — A. I do not think it has ever done mine.
Q. Do you consider it has had any effect on your physical development? — A. I
do not think it; I worked six years and three months and I never had a doctor to
attend me but once in 28 years.
Q. Do you consider that the other men employed by the Hamilton Steel and Iron
Company who work these long hours are a healthy or an unhealthy lot? — A. I do
not see that any of them are any unhealthier than I am. There are people who have
worked on the blast furnace ever since I have been there.
Q. Those that have worked for the company for 28 years are not so much of an
exception as a rule? That is to say there are others connected with the company
who have worked as long terms as you have? — A. There is no exception that I know.
Q. And these people on the whole are healthy? — A. Yes so far as I know.
Q. Can you point to an instance of where men’s constitutions have been wrecked
in the Hamilton Steel and Iron Company’s employ because of the particular fact that
they have had to work long hours? — A. No I do not know that I have.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You have never taken the pains to find out anything of that kind? — A. Not
any more than being amongst the men.
Q. There is another thing I would like to ask you: do you suppose that your
engines would last you longer if you worked them only eight hours than if you worked
them twelve hours a day ? — A. It is a pretty hard question to answer.
Q. I do not think it is? — A. Yes.
Q. Then if you cannot answer that question it would seem that you really believe
that an engine working twelve hours a day will last just as long as an engine that is
only worked for eight hours a day?— A. There is many a thing that might drop on an
engine and break it in two hours. _ _ .
Q. I know, but supposing it did not, that it was in the ordinary routine of
business?— A. Things will wear out, there is no mistake about that.
Q. And a man will wear out just the same?— A. Certainly he will wear out.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. You go a little further, and say that an engine will do more work in ten
hours than eight? — A. Certainly.
Q. And the company behind an engine is certainly getting more value out ot it
in ten hours than in eight? — A. Yes.
200
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Smith:
Q. T^ou have no desire to improve your condition at all? — A. I beg pardon?
. ^ou have no desire to improve your condition at all; you have no ambition to
improve your present condition? You have told us that you have an offer of a posi-
tion in Vancouver at $110 per month and you have no desire to go; and you say you
are not sure if you got an offer of $4 a day in Ontario that you would take it? — A. Oh,
it is this way, that a man sometimes would take it, and other times he would not.
Q. I say you have no desire to improve your condition ?— A. No, I have no desire
to leave home, especially because my wife is not in very good health.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. And your family are in Hamilton? — A. All my relations and all my friends
are in Hamilton, and that makes all the difference.
Witness discharged.
Committee adjourned.
House op Commons,
Committee Room No. 34,
Wednesday, March 9, 1910.
The Committee met at 3.30 in the afternoon, the Chairman, the Hon Mr Kimr
presiding. ' ' e”'
Mr. Phelps Johnston, called, sworn and examined :
By the Chairman:
occ"py' Mr- Wntto^ Generai
Q. Of what place? — A. Montreal and Lachine.
Q. How many men does the Bridge Company employ?— A. It varies a e-ond deal-
ordinarily about 600 in the shops, perhaps 100 in the office, and anyThere from 100 to
300 or 400 in the field as a contract might call for. anywneie Irom 100 to
Q. Does the Bridge Company do any work for the Dominion Government ?-A
Yes, a great deal. CUI"
Q. Have you seen this Bill introduced by Mr. Verville?— A. Yes, it was sent to
me by the clerk of the committee two months ago. 1 t0
Q. Have you examined its provisions carefully ?— A. I have.
Q. What have you to say in its favour?— A. Nothing.
Q What have you to say against it ?— A. I suppose you wish me to reply in re-ard
to our business and how it affects us? p y regara
Cost of Production.
Q. Take first your own business? — A. Well it wnnld
two classes of work, particularly in the field, that is the Preef c°miectl0n with
structures. It is isolated work, and if our men work ei°Iit hon-'T ° J)nds.es and otller
simply increase to us the cost fully 25 per cent of doing the work andwotld^
25 per cent more time to do it. * a ould require
MR. JOHNSTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
201
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. \ ou call that field work£ — A. Field work.
• Q. So far as field work is concerned the effect of the Bill would be to increase the
cost and the time but not as to the practicability of the work? — A.
No, because the Bill makes some provision for emergency. Now there is very often
an ice run, and we have got to get the work over early or the ice will catch us as we go
out. Then, there is another thing to be considered. There is a certain element of risk
in the. erection of every bridge, and the longer that work is stretched out the greater
that risk. At no season of the year are we wholly free from floods.
Q. Well, if the government were to make good the extra cost would it make any
difference? A. Why, yes, it would make this difference to us: We are not only work-
ing for the. government, but for private parties, building for other parties, and if it
were known that we were working on this job eight hours and trying to do others
m ten hours it would make trouble on the ten-hours’ job right along.
Q. What about the inside work?— A. You mean in the shops? Our shops are
running at all times on work for a number of different customers. I could not tell
how many,, off-hand, or how the government work, including the Intercolonial, would
compare with our whole business. It sometimes runs twenty-five or thirty per cent
in the average year. The other seventy or seventy-five per cent of the business is
for other customers, for railways, manufacturers, parties putting up hotels and so on.
We have to manufacture both the government work and the miscellaneous contracts
in the same shops with the same men and the same tools, and the men are changed
from one day s work to another, not necessarily changed in one day, but say in one
week. It would be absolutely impracticable for us to work a shop eight hours a day
on government work and ten hours on other work.
By Macdonell:
Q. Do you work ten hours?— A. We work 55 hours a week. There have been
periods in the winter when we have not. The men like to work a shorter period in the
winter.
Q. The same in the field work?— A. Yes, even more. In the long days in the
summer we work frequently eleven hours, but in the winter we are obliged to shut
down to eight or nine hours on account of the light.
Q. Do you pay by the hour?— A. We pay by the hour.
Government and Private Contract Work.
By the Chairman:
Q. Would it be possible to distinguish in this inside work between the part being
done for the government and the part being done for private parties :— A. The shop
men might not know. Of course we would know.
Q. What kind of materials do you manufacture inside? — A. Well, we buy all
our rolled material and we buy all our castings.
Q. What do you manufacture inside?— A. We simply take the rolled material
and manufacture into bridges and other buildings. We take our castings and machine
them.
Q. You could state then in regard to the material you are using whether it is
intended for government work or private work?— A. The contract perhaps will show
that.
Q. You think you would have no difficulty in distinguishing between what is
being done for the government and what is being done for private parties? A. No,
except that we would place a staff regardless of what it was intended for.
Q. Assuming you could distinguish between what is being done for the govern-
ment and what is being done for private parties and this law were made applicable only
to that part of the work which is to be done for the government, would that have any
effect upon the internal economy? — A. We would simply have to prevent any man
202
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
working more than eight hours on a government job. We might take him off and
put him on something else, but our machinery connected with the, government job
would have to be run for eight/ hours.
Q. You think that is all you would have to do, confine to eight hours the men
working on the government job? — A. I should think so.
Interpretation of Bill.
The Chairman. — The Bill states : ‘ Every contract to which the government of
Canada is a party, which may involve the employment of labourers, workmen or
mechanics, shall contain a stipulation that no labourer, workman or mechanic in the
employ of the contractor or sub-contractor or other person doing or contracting to do
the whole or a part of the work contemplated by the contract, shall be permitted or
required to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day except in cases of
extraordinary emergency caused by fire, flood or danger to life or property.’ If the
government gave you a contract with this condition would that apply only to the men
working on the government work or to all your men?
The Witness. — If it applies to all our men we would have to shut up shop.
By the Chairman:
Q. But according to this? — A. That is my interpretation. I suppose it would
apply to government work.
Effect on Hours and Charges.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. Suppose you were to put on government work one set of men and on the other
work another set, in the natural course of events some men would be on the govern-
ment work some days and on other days, on other work? — A. The same gang of men
would return one, two or three hours and on three or four contracts for the day.
By the Chairman:
Q. What would be the day? — A. Our day is ten hours.
Q. Could you tell us as to whether it would be ten or eight hours that ought to be
applied in that case?— A. I think we could.
Q. What would be the increase in the cost on the inside work as far as you can
gather? — A. It would be at least twenty-five per cent on direct charges, but a great
deal larger proportion in indirect expenses.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. You have your average charges which are fixed. How to shorten the hours in
the day would necessarily increase the average charges of your whole business? — A
Well, it would not diminish them.
Q. Here are men at fixed salaries and if you shorten the day to eight hours then
of necessity you increase the percentage of charges? — A. All our charges, yes.
Q. That would be the effect of it? — A. I say it would increase the direct charges
fully twenty-five per cent and the indirect cost to a much larger percentage.
By the Chairman:
Q. A witness this morning stated that if a measure of this kind went into effect
it would prevent his firm tendering on government contracts. Would you go that far
as to the effect on your business? — A. It is my impression that to do government busi-
ness we would have to build an outside shop and run it.
MR. JOHNSTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ho. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
203
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Who would pay the extra cost for that ? — A. The government would.
Q. Would you have any objection to the measure under those circumstances? — A.
Oh, yes, because it would cause dissatisfaction in the other shops among the other
men and we would not like to make an additional investment.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Are you a member of the firm? — A. I am a shareholder to a small extent.
Q. 1 wanted to know whether you are an employee or a member of the firm ?—
A. 1 am an employee, but like others I have a small amount of stock in it.
By the Chairman:
Q. You notice the Act is entitled ‘An Act respecting the hours of labour on
public works.’ If that were taken to mean merely the work of construction, not the
work on materials that go into the building, would you see any objection to the meas-
nre? A. That goes back to the objection as to the field work, chiefly a matter of in-
creased cost and competition in connection with other work.
Q. That is as to field work ? — A. Field work only.
Prevailing Conditions.
Q. Leaving the measure for a moment and just taking the broad question of
hours of labour, do you believe in short hours for working men or long hours or what ?
A. That is a pretty broad question. I believe that the hours of labour for every-
body should be as short as the prevailing conditions will permit.
Q. We heard of a prevailing condition in one factory which was thirteen hours a
day ? A. I do not mean prevailing conditions as regards isolated plants, but taking
the world as a whole If eight hours of work will give everything in the way of
products that the world requires, make it eight hours, but if it takes nine or ten hours
or fifteen hours we will have to find a way for working fifteen hours.
Q. You think the shortening of hours in any establishment has an effect upon
that business as compared with other businesses? I mean to say in the competitive
world, in the competition that goes on between industries, would the shortening of
hours in one industry place that industry at a disadvantage with other industries in
the same line? — A. The short hours place it at a great disadvantage in competition.
Q. Your idea is that if you could overcome that handicap which competition
brings about, the shortening of hours would be a good thing? — A. No, I do not be-
lieve the world could produce as much as it needs in an eight-hour day. It is barely
doing it in ten hours’ work.
Q. You think it is a matter of total production or of the distribution of what is
produced? — A. Very largely the total production.
Q. Do you think the world is not producing enough now. Is there not an in-
equality in the distribution? — A. There is undoubtedly some inequality in distribu-
tion, but I do not think a large percentage.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Do you work the year round in your factory? — A. We have succeeded in
doing so. We have had occasionally to go down to eight hours for a few months in
the winter to hold our men together.
Q. Was there never a demand for shorter hours from your men? — A. Never.
Q. You are sure of that? — A. Yes, my memory is clear on that. In connection
with our field work there was two or three years ago an attempt made by the Ameri-
can Structural Ironworkers’ Union to organize the workers in Canada, but they
never submitted any demands to us. They went on strike.
Q. If I understand you right, you say they never submitted any demands? — A.
No demands ever came before me as manager, if my memory serves.
204
COMMITTEE RE BILE No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. What would you say if I could prove there was? — A. If you could prove it
I would say that my memory had failed me very sadly, but I am confident no formal
demand was ever made to me.
Q. Have you any objection to your men organizing? — A. No objection so long
as it does not interfere with the running of open shop and so long as they do not
want us to accept union divisions, which we think objectionable, Protestants and
Catholics and so on.
Q. There would be no discrimination if they did organize? — A. No discrimination
so long as they did their work satisfactorily.
Q. I do not believe that about your factory men. I know exactly what were the
conditions two or three years ago, and that is why I am so anxious to have your
evidence. I know exactly what transpired.- — A. We heard a rumour two or three
years ago that there was an attempt to organize our shop but nothing more than a
rumour.
Q. Nothing was done to prevent them organizing? — A. Not that I know of.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. There might have been something outside of your knowledge? — A. I do not
know what the foreman might have said or done.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. But not to your knowledge? — A. No. I did not know of the organizing of our
erection men and their going out on strike.
Q. Have they an organization in Montreal? — A. I presume an organization has
been got up.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. I think I heard you say that one of the conditions was about Catholics? — A.
We said we did not care whether we worked with Protestants or Catholics.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You have Indians working on the road, I think? — A. We have many Indians
working, thirty or forty in the shops.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. You say you have them on outside work? — A. They are very good on outside
work.
Competitors.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. What other business similar to your own exist in Canada to-day? — A. Our
largest competitors are the Canadian Bridge Company of Walkerville, the Hamilton
Bridge Company of Hamilton, the Canada Foundry Company of Toronto. There are
half a dozen small bridge companies in Ontario devoting themselves chiefly to struc-
tural work. They have no railway work. There are two or three in New Brunswick
or Nova Scotia, W. P. McNeill & Co., of New Glasgow, are doing some railway work
and in the structural, that is the iron and steel work for bridges, there is1 at least
one concern in Quebec, one in Ottawa, the Phoenix Bridge & Iron Company of Mon-
treal. McGregor & McIntyre, in Toronto. There is another concern Brown & Love,
I think, and the Dixon Bridge Company of Campbellton.
By the Chairman:
Q. All work about the same length of time, do they? — A. So far as I know, the
same hours.
ME. JOHNSTON.
COMMITTEE RE DILL No. 21— DOERS OF LABOUR
205
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Do the same conditions apply to them as to your own works? — A. So far as
I know, yes.
■By Mr. Knowles:
Q. How do you arrive at the sale price of your products? — A. It is the cost of
the raw material manufactured, including the burden and freight to sites and erection
and finally profit.
Q. Have you any reference to American sale prices? — A. Hone at all.
Q. Is there any competition from imported products? — A. There has been a little
from the old country. The Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Company, of England,
have built one or two bridges for the city of Toronto in the last two or three years.
They have tendered on a good deal of work but got little else.
Q. They paid the duty ? — A. They paid the preferential duty, yes.
Q. Is there any competition from the United States? — A. There has been a great
deal.
Q. The Quebec bridge, was that in competition?— A. Yes, it was let before in
competition. We tendered on it.
Q. It was manufactured by a foreign firm? — A. It was manufactured in Pennsyl-
vania.
Q. They paid the duty, I suppose? — A. They did not in the end, because the
Quebec Bridge and Railway Company assumed the duty and paid it to the govern-
ment.
Q. So your price is protected to that extent? — A. Oh, we have protection on it.
Q. What dividends have you been paying? — A. I do not think that is a proper
subject for inquiry, is it, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. — If you take exception to the question I do not suppose Mr.
Knowles will press it.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Who owns the stock, Canadians or Englishmen? — A. I think the control of the
company would be here in Canada. There is a considerable amount owned in the old
country.
Q. Any stock for sale? — A. It is not on the market at all.
Q. Can it be purchased? — A. From time to time from the States and so on.
Q. It cannot be a great secret then what your dividends are? — A. I do not think
that it is.
By Mr. Y erville:
Q. You said that they were working the same hours in the different industries
in that line. How far can you state that they do the same hours generally, how far do
you know that they are working the same hours? — A. My answer had naturally refer-
ence to Canadian businesses.
Q. Throughout Canada? — A. Yes, so far as I know.
By the Chairman :
Q. Are there not reasons to be urged in favour of shortening the hours say in
connection with the building trades that would be equally applicable to the industry
you are concerned with? — A. Ho, I do not know that the work in the building trades
is any more laborious than some parts of our work. I do not know any other case
where the physical energies of the men are unduly taxed.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Did I understand you correctly to say that twenty-five per cent of the work
done by your firm is government work? — A. Taking the average year, twenty-five per
cent.
206
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Have you any idea of the percentage of the work of the other companies in
Canada, that is government work? — A. The larger companies, I think, have about the
same proportion. The smaller companies I mentioned do no railway bridge work.
Q. You include in that twenty-five per cent all your railway bridge work? — At
For the Transcontinental and Intercolonial.
Q. Not for any other roads? — A. The Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk woulit
not come into that.
Q. Where do they get their bridges? — A. They buy them all in Canada.
Q. That would not come into the twenty-five per cent, I mean the Canadian
Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk? — A. I am speaking of the government work.
Quality of Work a Determining Factor.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. How many hours do you work your office staff? — A. They leave Montreal
with the eight o’clock train and get to work about 8.25 and quit at 5.25 at night with
one hour for lunch. In connection with the office staff hours I wish to say that
about 60 or 65 men of our staff are draughtsmen and an 8-hour day for draughtsmen
is all they can stand, all their eyes can stand. It is a longer day for office men
working at drawing than it is for any mechanic not doing extraordinarily hard physi-
cal work.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. You think it would be as long for draughtsmen to work eight hours as for
mechanics to work ten? — A. Experience shows it is long enough for draughtsmen.
By the Chairman:
Q. Is it your view that the quality of the work should he a determining factor? —
A. Not necessarily, but where the work is so confined and exacting as mechanical
drawing, it has been found that eight hours is as much as they can stand.
Q. That means that as regards that particular calling the character of the occupa-
tion is what should determine the length of hours. Would you apply that generally,
or do you say that should hold in regard to the hours in all industries, that it would
depend on the nature of the occupation? — A. Very largely it would depend on the
nature of the occupation.
Q. I suppose the same thing would apply to health being affected by any cause?
- — A. I suppose it would.
By Mr. Macdoncll:
Q. Have you any idea of the total number of men employed by all the businesses
in Canada similar to your own? — A. No, except that I have an idea that we havo
about probably over one-third of the total capacity of the Canadian shops for doing
bridge-building work. Thirty per cent probably.
Q. Both for bridges and buildings? — A. Yes
By the Chairman :
Q. Can you give us an idea of what the hours are in industrial establishments
generally in Ontario? — A. My acquaintance with Ontario conditions is not very large.
Q. Or Quebec? — A. So far as I know, nearly every shop in Montreal is on ten
hours.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. How many hours do they work in the United States in that line ?— A. I think
generally ten hours. I think generally nine hours in field work.
MR. JOHNSTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
207
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Do you know anything about England? — A. Not that I can state with autho-
rity.
Mr. Murray. — May I ask a few questions, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. — Certainly.
By Mr. Murray:
Q. Aou were speaking in the early part of your evidence about emergencies and
of whether or not the running of ice would constitute an emergency. You said, I
think, that that would be a matter for legal interpretation.
The Chairman. No, he said the question as to whether this Act went a certain
length was a matter of legal interpretation.
Witness— As to whether there should be eight hours on government work and
ten hours on something else.
Emergency Cases.
By Mr. Murray:
Q. What do you say then about the running of ice? — A. We very often find our-
selves in such a position that we ask our men to work overtime, perhaps on Sundays
to get into a safe condition before the ice goes.
Q. Would you look upon that as an emergency covered by this Act?- — A. It would
be an emergency as soon as rain commenced to fall and there was imminent danger.
But whether you can assume an emergency under the Act I do not know.
Q. Knowing there would be some uncertainty as to the interpreting of the Act
as to whether that would be an emergency, would you be inclined to take that into
consideration in submitting your tender for the erection of a bridge in the winter
time? — A. I think I should.
Q. In that event would your price be higher or lower? — A. The price would be
raised.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you take that a9 an emergency at the present time and consider it? — A.
Well it is always easier to cross a bridge when you get to it.
Q. If you consider it an emergency under eight hours, why not consider it an
emergency under ten hours? — A. We do. When we send out a job we try to push it
through as early as possible simply as a matter of safety, and if there is light enough
for ten hours we try to get them to work ten hours.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. Supposing there was an emergency, say you want to get this job through
before any possible emergency could occur, would this Bill hinder you engaging to
pay them for more than eight hours if they saw fit to work? — A. That is a question
of interpretation of the Act. I want to say this about our erection work that ninety-
nine times in a hundred the men are away from their families, they are off in the
fields perhaps and under these circumstances they are always glad to work overtime.
Q. They are always paid extra in that case? — A. Always paid extra, yes.
Effect of Long Hours on the Men.
By Mr. Murray:
Q. That is the next point I was going to ask you about. In your opinion would
it be a hardship to force the men by law to absent themselves from their families
208
COMMITTEE IIE BILL Xo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
longer than was necessary? — A. It would be somewhat of a hardship.
Q. If the men were given the option would they prefer to work ten hours a day
in order to get back to their families quickly? — A. Yes, a good many would.
By the Chairman :
Q. Those men that are working twelve hours a day have about three hours a day
with their families. Do you regard that as a hardship? — A. Our men do not have
their families with them.
Q. Twelve hours a day would give the men three hours with their families.
Eight hours would give them about seven. Would you regard twelve hours a day as
a hardship from the point of view Mr; Murray has just suggested? — A. That would
not apply to our workmen. If you mean the question generally I think probably
twelve hours a day would be considered a hardship by most men.
By Mr. Murray:
Q. Some mention was made of the office staff. Do your office staff ever have to
work overtime? — A. Yes, occasionally, we ask our clerical staff to work overtime for
about one month in the spring.
Q. Are they paid overtime? — A. The clerical staff is not.
Q. What about the working staff, the field staff and shop staff generally? — A.
The shop staff is paid for overtime but only at the regular rates.
Q. But the fact remains that they are paid for overtime? — A. Always paid for
overtime.
Q. But the clerical staff is not paid for overtime? — A. ISTo.
Q. So to some extent the disadvantage that the shop staff is under, having to work
ten hours a day as compared with the clerical staff working eight hours a day, is off-
set by the fact that the shop staff gets paid for overtime and the clerical staff do not?
— A. Yes.
Witness discharged.
Mr. Charles Marshall Doolittle, called, sworn and examined.
By the Chairman :
Q. What is your occupation or business? — A. Stone cutter.
Q. Where? — A. Dundas, Ontario.
Q. How many men do you employ in the quarry? — A. About 100 in winter, 150
to 200 in the summer.
By Mr. Yerville:
Q. You are an employer of labour? — A. Yes.
By the Chairman :
Q. Have you seen this Bill of Mr. Verville’s? — A. Yes.
Q. Have you studied its provisions carefully? — A. Yes.
Q. What do you think of them? — A. I do not think it would be practicable in my
work. We could not do any government work under that Bill.
Q. Why not? — A. Well, there are two or three operations in crushing stone, first
in taking the dirt off the surface soil. That is sometimes done four or six months
before the stone is crushed and we could not say that that could be done in eight
hours.
Q. How many hours do your men work now? — A. Ten hours.
Q. In all branches of the work? — A. Yes.
ME. DOOLITTLE.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
209
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. And what are the different processes in quarrying the stone? — A. The first
process is to take away the sub-soil, the stripping and the next is drilling. Then there
is blasting and the loading.
Q. Well now what is there to prevent any one of these processes being done in
eight hours rather than in ten hours? — A. The whole quarry could be worked on an
eight-hour basis.
Q. Then so far as the practical side is concerned there is no reason why they
should not work eight hours rather than ten hours. There may be reasons financial
and otherwise, but it is practicable to work? — A. The men would work but we would
be losing our machines for two hours.
Q. If this Bill were made applicable to your business so far as government work
is concerned, you would lose something through not having your machines working ?—
A. We would not consider government work.
Q. Do you get any government work now? — A. We have had some.
Q. How much a year? — A. Not very much. The government have not done very
much around our part of the country.
Q. If a Bill like this wore enacted and the government applied to you for stone
for a government building would you not supply them? — A. We could not under that
Bill.
Stripping in Quarrying.
Q. Why not? — A. Our stripping would be done four months before we came to
the stone.
Q. If the government were to say next year, ‘We are going to build a building
and we want stone from you,’ what is to prevent you from starting to strip now. You
could do that? — A. We could not do it, I do not think. We could not say in the case
of a big stone the size of this table, this was stripped under eight hours.
Q. If the government said we want so much stone, what is to prevent you from
letting a certain piece of the quarry for that purpose? — A. We could not say when
we came to that eight-hour stone. We might think we might be there next July and
strip that in eight hours. But suppose we -were working down at another part when
we wanted that stone we could not fill the contract then.
Q. What is this stripping process? — A. That is taking the clay off the surface
soil by a steam shovel and hauling it down to the dump.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. Stripping the stone and preparing it for quarrying operations? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. Supposing you went on and stripped a lot of this stone when you had no
government contract and were not even anticipating one, this Act would not apply
in that case.
Mr. Smith. — That is so.
Mr. Macdonell. — It depends upon the language of the Act.
By the Chairman:
Q. Get away from the stripping part and get to the next stage, get to the drilling?
— A. The drilling could be done on an eight-hour basis.
Q. You could do the drilling on an eight-hour basis? — A. Yes.
Q. So the Bill would not affect that part of it.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Have you any stonecutters? — A. No, sir, it is all crushed stone. After the
drilling there is the blasting and the loading and the crushing.
4—14
210
COMMITTEE EE BILL X o. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Smith:
Q. What wages do you pay your men? — A. For common labourers, 15 cents an
hour.
Q. You pay by the hour? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you do any work by contract? — A. No.
Q. Or price per ton? — A No.
Q. You pay by the hour? — A. Yes.
Q. What do the drillers get per hour? — A. 20 cents.
Q. Do the men who drill the holes handle the powder? — A. We have a separate
man to handle the powder.
Q. What do you pay the men who handle the powder? — A. 25 cents per hour.
Q. Is that your highest paid men? — A. Yes.
Q. The men you have have experience in the handling of high explosives? — A.
Yes. Some machinists would get about that or a little bit more.
Q. 25 cents? — A. Yes.
Private and Government Contracts.
By the Chairman:
Q. In the drilling and loading and crushing, all of these processes could be carried
on in an eight-hour day, could they not? — A. Well, not the crushing.
Q. If you were trying to distinguish between the government contract and the
other work? — A. You see we have got steady customers that we have contracts with
for three or four years to run yet, and we made those contracts on a ten-hours
basis. Now, we could not afford to close down our machinery.
Q. What you say is equivalent to this, that the amount of business for private
customers is so great compared with what you get from the government that you
could not afford to change? — A. No.
Q. You would not accept government work unless it had a stipulation of that
kind?- — A. Unless it was a very large contract.
Q. Sufficiently large to alter your whole arrangement? — A. Yes.
Q. Would it make any difference in the prices? — A. Yes, assuredly.
Q. How much? — A. We would have to pay the men the same amount of money.
It would cost them just as much to live, probably a little more, working eight hours
instead of ten.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Cost them more? — A. Yes
Q. How do you make that out? — A. He would have two hours on his hands. If
he is not making money he is spending it.
Q. He might be utilizing that two hours in making money at something else.
He might be seeking good investments for his savings.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. What makes you think he would spend his earnings if he had two hours
more? — A. If a person is not making money he is spending it.
Q. Could he not occupy his time in something else than spending money? — A.
I do not know what he would do unless he went home and sat down in the house.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Suppose he went home to read?— A. Well it costs money to read.
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. Do many of these men have homes of their own?— A. Most of our men are
foreigners.
MR. DOOLITTLE.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
211
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Broder:
Q. If a man working eight hours is more effective than a man working ten,
would you consider it right to ask him to work more? — A. I would not think it right.
Q. About your drilling, suppose this man is drilling how wouldi you be fixed in
that respect. Suppose this man is drilling away and he did not get deep enough, that
would be more apt to occur in an eight-hour day than ten would it not?— A. We drill
thirty or forty holes before we shoot. I do not think we would have any trouble that
way.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. How do you drill the holes?— A. By steam drillers.
Q. You have not any hand-drilling?— A. Some, very little.
Q. What is the average number of holes drilled in ten hours?— A. In ten hours
he drills about 80 feet.
Q. You reckon that is good? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. One man? — A. Yes.
Q. With the hand drill?— A. No, the steam drill.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. That is eighty feet of holes drilled for $2?— A. Yes.
Output in Twelve and Ten Hours Compared.
By the Chairman:
Q. Have you always worked ten hours? — A. Always.
Q. Have you tried any longer?— A. Yes, we tried one summer. We were pushed
and we tried them on every time, and we found that during the twelve hours we were
not getting any more stone loaded practically than on the ten-hour basis.
The Chairman.— That is a very important point gentlemen. The witness says that
when working twelve hours the output was no greater than when working ten. Do
you think you would have a similar experience if you reduced them from ten to eight
hours? Do you think they would turn out as much in eight as in ten hours?
The Witness. — In the winter time they work nine hours.
By the Chairman:
Q. How much did they do then? — A. They did not do as much as in ten.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Isn’t the proportion just the same?-
-A. I could not say. I never figured it out
By Mr. Verville:
Q. The conditions are different in the winter time, and you could not do as much?
■ — A. No.
Q. There are a good many things to contend with, frost and so on?— A. Frost and
the men get bundled up so that you cannot make a very good comparison.
The Chairman.— That is a very interesting point. It would appear in regard to
this particular industry at any rate that twelve hours are excessive; that a reduction
to ten does not really affect the output at all, and leaves the worker the advantage of
the shorter time in regard to this particular industry.
The Witness.— No, I did not say that they did as much in eight hours as in ten
I he Chairman.— I did not mean to imply that, but simply that you reached a
certain point, say twelve hours a day, in your particular calling, and it does not lead
to any greater output than a ten-hour day?
4—Ui
212
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
The Witness. — No.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Do you suppose that a man working eight hours could not produce almost as
much work as in ten, I do not mean to say at the start? A. No, our principal work is
loading stone on to a car. Now, you can get him to work steadily for ten hours a day.
O. Did you never try him with any shorter hours except in the winter time? — A.
No.
By the Chairman:
Q. It is heavy work and you came to a breaking point? — A. That is my opinion.
Ten hours is a breaking point.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. Do you dress any stone?— A. No, it is all crushed.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. In drilling there is a difference in the rock, some of it is harder than others?
—A. In different quarries. A man running that drill by machinery, could not do as
much in eight hours as in ten. It has a certain stroke, so many strokes to the minute.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. At the same time there is always a certain amount of labour to get that drill
in good shape to prevent it from clogging and so forth. I suppose you have two men
at each drill? — A. Yes, one man feeding.
Q. You have to change it for a longer one sometimes. It sticks and you have got
to sort it and look after that. There is always a certain amount of labour attached to
them outside of so many strokes a minute? — A. Yes, there are always two men attend-
ing each drill.
Effect on Labour Conditions.
By the Chairman:
Q. Supposing that this Bill is applicable only to the erection of public buildings,
to the work of construction, as distinguished from the work on materials which go
into the buildings, would you have any objection to a measure of that sort ? — A. I do
not know. I am not experienced. I think it would affect the disorganization of
labour conditions.
Q. In what way? — A. Well if one man could work down town on an eight-hour
day and get the same money he is going to object to work ten hours.
Q. You think it might create friction as between the workmen themselves? — A.
I think it would cause trouble.
Q. Would it have any effect on the cost of building? — A. If the Bill was success-
ful in reducing labour to eight hours a day it would naturally increase the cost.
Q. In regard to buildings to which it was applicable would it have any effect on
the cost, say to the government on public buildings? — A. I think you would have to
pay the men the same for eight hours as for ten hours and, therefore, you would
increase the cost.
Q. You do not think the workmen would accept a reduction of hours with a
redu tion of wages ? — A. No.
Q. You think they would prefer to have longer hours? — A. You heard the Hamil-
ton Iron and Steel Company this morning. Very often, when they are after labour,
our men will leave because they can go down there at the same rate per hour and
get twelve hours work. They will leave our employment for the longer hours at the
same rate.
MR. DOOLITTLE.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
213
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Verville:
Q. That is all they are looking for, money for their family ? — A. Yes, money
seems to be the reason. They go down there because they make more money.
By the Chairman:
Q. Are you a member of the Manufacturers’ Association? — A. Yes.
Q. Did you see a circular similar to this? This is a circular I would like to put
in. It is a circular from the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, dated Toronto,
January 13, 1910, signed by Mr. Murray, the secretary. You received this? — A. Yes,
the first of the year, as I remember it.
Mr. Broder. — What do they say about it?
The Chairman. — I- will read it: —
‘ To Canadian Boards of Trade. Compulsory Eight Hour Day Bill. Last
year we had occasion to solicit your valued assistance in opposing the above
measure when it was under consideration by the House of Commons. That it
(was never pressed to a vote is probably due in some degree at least to the aid
you were good enough to give us at that time. This year the Bill has been in-
troduced again and has been referred to a Special Committee of the House who
are meeting almost immediately to hear the views of parties who may be inter-
ested one way or the other. Our association is undertaking on behalf of employ-
ing and business interests to submit through its secretary a general case in
opposition to the Bill, and it would strengthen his position and lend much more
weight to his argument if he could present to the Commitee of the House cre-
dentials to show that he was authorized to speak for your Board. If you are not
proposing to send a special representative to testify before the committee and if
you could see your way clear to give our secretary this authority, you are urged
to do so at once, under the assurance that you will be taking one of the most
effective means of defeating a proposal which could not but result disastrously
to the whole country. If in addition your board would address a formal letter
of protest containing a summary of your objections to the Honourable W. L.
Mackenzie King, Chairman of the Special Committee, on Bill No. 21, House of
Commons, Ottawa, it would lighten the responsibility resting upon those who will
represent you and make their task an easier one.’.
Then the provisions of the Bill are given. Then it goes on:
‘ While it will be noticed that the above refers only to government contracts
it is the boast of organized labour that this measure is but the means to an end
and that through it they hope to compel the adoption of an eight-hour day in all
classes of industry from one end of Canada to the other. The following sugges-
tions may prove hopeful to you in framing your protest to the Chairman of the
committee: 1. The Bill if passed would prohibit every employer and every em-
ployee who works more than eight hours per day from sharing in government
business. 2. It would place a discount on ambition. The inherent right of the
individual to raise himself above the level of his fellows by extra work or effort
would be denied him. 3. Once we have fully recovered from the present indus-
trial depression there will again be a shortage of help. A reduction in the hours
of labour would mean that this shortage would be tremenduously accentuated.
4. A shorter working day would mean an increase cost of production which in turn
would mean a material advance in the price charged the jobber, the retailer and
the consumer, and consequently a general increase in the cost of living. 5. The
shorter hours of labour in town and city workshops have proved a wonderfully
strong attraction in influencing men to leave the'farm. If these hours are now
reduced to eight per day, hired help for the farm will be more difficult than ever
to secure and retain. As business men you will appreciate the importance of
214
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
blocking a move that would only embarrass a farmer. As no time is to be lost
you are earnestly requested to take action in the matter with the least possible
delay. Yours faithfully, Canadian Manufacturers Association, G. M. Murray,
Secretary.’ (See also Exhibit F.)
By the Chairman:
Q. I would like to ask you did this circular have any influence upon you in
framing the opinion you have given to the committee? — A. Mo, sir.
Q. The arguments you have given have been arrived at independently? — A. Yes.
Mr. Verville. So far as that circular is concerned it speaks of organized labour
and also of the farmers. I just want to call attention to that. I think it should be put
in.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. Does a ten-hour day prevail in all the quarries in Ontario? — A. To the best
of my knowledge.
Q. What wages do the various quarrymen pay do you know? You have given
your own scale of wages. You do not know what the other quarries pay? — A. Mo.
Q. T ou think they are all on a ten-hour basis ? — A. Yes, I am pretty sure as to
that. Some of our men worked in other quarries.
By Mr. Smith :
. Did you say that eveiT man drilled 80 feet a day?— A. Mo, I said that this
is the average, about 80 feet.
Q. And you pay 20 cents an hour? — A. Twenty cents an hour. The driller gets
twenty cents and the helper seventeen and a half cents.
. , Q- Would you reckon two men to do that one hole?— A. Two men to do that
eighty feet.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. What size would this drill be?— A. At the bottom, two and an eighth inches
and. two and three quarters at the beginning.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. What is the nature of this rock? — A. It is a lime stone.
Explosives — Accidents.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Have you many accidents through the handling of the high explosives in your
business ?— A. We have been m operation for five years and we have had three acci-
dents.
Q. Three men killed in that time?— A. Yes.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Have you had any complaints aS to the hours being too long?— A. Yes, we
had a complaint last month. They were only working nine hours and they wanted
to work ten hours.
Q. That is what I mean. There has been no complaint of ten hours? — A Mo,
they want a longer time rather than a shorter time.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You said a while ago, I believe, that your men are mostly Italians? A The
labouring men, yes. The white men have the better positions.
MR. DOOLITTLE.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
215
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Smith:
Q. You would not employ any man to handle high explosives who did not have
experience? — A. No. It is very hard to get one. I think that is something the govern-
ment ought to do.
By the Chairman:
Q. What is that? — A. Have the powder monkeys examined and compelled to take
out a certificate the same as engineers do.
Q. The engineers take out a certificate under the provincial law? — A. Something
of that kind ought to be done I think.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Is there any qualification for the handling of high explosives in Ontario. Has
a man to have a certificate ?— A. No.
Hr. Smith. — That is a very important thing.
Witness.- — I think so. We have had men come and say that they had all kinds
of experience and we could not get them to handle one box of dynamite.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. I suppose a man with some experience could not afford to run the risk? — A.
I do not think we want a man with too much experience. He gets too careless. The
longer he handles dynamite the more careless he gets. Put on a green man and he
is scared and takes care.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. I do not understand you. You just informed the committee that a certifi-
cate was an important thing. Now you say that experience is not the best thing. I do
not understand that.
Mr. Broder. — The responsibility of the employer would be increased if you put
inexperienced men on.
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. Do you contract for those high explosives ahead? — A. We have and we have
not.
Q. Are they made in Canada? — A. We have imported them.
Q. Supposing this Bill became law as it is now you got a contract, would it
apply to explosives too ? — A. I would understand it that way. That is my understand-
ing of it now.
Crushed Stone — Three-year Contracts.
By Mr. Murray:
Q. Where do you sell your stone principally? Where is your best market for it?
— A. Our best market, our steadiest market is the blast furnaces in Hamilton.
Q. The Hamilton Iron and Steel Co.? — A. Yes.
Q. What is your next best? — A. The next best is Buffalo.
Q. Do you actually export crushed stone? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you sell it there in competition with United States crushers? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what hours the United States crushers work? — A. No.
Q. You cannot say whether they work eight or ten hours? — A. I have every
reason to believe they work ten hours, but I could not swear to it.
Q. If they did work ten hours, would that impress you if you were compelled to
reduce yours to eight hours ? — A. It certainly would. I probably would throw it up.
Q. On whom would that loss fall directly? — A. We would lose of course.
216
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Would you consider that a hardship for the men you have employed? — A.
We send over there about 125 tons a day.
Q. How many men would that give employment to? — A. Probably fifteen or
twenty.
Q. So that assuming that the crushers in the United States work ten hours and
assuming- that you would lose your business if compelled to work eight hours, fifteen
or twenty men would be out of employment? — A. YesN
Q. As to the efficiency of the men you have working for you, have you ever ob-
served whether a man worked more effectively or less effectively in the early hours of
the day’s work? For instance, a man starting at seven o’clock in the morning, do
you find he is as effective from seven to eight as from eleven to twelve say? Can you
make any statement as to that? — A. I cannot make any statement as to that. It
takes them some time to get limbered up.
Q. How long would you say it took them to get limbered up? — A. I could not
say generally.
Q. One or two hours? — A. One or two hours.
Q. So that the time they are getting limbered up really represents a loss to the
employer? — A. They are not doing as good work.
Q. Would you consider that under a compulsory eight-hour day they would
limber up more quickly or take the same time?— A. Just as long, I think.
Q. So that really you would not only be losing your two hours labour but also the
proportion of the efficient labour which you now have on a ten-hour day? — A. Yes.
Ti an eight-hour day were compulsory it would be a serious thing for us because we
haye got contracts in Buffalo for three years.
By the Chairman:
Q. If the law were made not to apply to existing contracts but to take effect say
three or four years hence would that get over that difficulty?— A. Yes.
Efficiency Period in a Day’s Wore.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Do you say that the most efficient period is from the eighth to the tenth hour ?
A. Xo, I said that I did not think a man did as good work in the early morning
as he did later on.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Are they in such a condition when they get to work in the morning, say at
seven o’clock, that it takes them really two hours to do good work? — A. Xo, I do not
think they do as good work in the first two hours as in the last two hours.
Q. What is the reason for that?— A. I cannot explain it.
Q. Don't you think long hours have something to do with it?— A. Xo, sir
Q. Supposing they were working twelve hours s — A. While they are working
twelve hours they do not do practically any more work.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Did I understand you to say that you regard the last of the day’s work as
less efficient than the first of the day’s work?-A. Xo, sir, I did not say that. I said
it they worked twelve hours a day the extra two hours are not so efficient
Q. Did you not say that from eight to ten they did not produce as much 'as in the
nW°Ti°U/- t ^°’ 1 Said 1 thov,g'ht they did better work after they got started.
. , T I 1S w , 1 mean. lou say they do not do as much in the first two hours
as m the last two hours ?-A. I do not think they do quite as much. It is a prettv
hard thing to answer. J
MR. DOOLITTLE.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
217
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. When a man starts he takes some time to get a sweat? — A. And he has got
to have his smoke after lunch of course, and when a man gets a little warmed up he
is more like a machine.
Mr. Smith. It is so contrary to my experience that I am afraid they are not
experienced men.
Mr. Verville. — It is contrary to mine too.
By Mr. Murray :
Q. You stated, I think, that so far as the purchasing of labour was concerned,
that is common labour, you come into active competition with the Hamilton Iron
and Steel Co.? — A. Yes.
Q. You pay them what per hour? — A. 15 cents.
Q. And what do the Hamilton Iron and Steel Co. pay?— A. I understand 15
cents.
Q. You work ten hours a day? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you know how long they work? — A. I know our men have left our employ-
ment to go down there at the same wages because they get longer hours.
Mr. Broder. — It is a different class of work of course.
By Mr. Murray:
Q. The work is to some extent more easily done there but the principal reason
is they get more wages per day? — A. That is the reason.
Q. Now do you think that men who voluntarily leave ten hours’ work to work
twelve hours per day for the sake of the extra money, would they if they were com-
pelled to work a shorter day put in that time by improving themselves by reading
or studying or spending the time in bettering the conditions under which their fami-
lies live, we will say? — A. In this particular class of labour that we hire for 15 cents
they are foreigners and I do not think you could expect them to better themselves
very much.
Q. Have these foreigners got their families with them? — A. Very few.
Q. They leave their families in Italy I suppose? — A. Yes.
Q. So that if these men were allowed to work 16 hours a day — — ? — A. It would
tickle them to death.
Q. Do those labourers compete with our labour who have families? — A. I won’t
say compete because we cannot get white men to do the work.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Do you say you cannot get white men to do the work? — A. No.
Cheap Labour.
By the Chairman:
Q. Is it a question of not getting them or not getting them at the price ? — A.
They can make more money at easier work.
Q. White labour won’t do this work at this figure but would they do it at a higher
figure? — A. I do not know that they would. It is pretty hard work.
Q. Do you think it possible for a man in this country with a family to compete
with men who have no families, who have no civic or home obligations to consider?
—A. We have white men living up there on 15 cents an hour.
Q. What sort of living are they getting? — A. Well they are always well dressed
and look prosperous.
Q. How many children have they?— A I am afraid I could not tell you that.
218
COMMITTEE RE DILL Ko. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Could you live on 15 cents an hour? — A. I would be afraid to try it.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. Where you have this foreign labour employed, the white men do not care to
work in groups. Do you find that prevailing? — A. No, the white labour in our case
has got all the good jobs and the foreign labour has got all the hard work to do.
Q. They are not working with those people in the same class of work? — A. In
some cases they do, but they do not seem to object to it.
By the Chairman:
Q. Is that because white labour is more highly skilled? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Can you do as much work with half a dozen men of our own labour as with
six foreigners? — A. More work with our own labour, but you cannot get them to do
the work. That is my experience.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. Do you find a scarcity of white labour? — A. Yes.
Q. It is very hard to get? — A. Very hard to get.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. All the year round ? — A. In the winter time labour is more plentiful and work
is less.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. Do you find any tendency on the part of the foreign labour to supersede our
people for less wages ? — A. They are out for all the money they can get.
Q. Of course they live much cheaper ? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. Are they union men? — A. No.
The Chairman. — Any more questions?
By Mr. Murray:
Q. There is just one point which was partially lost sight of when you answered a
question of the Chairman with regard to the practicability or otherwise of working an
eight-hour day on stripping. You admit, I think, that so far as the actual work is
concerned, it would be possible to work a gang of men eight hours a day stripping? —
A. Yes.
Q. If you advertized you could get men to work eight hours a day stripping? —
A. Yes.
Q. Paying them a wage would be equivalent to the maximum daily wage which
you are paying other labourers? — A. We could get meifi to work eight hours.
Q. Men would welcome, I presume, the opportunity to get ten hours’ pay for eight
hours’ work. That is only human nature, I suppose? — A. Yes.
Q. What about the men that you would have engaged on stripping, crushing and
so on for private contracts. Would they be willing to continue to work ten hours a
day when some of their fellows were only working eight hours? — A. It would not be
i atural to think so.
Mr. Smith. — There is nothing in the Bill to compel you to work for ten hours.
MR. DOOLITTLE.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
219
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Murray : '
Q. Supposing you attempted to engage men at 15 cents an Lour and worked them
eight hours a day, do you think you could get men easily? — A. It is hard enough to
get them through the winter when we are only working nine hours a day.
Q. Would you, or would you not try to get men to work eight hours a day at the
regular rate of 15 cents? — A. I would not waste my time.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Suppose you got 20 mem and you could replace them by 20 others for 25 cent*
a day less would you employ them?— A. If they could do as much work for 25 cents
less we would be glad to have them.
Witness discharged.
The Chairman.— There is just one question I would like to ask Mr. Murray
Mr. G. II. Murray, called, sworn and examined: —
Explanation re Circular.
By the Chairman :
Q. You are the secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers Association?— A. Yes.
Q. You have heard me read this circular. Was that prepared by you?— A. Yes
Q. Amd to whom was it sent?— A. As the address will indicate, to Canadian!
Hoards of Trade.
Q. Only to Canadian Boards of Trade?— A. Yes.
. ^ot sent to any individuals? — A. Possibly one or two individuals might have
written to me and asked for copies, but it would be only in, that event.
Q. Well the last witness was not a member of a Board of Trade and he said he
received a copy? A. As a matter of fact there was a request from Doolittle and Wil-
cox for a copy of a circular but it was not that circular.
Q. Well he must be mistaken?— A. I presume he made the statement believing
t lat this was the circular he received. I sent out a different circular to members of
our association.
Q. Have you a copy of that circular?— A. I think I have. If I have mot I will
send you one.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Did you send it out to the members of this committee? — A. Hot to the mem-
bers of this committee.
By the Chairman:
Q. This circular which has been put in was addressed to the Boards of Trade?
A- I will qualify that last answer. I do not think it was sent out to the members of
this committee. I am almost certain it was not.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. Would it be sent out without your knowledge? — A. Frequently, I am away from
the head office and if a request is made in my absence a copy of the circular would be
sent. I do not believe I have a copy of the circular I referred to.
By the Chairman :
Q. Will you bring to the next meeting any circulars you may have issued in re-
gard to this eight -hour day Bill? — A. I will be very glad to do so.
The Chairman. — We will resume your examination, Mr. Murray, at the next sit-
ting and we would like you to bring with you any witnesses you wish to have examined.
The committee adjourned.
MR. MURRAY.
220
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
House of Commons,
Committee Room Ho. 34,
March 16, 1910.
The Special Committee on Bill (Ho. 21) entitled ‘ An Act respecting the hours of
labour on public works,’ met at eleven o’clock a.m. Hon. Mr. King presiding.
The Chairman. — The secretary has obtained reports of the Commission on Hours
of Labour issued by the Hova Scotia government^, and they are available for the mem-
bers of the committee. At the conclusion of the last day’s sitting Mr. Murray was
giving- evidence and he is here this morning. I understand he has a lengthy state-
ment to make to the committee setting forth the point of view of the members of the
Manufacturers’ Association in regard to the Bill which has been introduced by Mr.
Verville. If it be the wish of the committee perhaps we might let Mr. Murray pro-
ceed with his statement and then go on with the examination on any points which he
may bring out after we have heard his whole statement. That would seem to be the
best way of proceeding.
Mr. Macdonell. — Just continue his story.
Mr. Gilbert Mackintosh Murray, called: —
The Chairman. — You have already been sworn and there is no need of you tak-
ing another oath.
Witness. — You were speaking about that circular. I have it here. Do you wish
me to put it in evidence?
The Chairman. — We will put it in now. That is a circular issued by the Manu-
facturers’ Association to its members regarding the Eight-houp Day Bill. I under-
stand you sent one circular to the Boards of Trade and one to the members of the as-
sociation, and they were both pretty much to the same effect.
Witness. — They were very similar in appearance and it was for that reason that
Mr. Doolittle made the very natural mistake of saying that the circular you showed
him was the one he received.
The Chairman.— We will put this circular on record as an exhibit, but before do-
ing so I may read it:—
‘ Canadian Manufacturers’ Association,
Parliamentary Committee.
Toronto, January 13, 1910.
To the Members of the
Canadian Manufacturers’ Association.
COMPULSORY EIGHT HOUR BILL.
Organized labour through its representative Mr. Verville has again brought
forward its Eight Hour Bill. This year the Bill has been taken up more seriously
by the House, who have referred it to a special committee for investigation and
report. The committee is meeting almost immediately to hear evidence from
parties who may be interested one way or the other. On behalf of employing and
business interests we are preparing a general case for submission to this com-
mittee, and we also propose to have evidence as to the impracticability of the
measure submitted by men of experience in labour and business matters. We do
not wish to rest our case, however, upon this evidence alone. The proponents of
MR. MURRAY.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HO UR 8 OF LABOUR
221
APPENDIX No. 4
the Bill will, no doubt, be represented by large and enthusiastic deputations, and
unless we are able to show that the opposition of employing interests is both
serious and widespread, there is just a possibility that the Committee of the House
may be o^er-awed by the clamour of organized labour. We would ask you, there-
f ore, to send at once to Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King. Chairman of the
Special Committee on Bill (No. 21) House of Commons, Ottawa, a concisely
worded protest against the Bill expressing the hope that his committee will report
thereon adversely. In case you have not seen the Bill we reproduce same here-
with.’
Then follow the clauses of the Bill: The circular proceeds:—
As affording a basis for the protest which we hope you will send in to the -
Minister of Labour, we beg to submit a few of the principal reasons why the Bill
should not be passed. 1. It would prohibit every employer and every employee
who works more than eight hours per day from sharing in government business.
2. It would be utterly impracticable for any establishment to work one portion
of its staff eight hours a day on government orders and the rest of its staff ten
hours a day on orders for private parties and private corporations. 3. As a natural
consequence competition for government orders would be less keen; prices would
go up, and all work would have to be paid for by the government at a higher
figure. 4. It would place a discount on ambition. The inherent right of the
individual to raise himself above the level of his fellows by extra work or effort
would be denied him. 5. Once we have fully recovered from the present indus-
trial depression there will again be a shortage of help. A reduction in the hours
of labour would mean that this shortage would be tremendously accentuated.
6. A shorter working day would mean an increased cost of production, which in
turn would mean a material advance in the price charged the jobber, the retailer
and the consumer, and consequently a general increase in the cost of living. 7.
The shorter hours of labour in town and city workshops have proved a wonder-
fully strong attraction in influencing men to leave the farm. If these hours are
now reduced to eight per day hired help for the farm will be more difficult than
ever to secure and retain. As business men you will appreciate the importance
of blocking a move that would only embarrass the farmer. 8. Organized labour
which is said to represent only eight per cent of the labour vote should not be
allowed to impose conditions which would hamper the development of Canadian
industry. As no time is to be lost you are earnestly requested to take action in
the matter with the least possible delay. Yours faithfully, J. O. Thorn, chair-
man, G. M. Murray, secretary. P.S.— Have your reply in not later than the 21st
. instant.’ (See also Exhibit G.)
By the Chairman:
Q. Can you tell us how many copies of this circular you sent out? — A. We sent
out one to each member of the association and we have a membership to-day of about
2,500.
Q. In this circular you say, ‘ On behalf of employing and business interests we
are preparing a general case for submission to this committee.’ That I understand
is the case you purpose submitting this morning? — A. Yes.
Memorial in Behalf of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association.
The Chairman. — You might proceed.
The Witness.— I appear before you to-day as representing primarily the Canadian
Manufacturers’ Association of which organization I am secretary. In order that you
may appreciate the magnitude as well as the diversity of the interests for which I speak,
222
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
permit me to state that our association embraces nearly 2,500 of the biggest and most
important manufacturing establishments in Canada, extending from Sydney on the
Atlantic to Victoria on the Pacific. Included in the list are iron and steel plants,
foundries and machine shops, agricultural implement works, carriage and wagon
works, car works, locomotive works, stove and radiator foundries, electrical works,
automobile factories, boat and ship building plants, furniture factories, piano fac-
tories, clothing factories, knitting factories, woollen mills, cement works, chemical
works, flour and oatmeal mills, cotton mills, breweries and distilleries, wineries, bis-
cuit and confectionery factories, hat factories, iwall paper mills, lithographing estab-
lishments, printing and publishing establishments, engraving and electro typing es-
tablishments, pulp and paper mills, manufacturing stationers, lumber mills, sugar
refineries, fruit and vegetable canneries, fish canneries, meat packing and curing es-
tablishments, silverware and jewellery factories, boot and shoe factories, harness fac-
tories, tanneries, paper box factories, paint and varnish works, glass works, bedding
factories, spice mills, manufacturing druggists, cigar and tobacco factories, besides a
very large number of miscellaneous establishments engaged in other lines of produc-
tion. In the aggregate our association represents an investment of well over $400,-
000,000. an annual product of over $500,000,000, an annual pay roll of $200,000,000
in which 300,000 wage earners participate. These figures are estimates only, yet they
are more likely under than over the mark.
Our association is governed by an executive council of 150 members elected an-
nually, including representatives from every province and practically every trade, and
to this Bill, instructions given me without one dissenting voice, you will realize with
what singular unanimity the manufacturers in Canada ask you to report unfavour-
ably as regards the measure under consideration.
I am also advised that the following boards of trade have expressed strong
disapproval of the Bill — New Westminster, Revelstoke, Winnipeg, Truro, Stratford,
Meaford, Prince Albert, Bed Deer, Saskatoon, Welland, Kingston, Port Arthur,
Toronto, Walkerville, Orilla, Prescott, Sherbrooke. Moosejaw, Parry Sound,
St. John, Halifax, Windsor, Nova Scotia ; North Bay, Kenora and Sackville.
How many other boards there may be that have expressed disapproval I cannot say,
but I have yet to hear of one single board that has endorsed the measure. It would
therefore appear that commercial as well as industrial interests regard the effect of
the proposed legislation as detrimental to the welfare of the Dominion. Of the above
mentioned boards of trade, I have credentials from the boards at Windsor, Nova
Scotia; Sherbrooke, Quebec; Prescott, Ontario, and Walkerville, Ontario, authorizing
me to speak on their behalf.
Now before I go any further let me disabuse your minds of any sus-
picion that the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association is opposing this Bill
simply and solely from a desire to thwart the plans of organized labour. We have
no wish to antagonize labour organized or unorganized. Labour is essential to the
processes we carry on and under any and all circumstances we would prefer to work
in harmony with those we employ. If I understand the situation correctly the pro-
ponents of this Bill urge largely humanitarian reasons in favour of its adoption. God
knows the manufacturers of Canada have not turned a deaf ear to this side of the '
argument. Where occupations are carried on under conditions dangerous to life or
limb, where from the nature of the material handled or the atmosphere created, the
health of the worker is easily undermined, or where the imposition of long hours
would shatter the nerves or sap the strength of iwomen and children operatives, the
manufacturers of this country will be the first to hold up both hands in support of
regulations. That, of course, is a matter with which the provinces are empowered to
deal, and with which they are dealing. As regards giving the workingman time and
opportunity for education and self improvement, the manufacturers will again be
MR. MURRAY.
COMMITTEE RE BILL Vo. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
223
APPENDIX No. 4
found not only sympathetically inclined but active and energetic, as witness their
campaign m support of technical training, to say nothing of the welfare or industrial
betterment work in which many of them as individuals are actively engaged. Let
me say sympathetically that the manufacturers are not hostile to the iworkingman:
they are not taking a firm stand and saying: ‘ Thus long shaJt thou have for rest and
recreation and no longer.’ Nothing gives the employer more satisfaction than to see
ms staff healthy, prosperous and contented, and so far as shortening the hours of
labour will contribute to a state of prosperity and contentment among his working
forces he can be depended upon to do it just as quickly as the economic conditions
will permit. But what the manufacturer does object to is being forced by legislation
to accord a working day and inferential^ to pay a rate of wages that will make it
unprofitable for him to continue m business, and in combatting the ill-advised efforts
of organized labour m this direction he considers that he is entitled to be looked upon
as the workingman’s friend rather than his enemy, for he is following the best course
under the circumstances to ensure the permanency of his employment and to prevent
him from being the means of his undoing. But it may be objected, the Bill under
consideration applies only to government contracts, and to such work as may be un-
dertaken by the government by day labour. Very true: in appearance it is innocent
looking enough. But appearances are sometimes deceptive, and to guard against de-
ception it is important to understand if possible the motive underlying this legisla-
tion. This is not far to seek. The introducer of the Bill, Mr. Verville, was until quite
recently president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. How long he oc-
cupied that position I do not. know, nor do I know how many sessions he has had this
Bill before the House. I think I am safe in saying that he was president of the Con-
gress for at least two years, and that this is at least the third time he has introduced
this particular measure.
The Chairman.— How many sessions was it Mr. Verville. that you were president
of the Congress?
Mr. Vervii.le. — Five sessions, and I am not ashamed of it at all.
The Witness.— In any event he was president of the Congress in September,
1908, when they met in Halifax, and the Bill was before the House in his name dur-
ing the session of parliament immediately preceding. In the report made that year
by executive officers to the Congress, the Eight-Hour Day was referred to in the fol-
lowing words : —
‘ Among the many important legislative matters that demand our attention,
one of the most pressing is the reduction of the hours of labour. It has been
left almost entirely to the trades unions either to negotiate for or fight for the
establishment of the eight-hour day, and in the bitter struggle that is waged
between employers and employees, the strong have succeeded and the weak have
suffered. The workers having decided to go into politics in their own interests,
the shorter day has also become a political issue, and in some cases, where the
industrial organization has failed to secure the eight-hour day, intelligent poli-
tical action has achieved the desired result. It is desirable that the universal
eight-hour day should be established as early as possible. The improvements in
the means of producing and' distributing the necessities and comforts of life
have not been accompanied by reductions in the hours of labour that such a
change makes necessary. It has not always been a question of right or morals
where the shorter work day has been conceded by employers, and frequently the
right has been decided by the power of trades unions to force the reduction in
hours. While this is true with regard to the industrial organizations, it is equally
true when applied to political forces. When the power to obtain the universal
eight-hour day by legislation has been obtained by the representatives of labour
in the parliaments' of the world it will be accepted as the right of the workers to
224
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
have it, but until that day has arrived the movement with that end in view will
be assailed by those who fear the loss of material advantages gained by legisla-
tive privileges. Your ‘executive council believe the time has arrived when the
eight-hour day for all workers in Canada should be strenuously fought in the
Federal Parliament so that all those who toil may share in the benefits of the
shorter work day. We would therefore recommend that such a measure be pre-
pared by your executive council with the advice of our solicitor and submitted
at the next sitting of Parliament.’
It will be apparent from the above that the Trades and Labour Congress, at whose
instance the Bill has been introduced, intend to use this apparently harmless legis-
lation as a means to enforce the adoption of an eight-hour day in all classes of indus-
try, from one end of Canada to the other. How can they do it, some one may ask
when it relates only to government contracts ? The answer is simple. An eight-hour
day on government contracts is but the beginning, the thin edge of the wedge, as it
were. The unions know all too well that a firm cannot work one part of the staff
eight hours on government material and the rest of its staff, ten hours on material
entering into private contracts. Let it start the eight-hour day for a few of the men
and it must inevitably concede the eight-hour day to them all. Failure to comply
would result in a strike. Similarly, were an eight-hour day established in one machine
shop in Ottajva, we will say, the proprietor of another machine shop just across the
way would have perpetual trouble with his men until he granted the same concession.
Through the provision making the Act apply to sub-contracts as well as to contracts,
the adoption of the eight-hour standard could practically be forced on an infinite
number and an infinite variety of workshops, presuming always that they would be
willing to do work for the government. Personally, I consider that the effect of the
Bill would be to send government contracts begging, so that they would either go out
of the country altogether, in which case Canadian labour would suffer, or else they
would fall into the hands of a monopoly, in which case the public would be saddled
with higher cost. If any further proof is needed as to the intentions of organized
labour with respect to this Bill, it is to be had from the words of Samuel Gompers,
president of the American Federation of Labour, with which the Canadian Trades
and Labour Congress is affiliated.
I think we are safe in assuming that Mr. Gompers voices the of-
ficial sentiments of the unions of which he is head, and that anything he
has to say as to the object of similar legislation in the United States, can be taken as
faithfully representing the object of the legislation under our consideration. Let me
read to you an extract from the hearings before the committee on labour of the House
of Representatives, at Washington, 1902. Mr. Gompers is addressing the committee,
and in response to a question asked by Judge Payson, he says: —
‘ We are endeavouring to secure the limitation of a day’s work to eight hours.
Where government work enters into the operation of a plant either in part or in
whole, we expect that eight hours shall constitute a day’s work by law and the
limitation of a day’s work.’
Mr. Payson. — That is what I wanted you to say.
Air. Gompers. — I am very glad, because I wanted to say it myself, and I want to
emphasize it, if possible.”
And in 1904, two years later, the same matter being under consideration by Air.
Gompers, he used this language: —
‘ We have been asked how far does this Bill go. How far do you want it to
go. If we are candid and we desire to be, as to how far, we would answer, until
it reached every man, woman and child who works in the United States. And I
MR. AIURRAY.
IVMilinut; HE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
225
APPENDIX No. 4
trust that statement will be broad enough and comprehensive enough to satisfy
the opponents of the Bill.’
In view of such pronouncements as those I have quoted it becomes necessary to
consider this Bill, not simply in its relation to government work but in its broader
application as effecting every phase of every industry in every locality throughout
the entire Dominion.
How in the first place, what is the Trades and Labour Congress,
the organization which seeks this legislation, and what portion of the working force
of this country does it represent. Can they justly claim to voice the attitude of the
big majority of Canadian (workingmen, or are they a comparatively insignificant part
of our great army of artisans. Figures on the subject are not easy to obtain. The
last annual report of the Congress proceedings gives no indication as to the numerical
strength of the order. But perhaps it will suffice to compare their strength in 1906
with the total number of workingmen employed in Canada that year as shown in the
census returns. I have taken that year because it is really the only year on which wc
can base an intelligent comparison.
At the convention held in Victoria, September, 1906, the secretary of
the Congress (reported 448 local unions in affiliation with a total member-
ship of 27,067. This included bricklayers, stonemasons, carpenters, plasterers,
paper hangers, barbers, musicians, locomotive firemen, railway conductors, trainmen,
longshoremen and others not connected in any way with manufacturing establish-
ments. The industrial census for 1906 gives the total number of wage earners in
Canadian factories, exclusive of clerical staffs as 355,379. From this it will be seen
that the total strength of the Trades and Labour Congress including those in what
might be termed non-factory employment was less than eight per cent of the number
engaged in factory work alone. If, however, to the number of factory employees were
added all those engaged in the building trades, mining, transportation, lumbering,
fishing and agriculture, it would probably bring the percentage of organized labour down
to one or two per cent of the entire labour vote. This deduction is confirmed by an
analysis of the returns of organized labour for Ontario, the province which is supposed
to be its stronghold.
In the annual report of the Ontario Bureau of Labour for 1906 — I
take the same year for the same purpose — all the unionists the secretary is able
to account for even at the most liberal interpretation of his data, is 13,946. The
secretary is or was himself a union man and it may be assumed that his report if it
erred at all, would err in the direction of over estimating rather than under estimat-
ing. Of this number 3,016 were railway employees, 3,204 belonged to the building
trades, 530 were painters and decorators, 660 were musicians, 251 were barbers, 123
were marine engineers, 250 were longshoremen and seamen, 65 were civic employees,
20 were horseshoers, 45 were tile layers, 43 were teamsters and 50 were stage em-
ployees. Hone of these 8,257 in all were in any way connected with manufacturing
establishments, so that deducting this number from the total strength of organized
labour In Ontario it leaves the strength of unionism in the industrial establishments
of that province at 5,689. The industrial census for the same year puts the total
number of wage earners in Ontario factories at 169,571. Dividing one into the other
it will be seen that unionized factory labour represents approximately only three per
cent of all the factory labour in Ontario. Permit me also to quote from the report
of the Commission on Hours of Labour, Hova Scotia, 1910, which has only recently
come to hand. On page 129 w7e find the following:
The great majority of wage earners in Hova Scotia outside the coal mines do
not belong to any union. Female wage earners form a large percentage of the
workers in the textile mills, the boot and shoe factories, the confectionery estab-
lishments, the milk factories, the shop assistants, the telephone offices, &e., and in
trades where they predominate organized labour is non-existent. Even among
4—15
226
COMMITTEE RE BILL Xo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
male wage earners unionism is weak. In such towns as Amherst, New Glasgow,
Truro, Yarmouth, Oxford and Sydney, in such industries as lumber, leather,
wood working, iron, and in such firms as the Dominion Iron and Steel Co., the
Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Co., the Rhodes Curry Co., the Silliker Car Co., the
Robb Engineering Co., the Acadia Refinery, not to speak of many others, union-
ism is hardly a factor in the industrial situation.
From the foregoing figures and from the extract I have quoted there is only one
inference to be drawn and that is that unionism represents at best only a very small
proportion of the working forces of the country.
It would seem wise, therefore, on the part of your committee to move slowly and
with extreme caution before reporting favourably regarding a piece of legislation
that is so weakly supported and that might impose at the will of three people out of
one hundred a set of conditions that would be obnoxious or even intolerable to the
other ninety-seven.
Next it seems pertinent to inquire whether the rank and file of organized labour
really desire what is asked for in the Bill. ‘ No labourer, workman or
mechanic/ says the Bill, ‘ shall be permitted or required to work more
than eight hours in any one calendar day.’ The proponents of the Bill
expect of course that the men would receive as high a daily wage for
eight hours work as they are now receiving under a nine, or ten-hour day, an ex-
pectation which might, or might not be realized. If it were not realized there would
be trouble immediately and we should probably be met with a demand for the repeal
of the Act. But supposing for the moment that it were realized, are we to under-
stand that the men themselves not simply their officers, would wish to be forbidden by
law to work more than eight hours a day. Many an artisan to-day is adding no small
amount to the weekly wage paid him for work performed within the limits of the
standard day by working over time at over-time rates which rates run all the
way from time and a quarter to double time. Are we to understand that he is will-
ing to surrender this privilege. Those artisans engaged in seasonal pursuits who
have their seasons of full employment and their seasons of idleness like the long-
shoremen, the lumbermen, the fishermen, &c„ are we to understand that for the sake
of establishing the eight-hour principle they are willing to give up all over time
work, the very work which tides them over the period of unemployment. Or are we
to assume that the unions rely on their strength to secure such rates of pay both
per piece and per hour as will compensate them not only for the self-iniiicted loss of
regular time but for the self-inflicted loss of over time too. If that is the case then
it is the employer who needs protection by Act of Parliament, not the working man.
But let us grant for the sake of argument that the labour unionists are willing to
deny themselves the right to work more than eight hours a day. Is there any reason,
any justice in allowing three men out of one hundred to dictate to the other ninety-
seven and impose on them a condition which may work extreme hardship. If John
Smith who is young and married and has no one depending on him can support him-
self by working only eight hours instead of ten and asks to be freed from the neces-
sity of working longer in order that he may have leisure for recreation or for study,
is that any reason why John Brown, John Jones, John Thompson and thirty others
who all have wives and families to keep, who want to surround their families with
comforts and to give their children a good' education, is that any reason why they
should be denied the very means of carrying their desires into effect? To the work-
ing man his labour is his stock in trade. It is by the sale of his labour and by
his labour only that he acquires the wherewithal to provide himself with the necessi-
ties of life. To sell that labour to whomsoever he likes, wherever he likes, in such
quantities as he likes and at such rates as he likes, is a God-given privilege which it
should be the duty of this parliament to protect.
ME. MTJEEAY.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
227
APPENDIX No. 4
I make exception, of course, of those kinds of employment that are
approximately made subject under provincial enactments to police regulation
as. well as of those other employments that are usually regarded as de-
trimental to health. Any encroachment upon this privilege subject to the ex-
ceptions I have mentioned1 can only be regarded as an unwarranted interference with
individual and property rights. ‘ It is a part of every man’s civil rights ’ says Cooley
on Torts, page 278, that he be left at liberty to refuse business relations with any
person whomsoever whether the refusal rests upon reason or is the result of whim,
caprice, prejudice or malice. With his reasons neither the public nor third persons
have any legal concern. It is also his right to have business relations with any one
with whom he can make contracts and if he is wrongfully deprived of this right he
is entitled to redress.’
As regards the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the proposal
I need say very little. Matters affecting the relations between master and
servant are left under the British North America Act to the jurisdiction of the pro-
vinces. As the Bill under consideration limits itself specifically to contracts to which
the federal .government is a party, it (would not seem to a layman like myself to be
open, to objection on the ground that it is an interference with provincial rights.
But in one respect it does seem to be open to attack on the ground of unconstitution-
ally* Private parties to a contract have undoubtedly the right to make such terms
or exact such conditions as they like, providing always they do not contract to do
something that is unlawful. A man can lawfully contract to work for fifty cents a
day or fifty dollars a day so long as he can find some one who is willing to engage
him at those rates. In so far as it is a party to a contract the federal government
would seem to possess the same right. But the federal government in all its con-
tracts has a dual personality; it is a private party but it is also a trustee. Within
certain limits it can make such terms and dictate such conditions as it likes, but as
a trustee of the people it is its bounden duty to see that it buys its labour and! its
material, quality for quality and under like conditions at prices approximately equal
to the prices that prevail jn private business.
Now then the question arises would the government in order to sat-
isfy the caprice of an insignificant minority of our citizens be justified
in buying eight hours’ labour for the regular price of ten. Would it be
justified in paying J ohn Smith, a union man, two dollars for eight hours’ work
when John Brown, J ohn J ones, J ohn Thompson and thirty other non-union men were
willing and anxious to give ten hours’ service for the same wage? Would it be justi-
fied in saying to the non-union man whom we will suppose is a man of perseverance
and ability, a man with ambitions to rise in the world and to elevate his family with
him,. would it be justified in saying to this man: ‘Because you persist in hard work
and in a course of conduct calculated to raise you above the level of your less ambi-
tious fellows you are to be debarred from sharing in any employment which I may
have to offer?’ Would it be justified in imposing upon the public the added cost of
labour and material which the enactment of this Bill would entail? To show just what
that added1 cost would be is only a simple problem in arithmetic. It takes five men
working eight hours each to do as much as four men working ten hours each, the
gross amount of service in each case being forty hours. But whereas four men at
two dallars a day receive only eight dollars, five men at the same rate receive ten
dollars. On the present outlay of eight dollars therefor, the increase would be two
dollars or twenty-five per cent.
I am aware of course that the objection will here be raised that, un-
der the shorter working day, the efficiency of the men will be increased and
that this increased efficiency will, at least partly if not altogether, offset the differ-
ence in time worked. This particular feature of the case might be argued at great
length. The experience of those who have tried it is very contradictory. Some em-
4—154
228
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
ployers acknowledge cheerfully that there has been a marked increase in efficiency,
sufficient almost to compensate them for the time lost. Others admit that the re-
duction in output is not nearly proportionate to the reduction in time but they qualify
the force of this admission by ascribing some of the improvement to the use of better
or speedier machinery or to a change of system whereby delays were avoided. Still
others state that for the first few weeks of the experiment the output for a nine-hour
day with the same staff and same equipment has been equal to the output for the
ten-hour day but that after six, nine or twelve months the men fell back into the
old pace and in the end finished up by doing just nine-tenths as much as- they used
to do.
As regards the reduction from ten to eight hours, even the most ardent ad-
vocate of the eight-hour day will acknowledge that it is impossible to maintain pro-
duction at the same figure by working two hours per day less. If production must of
necessity be kept at the same figure then it involves the employment of a larger staff
and frequently the purchase of more machines for the hands thus added to work upon.
In that event, not only is the cost of productive labour increased but the investment
upon which individuals have to be paid its also increased. It would be futile to en-
deavour to settle this question by theoretical argument. The only way to obtain a
satisfactory answer would be to conduct a series of experiments in a large number of
trades each of them extending over long periods of time and to make proper allow-
ance in every case for any and all improvements consequent upon the installation of
new equipment or the adoption of better systems. In general, however, it should be
remembered : 1. That so far as those trades are concerned where automatic machinery
is employed it is the time of the machine, not the time of the operator that counts.
Where these machines are already speeded up to the maximum any reduction in
hours would involve a corresponding reduction in output. 2. The aim of every
manufacturer is to spread his fixed charges over as large an output as possible. If
that output is arbitrarily reduced by shortening the hours of labour the selling price
of the article, if we eliminate the element of foreign competition, will be increased
by the added proportion of those fixed charges which each unit of the product is re-
quired to bear. 3. In so far as the loss of time is offset by what is known as speed-
ing it becomes a very doubtful advantage if not a decided disadvantage in many occu-
pations such as bricklaying, rivetting, sawing, &c., where careless or faulty workman-
ship may involve the employer in serious monetary loss. Further, the more intensive
the work, the greater the danger of accident, because when working under strain or
against time men will frequently neglect precautions for their own safety which or-
dinarily they would observe. 4. Lastly, the reasons advanced in favour of the eight-
hour day are almost wholly theoretical. Its supporters assume that certain results
would follow but they cannot successfully prove their contentions by reference to
practical experience. Those who oppose it, on the other hand, have numerous valid
objections to offer. In view of the fact that the reduction is sought by so small a
proportion of those who may be regarded as directly affected and that it is looked upon
with real alarm by practically all employers who have large investments at stake it
would seem only reasonable for your committee to insist that the proponents of the
Bill should present proof overwhelmingly strong before you would feel justified in
reporting the measure.
Reverting now to the assumption that the labour cost on government
contracts would be increased twenty-five per cent under en eight-hour day, it is
•only reasonable to suppose that under a rigid enforcement of the clause of the Act
relating to subcontracts the cost of practically all the materials would be similarly
increased. If, therefore, we add twenty-five per cent to the cost of the labour and
twenty five per cent to the cost of materials used in the erection of a public building
which under present conditions would cost $100,000 it will mean that instead of
MR. MURRAY.
COMMITTEE RE RILL No. 21— E OUR 8 OF LABOUR
229
APPENDIX No. 4
$100,000 the government will be paying $125,000 for it. If in construction work of
various kinds including buildings, wharfs, breakwaters and dredging the government
is now spending $20,000,000 annually, it will mean that for the future it will have to
spend $25,000,000 or else leave undone some work that the public interest requires
should be done. Is it not relevant to inquire where is the money going to come from?
Will the revenues of the government stand it? As the trustee of the people, is the
government justified in doing it? But serious as this phase of the situation appears
to be it is only the beginning of trouble and expense.
To ensure the terms of the contract being lived up to the government will have
to have one or more inspectors on every piece of work that is done for it. The con-
tractor is made responsible to see that the sub-contractor observes the eight-hour clause,
so that he in turn will have to employ inspectors to watch the production of every
item of material he purchases under contract. The expense of all this inspection will
fall upon the government, for the contractor will undoubtedly take it into account
in submitting his tender.
Experience too wfill teach the contractor he must allow himself a more liberal margin
of profit for various other reasons. If his contract calls for delivery by a certain date
under penalty of a per diem fine he will probably consider it necessary to fix a price
that will cover a fair amount of fining because delays may ensue which cannot be
offset by over-time wmrk. If, after one or two unfortunate experiences, he finds that
he is always becoming involved in unexpected difficulties he will more than likely
decline to tender on government work altogether, in which event a few contractors
will acquire a monopoly of it and fix prices to suit themselves. Some such result
would be almost certain to follow in the case of manufacturing contracts. To illu-
strate my meaning let me refer to the building of locomotives for the Intercolonial
Bailway. Evidence from a man experienced in this trade will be submitted a little
later showing that it is utterly impracticable to work one gang of men in a machine
shop eight hours and another gang, ten hours. The eight-hour men would want the
same aggregate daily wage as they would get under the ten-hour standard. If they
didn’t get it they would throw up their jobs or go on strike for they would not stand
for a reduction in pay. If they did get it the ten-hour men would, strike because of
the discrimination practiced against them. To introduce or to attempt to introduce
such a plan into any well organized machine shop would be to convert it at once into
a hot bed' of trouble and discontent. But supposing for the moment that this diffi-
culty were surmountable, the proprietor is next confronted with the problem as to how
he is going to separate for labour purposes the material going through the shop into
that which must be worked upon only eight hours and that which may be worked
uppn longer. More than likely he has orders on hand for three or four other railways
besides the Intercolonial. If his shop is properly systematized so as to minimize loss
of time for the men he will previously have arranged to stock up in some of the stan-
dard parts applicable to all locomotives. Now, when he goes to his stock room for
some bolts or some screws to be used on an Intercolonial locomotive how is he to know
which particular bolts or which particular screws have been made on an eight-hour
day or which on a ten-hour day ? One workman operates a lathe and another a drill
both adapted to particular kinds of work. In the ordinary course of events these
machines will be employed on some part of every locomotive turned out of the shop.
Is the Intercolonial work to be allowed to accumulate; is the shop to be blocked up
with Intercolonial locomotive parts until there are enough on hand to keep the lathe
or the drill and its operator busy for a whole day of eight hours? Would not the
disorganization consequent upon such a procedure prove such a source of loss and
annoyance to the management that they would prefer to lose Intercolonial business
than be bothered with it? But this is not all. What about the engineer and the
firemen who would ordinarily be expected to remain in charge for the whole ten
hours during which the steam plant was in operation ? When work begins on an Inter-
im. MURRAY.
230
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
‘ 9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
colnial order, is the management to let the engineer go at the end of eight hours and
then get a relief hand to take his place for the other two ? If so, where is he going to get
an engineer who can support himself on two hours pay ? Or supposing there are enough
Intercolonial orders on hand to warrant the adoption temporarily of the eight-hour
standard from eight a.m. to five p.m. are the entire staff to be kept in idleness until
say eight thirty a.m. waiting for the eight-hour fireman to get steam up? Or is the
duty of getting up steam to be left to the eight-hour night watchman? And what
about teamsters? Are they to be compelled to quit work at four o’clock some day
simply because they brought from the depot along with other materials a keg of ten-
penny nails for use on an Intercolonial order? Complications of this kind that
might ensue are so numerous and so far reaching in their effect that one or two ex-
periences would sicken most manufacturers of government business altogether. But,
it may be objected, it is not contemplated to enforce observance of the Act down to
such minute details; to do so would1 be a picayune policy that the government would
not stand for. Possibly so, but why should the government place itself in a position
where it knows it will have to resist all kinds of pressure exercised in the direction of
compelling the adoption of such a policy?
We know from Mr. Gompers, we know from Mr. Verville, that trade
unionism has set its heart on pursuing this eight-hour movement until
it applies to every man, woman and child in the United States and Can-
ada. If we believe it economically unsound doctrine, if we believe it inexpedi-
ent at the present juncture to grant the eight-hour day, why take the first step in what
our judgment tells us is a wrong and downward direction, more particularly when we
are warned beforehand that there are people watching us who will try to push us fur-
ther, once we have taken that first fatal step. There are many other features of im-
practicability connected with this Bill upon which I might dwell, but I will be con-
siderate of the time of your committee and refer to only a few. A rigid eight-hour
day with over time prohibited would prove very embarassing in those trades where
the operations are more or less continuous. As an example, take the blast furnace.
A man’s time might be up just after the furnace had been tapped and if his relief
were a few minutes late in arriving it would place the employer in an awkward posi-
tion, for either he must keep the man at his post and run the risk of having the con-
tract cancelled and the material thrown back on his hands, or else he must suffer the
loss of much valuable material and possibly endanger the efficiency of the plant. The
same would be equally true of other trades where processes have to be carried through
to a certain stage before they will permit of any interruption, such as in moulding,
baking, canning, condensing milk, &c.
I have already referred to one of the difficulties encountered in sea-
sonal trades such as building and lumbering. A rigid enforcement ‘of
the eight-hour day with prohibition of over time, particularly in locali-
ties where labour was scarce, might easily delay to a degree almost intolerable the
erection of a budding for which there was the most urgent need. Log driving fur-
nishes another illustration of how embarrassing such a law might prove. The
winter’s cut of logs must be driven down the rivers to the sawmill in the early spring
when the water is at its height. Those in charge of this work usually stay at it as
long as daylight lasts ; they know that they must utilize every minute of time lest the
water recede and leave their logs stranded. To enact a law that would require the
river drivers to desist each day after working eight hours could not fail in many
cases to involve the saw millers in heavy financial losses, to say nothing of the scores
of workingmen about the mills who might thereby be thrown out of employment. In
the field of transportation an eight-hour day in an obvious impossibility.
When a vessel arrives in port it must be unloaded and loaded with the maximum of
despatch. It represents a large investment of capital and to compel that capital to lie idle
and unproductive for two or three times as long as there is any occasion for would be an
MR. MURRAY.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
231
APPENDIX No. 4
injustice to the owner which the government could not successfully defend. Where
the cargoes are of a perishable character the injustice of such a proceeding would be
accentuated. To some extent this difficulty might be overcome by arranging for a
larger supply of labour, so that if necessary three shifts could be operated, but the
objection to this is that during the slack seasons there would be a far greater number
of unemployed who because of the fact that they were debarred during the busy sea-
son from augumenting their earnings would of necessity become charges upon the
community. In view of the fact that so many of our sea going steamships are sub-
sidized by the government it is important that your committee should' pay due heed
to this aspect of the question, because the owners of such steamships would all bb
parties to a government contract and the operation of their vessels while in Canadian
waters would consequently be something to which this Act would apply. In rail-
roading the eight-hour standard is equally impossible. When a crew take their train
out from one divisional point they cannot very well leave their posts until they have
brought the train safely into the next divisional point where their relief awaits them.
It would be absurd to require them to stop the locomotive and quit work half way
between stations just because their eight hours were up, and it would be almost ad
absurd to require all trains to carry spare crews that would be available to relieve
the operating crew on the expiry of its standard working day. Here again the gov-
ernment is vitally interested as the railway companies are all under contract with
them as carriers of mail.
The mention of railroads at once suggests another point that would
be a source of unending trouble. I refer to what are known as demurrage
charges. The Canadian Freight Association have prepared and have had approved
by the Board of Bailway Commissioners a set of rules imposing a fine of one dollar
per day on all shippers who detain cars in the loading or unloading beyond a certain
number of hours which vary according to the circumstances and according to the
nature of the commodity to be handled. Even under existing conditions, where no
limit is placed upon the working day, demurrage charges are all too frequently, in-
curred and have all too frequently to be paid. But what would the situation be under
a compulsory eight-hour day with union inspectors lurking about to see that the pro-
visions of the Act were strictly observed? Instead of a petty annoyance demurrage
charges would soon mount up until they became a serious tax upon production, while
it is quite conceivable that the congestion of traffic incidental to such delays might
precipitate another calamity like that which occurred in the Northwest two years ago
when the supply of coal ran short. This point may of course be answered by stating
that the Bill could be amended so as to exempt transportation companies from its
operation altogether. But if an exception is to be made in favour of one interest sim-
ply because it can be shown that the Bill would be impracticable or intolerable as
applied to it, why should not exceptions be similarly made in favour of all interests
that can make out a case equally or almost as good. And. how are the various inter-
ests involved going to be able to make out a case that will be conclusive m the ab-
sence of practical experiments. To pass the Bill, to try its effect experimentally upon
all the varied industries of this country many of which are still in their infancy and1
are worrying along on a very narrow margin of profit, might easily give our country
a set back from which it would not recover in years. It is far easier to lose business
than it is to recover it; of that we had ample proof when the recent depression over-
took us. This is another reason why the manufacturers would urge your committed
to move with the utmost caution and to conduct the most searching investigation be-
fore placing yourselves on record as in favour of such legislation.
Another important point that must not be lost sight of is: How will the farmer be
affected? Agriculture is the basic industry of our country. It lies at the very foundation
of our prosperity as a nation. According as the farmer prospers the rest of us prosper,
and according as the farmer suffers the rest of us suffer. Even the Manufacturers
MR. MURRAY.
232
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Association will admit that; hence our hearty endorsation of any steps which the fed-
eral and provincial .governments may take to stimulate agricultural production and to
better the conditions under which agricultural produce is marketed. Hence also our
apprehension lest any step be taken in shortening the legal working day that would
react upon the farmer and make the hired help problem a more difficult one for him
to solve. Presuming that an exception would be made under the Act in favour of
agricultural pursuits, there can be no doubt that one of the immediate effects of this
legislation would be to draw hired men away from the farms to the city workshop^
where the hours of labour would be so much shorter and where the opportunities for
recreation in the hours of leisure would be so much more varied. Even under exist-
ing conditions the ten-hour day in the factory is making it exceedingly difficult for
the farmer to retain his hired help. The attractions of the Northwest are stealing
away from the farmers of Ontario and Quebec their sons, so that from year to year
they are becoming increasingly dependent on the hired men. I am credibly informed
that because of the seriousness of this problem there has been a marked tendency of
late among our eastern farmers to forego the cultivation of crops and to go in more
for the raising of cattle because of the fact that the latter does not necessitate the em-
ployment of as much help. This in turn cannot but fail to be a factor in the rise of
prices for all kinds of produce regarding which the newspapers have been publishing
lengthly reports. Now if the unions were strong enough to enforce the payment of
ten hours' wages for eight hours’ pay and if production could stand up for any length
of time under such a load it must sooner or later prove ruinous all round, first to our
great, basic industry, agriculture, because the farms would be depopulated ; and secondly,
to our subsidiary industries including manufacturing, whose success is so intimately
dependent upon the success of agriculture. One by one as these industries began to
languish their working forces would be reduced, and unless the legislation were re-
pealed the men thus thrown out of employment would probably drift across to the big
industrial centres of the United States where no such restrictions were in force to
hamper development and where employment in consequence would be steadier.
This movement would undoubtedly be hastened by the effect of foreign competition.
In the first place, as has already been indicated, the tendency under an Act, which would
enforce upon manufacturers conditions so arduous, so difficult of 'fulfilment, would be
to sicken them with government business, in which case the work would go probably to
foreign contractors and foreign factories where the terms of the Act could be violated
with little fear of detection. Even were some manufacturers to adopt the eight-hour
standard in hopes of being able to secure enough government work to keep their
plant steadily employed, the difference between their cost of production under a com-
pulsory eight-hour system and the cost of production in the United States under a
ten-hour system would be sufficient to encourage American competition, and to avoid
being held up by monopolists the government would no doubt at times consider it its
duty to award contracts to American tenderers, thus forcing business by its own enact-
ment out of the country. In so far as the adoption of an eight-hour day on govern-
ment contracts would compel the adoption of an eight-hour day generally it would
place the Canadian manufacturer at a serious disadvantage in meeting outside com-
petition in his own home market. The added cost of production arbitrarily enforced
upon him would, in part if not altogether, negative the protection accorded him by the
tariff The conclusions of the Nova Scotia Commission on this point are illumina-
ting. Let^me quote you a few passages. Speaking of the Dominion Iron and Steel
Co., page 71 :
* S° f0r as Ibis industry is concerned an eight-hour day would, in the opinion
of the Commission, result in a greatly enlarged labour force in every department
and probably m some additional expenditure in plant, clerical staff and super-
vision. One of two things must happen, as competition will take care of thQ
prices of the product. Either rates of wages will remain as they are in which
MR. MURRAY.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
233
APPENDIX No. 4
case the earnings of each employee will be reduced below the point of a living
wage, or the rates will be increased in proportion to the reduction in time, and
the increase will be added to the cost of operation. At present either alternative
would be fatal. The men cannot afford such a reduction and an industry which
has received municipal, provincial, and federal aid and which up to the current
year has reported chiefly expenditure and loss cannot stand such a large increase
to its cost of production.’
Speaking of provincial iron industries in general, page 74:
! Pract“ally all of these firms are subject to keen competition from the other
provinces of the Dominion and some of them* in some classes of product meet
competition from the l mted States, the United Kingdom and Germany. The
employers and managers all believe that an eight-hour law would involve the
employment of more men, and in some cases the extension of the plants and that
as the men would demand and would need an increased rate of wages per hour
the cost of production would be increased, and that the rival firms not subject to
the law would have an added advantage in the market.’
Speaking of textile mills, page 77 :
• -XT Tt WQUl^ b®, a serious steP to fix by law a lesser maximum number of hours
m A ova Scotia than are worked in the United States and Great Britain or than
Jho 6 tb terthPr°V!tnCef- °f .Canada‘ This steP could be justified if it could be
shown that the reduction in time. would not mean a reduction in output or an
increase m cost,. It could be justified if it could be shown that in management
and machinery, m labour and profits, the small mills in Nova Scotia are superior
and he^mi i im C,anada’ but also t0 the “ills in the United States
. nd Great Britain. It could perhaps be justified again if it applied to all the mills
m C anada and at the same time the tariff against Great Britain and the United
States were increased sufficiently to offset the greater cost.’
Speaking of coal, page 116:
‘ How far this comparison of conditions between the Nova Scotia and the
United States mine is correct the Commission cannot say. It seems, however
to be generally recognized that the cost of bituminous coal mining in the United
states is low. There is one test that can be applied and that is the test of actual
competition between the two in the same market. American bituminous coal is
subject to a tariff when imported into Canada, and the Nova Scotian operators
. ave the further advantage within the St. Lawrence market of shipping by water
m the summer season. If in spite of these conditions the American operators
can successfully compete in that market the inference is inevitable either that
they are selling there at dumping prices or that they can mine coal at less cost
than their competitors in Nova Scotia.’
If they can mine coal in the United States at less cost than in Nova Scotia when
both are working the ten-hour day and in spite of the tariff and the superior trans-
portation facilities enjoyed by the latter, and can compete successfully with it in the
St. Lawrence market, what will be the future of our maritime coal mines if an eight-hour
standard is forced upon them? Many industries of course, which cater to a strictly
local market, such as brick yards, sash and door factories, box factories, &c., would
probably suffer very little if any from a cause of this kind. Their product will not bear
the cost of transportation over long distances and American competition would be
therefore a negligible quantity. But as for other Canadian industries that are already
meeting competition in the home market from United States firms that have all the
advantages of specialization and enormous output, it is almost a certainty that under
the handicap of an increased cost of production forced upon them by a compulsory
eight-hour day many of them would prove unequal to the struggle and unless the
tariff were adjusted to their needs they would sooner or later have to go under. But
the advocates of the Bill will tell us that the eight-hour day is coming in the United
234
COMMITTEE RE BILL Xo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
States, that it will probably be general there before it becomes general, in Canada, and
that we need therefore give ourselves no uneasiness on the bead of foreign competition.
Canada is one of the youngest of world countries so far as development is concerned,
and it is for her to follow rather than to lead others in legislation whose benefits are
so questionable. Let them do the pioneering for they are better able to bear the
burdens which invariably fall to the lot of the pioneer. When they demonstrate its
success it will be time enough for us to adopt it, but in Heaven’s name let us avoid
saddling our infant industries with costly experimentation which our over-powerful
rivals are only too willing to have us undertake. Even were the eight-hour day to be
universally adopted it is open to question whether it would prove the boon its advo-
cates anticipate. By increasing the cost of production it would necessarily increase
the prices at which commodities would be sold, so that while the workingman would
perhaps secure for himself a higher hourly wage he would be compelled to pay more
for the necessities of life. For him to endeavour to improve his condition by such a
measure would simply be on a par with trying to lift himself by his boot straps. Some
trades in Canada are already operated on the eight-hour standard, but it has come
about as the result of negotiation between workmen and their employers, not through
legislation. Whether the standard of living and the standard of citizenship among
members of the craft has been improved thereby I will not pretend to say but in the
case of two unions into whose affairs I have had occasion to look, the conviction is
forced upon me that there is still room for improvement in the standard of business
morals. The first of these is the United Asociation of Journeymen Plumbers and
Gasfitters whose Winnipeg Local was recently mulcted in heavy damages for injuries
done the master plumbers as a result of a boycott following a strike. Some of the
rules of that Local are most interesting as throwing light upon the matter now
under our consideration. Article 2 reads:
‘ The wages for journeymen plumbers shall be $4.50 per day for eight hours,
and the wages for journeymen gasfitters shall be $4.50 per day for eight hours.’
It will be noted that they have a very fair rate of wage for an eight-hour day.
Article 3 reads in part: —
‘ Not less than four hours’ time shall be charged to employers for any work
performed during either half of any one day. When a member reports for work
at eight, a.m., at a shop in which he is working or where he has been notified to
report for work, and is not put to work, he shall be entitled to and receive foui
hours’ pay.”
Article 5 reads: —
‘ Members working outside the city shall be subject to all the considerations
of these rules, and in addition thereto shall have their board and railroad fare
furnished, travelling time to be paid for at the regular rate of wages, Sunday and
and night travelling to be paid for at the rate of single time. Members working
within twenty-five miles of this city shall have their fare paid to and from this
city once a week.’
Article 13 reads: —
‘ No bicycle shall be ridden during the working hours herein specified.”
Here we have chapter and verse for the rule under which the plumber kills time
when answering a hurry-up call to repair a burst water-pipe. In Toronto it is said
they will not even take a street car at the expense of the househoulder to be served —
they must walk both ways and charge up their time. This is why one is so frequently
called upon to pay one dollar for a job which the plumber attends to in five minutes.
Article 14 reads : —
ME. MTTREAT.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
235
APPENDIX No. 4
. ‘ Under no conditions will members of this local work in any shop employ-
ing an apprentice.’
Apparently if the Plumbers Union had their way they would make a close cor-
poration of the trade by absolutely prohibiting any one else from learning it. And
these, be it remembered, are rules of one of the enlightened unions enjoying the eight-
hour day, the day which is supposed to make better and more intelligent citizens of
them. The other union to which I wish to refer is the Typographical Union, described
by the Nova Scotia Commission as one of the strongest labour organizations in North
America. I am given to understand by publishers who ought to know, that the execu-
tive at International headquarters have drawn up certain general rules as to the use
of matrices which all locals are required to observe, though they may differ in detail
as between place and place, according as conditions may require. The rules of Toronto
Local No. 91 may, I think, be taken as a fair indication of the agreements daily
newspaper publishers have been forced to subscribe to in all parts of Canada. The
hours and rates of wages as in effect since July 1, 1907, are set forth in sections 1 and
3, as follows : —
‘ Morning newspapers— Section 1— Operators, “ad.” men, make-ups, bank-
men, heading-men and head proof-reader (no present proof-reader to be disturbed)
shall receive not less than $3.50 per night, or $21 per week; seven and one-half
hours to constitute a night’s work; overtime sixty cents per hour.
‘ Evening newspapers — Section 3— Operators, “ad.” men, make-ups, bank-
men, heading-men and head proof reader (no present proof reader to be dis-
turbed), shall receive not less than $3.17 per day of eight hours, or $19 per week;
overtime, 50 cents per hour.’
From the above it will be observed that on the morning papers they have a seve»i-
and-one-half -hour-day. The rules regarding the use of plate matter and mattrices are
set forth in section 5, which reads : —
‘ Section 5. — The interchanging, exchanging, borrowing, lending or buying
of news matter or advertisements, either in the form of type, blocks or matrices,
between newspapers, parties to this agreement, and not owned by the same indi-
vidual, firm or corporation, and published in the same establishment, shall not be
allowed; provided that the reproduction within three months of such type, blocks
or matrices shall be deemed a compliance with this section. But no compositor
who has been employed in the office for six successive days shall be laid off until
all accumulated matrices, types or blocks have been set. This section shall not
be construed as prohibiting the loaning, borrowing, exchanging, purchasing or
sale of matter or matrices or blocks on occasions of extraordinary emergency,
such as fire, explosion, cyclone or other unforeseen disaster, including the “ pi ”
of a form or forms at a late hour, when it will be permitted without a penalty;
and provided further that this section shall not be construed as prohibiting the
acceptance and use by newspapers of plates, blocks, and matrices of advertise-
ments of establishments located outside of Toronto or of Toronto advertisers not
properly considered merely local advertisers.’
In order that you may understand the significance of this rule I might explain
that a matrix is an impression of a block of type taken with papier mache. It is so
constituted that it hardens quickly and by pouring the stereotyping metal into this
impression it enables one to make a duplicate of the original matter with very little
trouble and at very little expense. A hand set advertisement which would cost in
the first place $3 to compose, could thus be duplicated in almost no time for use in an-
other printing office at a cost of a few cents. To avoid unnecessary competition and to
save themselves unnecessary expense publishing houses got into the habit of exchang-
ing matrices. For example, -were the ‘Globe’ to receive copy for the Eaton advertise-
236 COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
ment it would set it up, make twro matrices and send one to the ‘ Mail and one to the
‘World’ who would perhaps reciprocate by sending the ‘Globe’ the matrix for the
Simpson advertisement. But here the Typographical Union steps in and says, this
will never do because it will cause some of our members to lose their jobs.’ So they
start negotiations with the publishers. Owing to their strength they know they are
able to force almost any terms they like. They are troubled very little with economic
considerations, reducing the cost of production is something they do not need to
bother their heads about — that is for the employer to worry over. All they want is
short hours, a good wage, and a sure job. So they agree to allow the publisher the
saving in time effected through the duplication of type matter by use of matrices but
they insist that all matter so used must be actually set up in type, proof read, dis-
tributed and paid for at regular rates. It may be and usually is some days after a
matrix made advertisement appears in a newspaper before the compositors begin
work upon it ; under the rule it must be set up within three months. But imagine, if
you can, the feelings of a compositor as he sets up a Christmas advertisement in
February knowing full well that he is assembling the type only to pull a proof for the
satisfaction of the business agent of the union and then throw it all back in the case
again. Must he not feel ashamed of himself, must he not feel positively guilty at
thus nullifying one of the benefits conferred on mankind by the advancement of
science and invention, must not his moral stamina be sapped by taking pay day after
day for work which he knows to be absolutely unproductive and useless? And yet
this rule is the backbone of the Typographical Union, the union that from the very
start has been most prominently identified with the agitation for the eight-hour day,
the union forsooth that would justify the eight-hour day on grounds of economy,
the union that would make more intelligent and more honorable citizens out of our
workingmen by shortening their hours of labour. Perhaps it is significant, perhaps
it is only a coincidence, that two of the three officers of the Trades and Labour Con-
gress last year, the officers who were supposed to shape its policy, and to whose efforts
we are probably indebted for this legislation which aims to compel an eight-hour day,
that two of its executive officers were members of the Typographical Union. Whether
it is significant or whether it is only a coincidence, it at least furnishes another reason
why your committee should see your way clearly to the end of this legislation before
recommending its adoption. In this connection it seems pertinent to inquire, ‘ where
is this movement for a shorter day going to stop.’
One does not need to go back very many years in history to find
the time when the hours for factory workers in England, Germany and
other European countries ran up to fourteen and fifteen per day and
hard work at that. Step by step they have been brought down to 12, to 11, to 10, to
9, and in some cases to 8, while each succeeding year has brought with it improved
machinery that has made the work easier of performance. This reduction in hours
has come about partly as a result of legislation but probably in a larger measure as
the result of negotiations between employer and employee. Where legislation has
been enacted it has of course helped to standardize for trades other than those to
which it directly applied. But it seems reasonable to suppose that intelligent negotia-
tion backed by public sentiment will in most cases secure for the workingman a
length of day to which no serious objection can be taken on humanitarian grounds.
If an eight-hour day for all trades is economically sound and justifiable by humani-
tarian considerations then it will come soon enough but if it is forced upon us by
legislation before conditions are ripe for the change it may be accompanied by very
serious results. If labour sees that it can invoke legislation to secure concessions
unjustifiable on economical grounds is it not reasonable to suppose that it will be
encouraged thereby to demand further concessions that are even more unjustifiable?
Have we any grounds for believing that if an eight-hour day is granted now it will
not be followed two, three or five years hence by a demand for a seven-hour day? The
MR. MURRAY.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
237
APPENDIX No. 4
printers in some departments already have a seven-hour-and-a-half day, a fact
which in itself serves to indicate the probable trend of organized labours efforts.
Further, is it not relevant to inquire upon what grounds we are asked to single our
labourers and artisans for this favoured treatment ? What about those whose toil is
mental rather than physical? Is it not a fact that can be substantiated by evidence
from the medical profession that more constitutions are undermined by excessive
mental labour than are undermined by excessive manual labour? How many office
men become nervous and physical wrecks through over work? How many students
break down from over study? But we hear no request from these men for a law that
will prevent more than a certain number of hours work in an office, no request for a
law that will prevent school teachers and professors from assigning courses of study
that call for the burning of midnight oil. Yet the one class is just as deserving of
government protection as the other, and apparently far more needful of it. But I
will not trespass further upon your time this morning by piling argument upon argu-
ment.
I prefer rather to rest my case here, and will conclude by summarizing the
reasons why those for whom I speak would ask you to report against the
Bill. 1. There is no evidence to ishow that it is demanded by any consid-
erable proportion of the workingmen for whose benefit it is alleged to be framed. 2.
It would constitute an unwarranted interference with individual and property rights.
3. The government as the trustee of the people would not be justified in creating
fictitious prices for labour and material and buying its supplies at those fictitious
prices. 4. A limited working day with overtime prohibited would seriously, if not
fatally, handicap Canadian industries in endeavouring to meet the competition of foreign
industries not so handicapped. 5. The Act would induce a condition of absolute
chaos in shops endeavouring to do both government and private work. 6. It would
restrict production, retard development, enhance prices and pauperize the very people
it is intended to benefit. 7. In those trades which embrace operations, which must be
carried through to a certain stage before they can be interrupted, it would be an utteT
impossibility. 8. It would seriously disturb labour conditions on the farm and impair
the growth of our greatest basic industry. 9. At least two Canadian unions that have
been strong enough to force an eight-hour day on their employers have abused their
power causing people to doubt the sincerity of the motives they allege in asking an
eight-hour day for others. 10. It is class legislation of the most objectionable kind.
The Chairman. — I think the members of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Associa-
tion have reason to congratulate themselves on the case you have presented on their
behalf. I think the committee may feel that every argument that can be urged from
the employers’ side has been very fully and ably presented by you. It occurs to me
that if we could have a statement made out on the other side in much the same form
the Committee would have before it all the material points of this problem. I would
suggest to the members of the Trades and Labour Congress, several of whom I see
present, that perhaps it would be in the interest of the cause they represent to present
their arguments to the committee in a form somewhat similar to that presented by
Mr. Murray, and then I think we would have the whole case very fully before us. Are
there any questions that the members of the committee would like to ask Mr. Murray?
By Mr. Verville:
Q. I would like to ask a question. At the outset of your remarks you said you
were also representing the farming element? — A. No, I said Boards of Trade.
Mr. Staples. — He stated how such legislation would affect the farmers.
Attitude of Labour — Plumbers.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You said that only about three per cent of the working people were asking
for this Bill. You are sure of that? — A. I said so far as the information I could
obtain.
238
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Also you mentioned the railway people. Do you know if the railway men are
affiliated with the Trades and Labour Congress? — A. I do not know.
Q. Then again you stated that this Bill was introduced after the Halifax Con-
vention. According to a remark you made from their report you seem to think that it
was after the Halifax convention that the Bill was introduced? — A. I have also stated
that the Bill was before the House in the session of Parliament immediately preceding
the Halifax convention.
Q. The Halifax convention simply endorsed the action taken by one of its mem-
bers?— A. That is all. I simply quoted the report of the Halifax convention to show
that the executive officers of the Trades and Labour Congress were of the opinion that
this legislation should be fought for and promoted, to have it applied from one end
of Canada to the other and to all industries.
Q. Have you ever heard of any other congress of the labour movement outside of
organized labour speaking against this kind of measure? — A. No.
Q. Then of course you cannot say whether they are satisfied or not with it?—
A. No. I take it it would be part of the case of the other side to show that they had
made such representations.
Q. Then of course you cannot say whether they are in favour of it or not?—
A. No.
Q. Are you aware that in many instances in the textile workers for instance there
was a demand for shorter hours? — A. Yes.
Q. You spoke about the plumbers. Probably I know more about plumbing than
anybody else on the committee because it is my trade. You especially spoke of their
action in Winnipeg. Do you know why the plumbers of Winnipeg refused to go to
work on a bicycle ? — A. No I did not know.
Q. Those Winnipeg employers are not affiliated with the Manufacturers’ Associa-
tion. They belong to the Masters’ Exchange I think? — A. No, they are not affiliated
with the Association.
Q. You are not in a position to tell us exactly what their object was in refusing
to go to work on bicycles? — A. I was simply quoting one of their workshop rules.
Q. I will tell you then for the benefit of the committee why the men refuse to go
to work on bicycles. Under the old system a man might get a job which would take
him ten minutes and at the end of it the man would probably have charged in his book
an hour which jvas unfair. The men did not want to rob the people for the benefit
ux their boss. If a man made a run on a bicycle and got there for ten minutes alto-
gether, the boss would charge an hour for it and then send him on another run for ten
minutes and charge another hour. The boss was going to get twelve or fifteen hours
and only paid the man eight. It is not the men who get the benefit but the employer
himself. I want to tell the committee that because I know. Now you talked about
printers. You say that they refused to do certain things. Of course we will have
evidence before the committee as to that, but at the same time, are the newspapers
getting no more for their papers now? Are they making less money for their papers?
Is it not a fact that they are getting more advertisements? I think they sell better
and are making more money; they are paying the men more money and they are
getting shorter hours and as much benefit out of their advertising as before. Would
not the men be justified in getting a certain amount of that money when they were
taking away more from the stores of the manufacturers. You want to look at the
matter in this light? — A. I might state that I thought it would be open for this
committee to draw the inference from the rules enforced by the Typographical Union
that the cost of advertising in the papers might have increased from the fact that they
had to pay more for their labour.
Q. You also stated that on that executive there were two printers? — A. No, I said
two members of the Typographical Union.
Q. Does that make any difference at all? — A. I said it might be significant or
only a coincidence.
MR. MURRAY.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
239
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Does your association regard any branch of an industry that your officers are
elected from, does it make any difference who may be officers of your association ? —
A. No.
Q. It does not matter at all? — A. No.
Mr. Verville. — I will have a few more questions to ask later.
The Chairman. — Would any other member like to ask questions. You, Mr.
Stanfield?
Mr. Stanfield. — I would like to have an opportunity to read Mr. Murray’s state-
ment in print.
Mr. Macdonell. I would also like to have a copy of the report.
The Chairman. — Have you anything to ask, Mr. Staples?
Mr. Staples. — No, I have listened to that report. I think it sets out that side of
it very well.
Mr. Knowles. — Mr. Murray will be back again will he not? I think it is a very
valuable statement he has given, but of course we cannot cross-examine him on a
report one and a half hours in length.
Witness. — I will be very glad if the committee desires me to come back after this
report has been printed.
Mr. Knowles. — I think that is the only way for evidence to carry weight, that
there should be cross examination.
Witness. — I am content to leave it to the committee.
Mr. Stanfield. — Would it not be better for the Trades and Labour report to be
printed in the same way ?
The Chairman. — Probably Mr. Murray will have an opportunity after some of the
other arguments have been urged and some of his own arguments dealt with by other
witnesses to appear again. He could give evidence then but there may be some points
the committee would like to take up immediately.
Mr. Stanfield. — Would it not be better to have these reports sent in and taken
as read and the witnesses could appear after they are printed.
The Chairman.— It is an advantage to have the reports read here rather than to
have them sent in.
Manufacturers — Boards of Trade.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. What percentage of manufacturers have you got in your association through-
out Canada? — A. That is a difficult question to answer. It just dejiends on how you
look at it and what you would include as manufacturers.
Q. Aou spoke about three per cent of the men being in the organized labour
ranks. Now I think we would be justified, seeing you know the percentage of the
organized men, in asking what percentage of your organization are manufacturers
throughout the Dominion of Canada? — A. Let me understand the bearing of your
question. Would you mean to include for the purposes of comparison, would you
mean to put on the same basis a manufacturer employing five hands and a manufac-
turer employing 3,000 hands?
Q. Exactly on the same footing as you are classifying them?. — A. In that event
probably from 05 to 75 per cent of the manufacturers of Canada are affiliated with
our association.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Is that by numbers or output? — A. Output, capital employed, and so on.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Not the numbers? — A. Not the actual number, no. There are a great many
who are listed as manufacturers by the census of Canada whose business perhaps is
that of dressmaker, tailor and so on. We make no effort to get these into the asso-
ciation.
240
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. There are some of that class now in your association are there not ? A. There
are none of that class of men being admitted now and have not for the past three or
four years. But in the early years of our organization there were some people who
came in such as patent solicitors and so on. But the number of . those
have been very greatly reduced. When I said in my evidence that we represented
about 2,500 manufacturing establishments I meant that not as members but as actual
establishments. We have one member, the Canadian Canner, who operates twenty-
eight factories and another the Canada Cement Company who operates ten or fifteen
plants and so on.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. That is you have large trusts?— A. I do not know what you mean by trusts.
Mr. Verville. — I expect we will be able to know in a very short time what will
be a trust.
The Chairman. — You submitted two or three letters or rather you handed over
two or three letters which were , addressed to you by boards of trade authorizing you
to appear on their behalf. I notice that one or two of them contain arguments against
the Bill. I think you might read them to the committee so that they may go on
record. ,
The Witness. — This is from the Board of Trade of Windsor, Nova Scotia:
‘ We would be much obliged by your voicing our objections to the compul-
sory Eight-ITour Day Bill. This board is unanimously opposed to the Bill for
many reasons, the following among others: 1. If an eight-hour day were the law
for government work it would mean the same in a short time for every other
kind of industry, and neither the commercial nor industrial interests of the coun-
try could afford that. 2. It would be ruinous to our farmers, they cannot afford
such a short day, and of course could not keep their help, who would naturally
make for the towns and cities. They do that as it is far too much for their own
good and the good of the Dominion. 3. The climate of the Maritime Provinces
is such that it restricts the hours of labour in most industries far too much for the
good of the population without legal restriction. Yours truly, J. A. Bussell, pre-
sident, Walter E. Began, secretary.’
The next is from the Sherbrooke Board of Trade:: —
‘Your circular re compulsory Eight-Hour Bill 21, duly received. The Sher-
brooke Board of Trade is unanimous in opposing this Bill and as it is not pos-
sible for us to send a representative to Ottawa we hereby authorize you to repre-
sent us in opposing the Bill before the House. Besides the reason you give for
opposing the Bill all our manufacturers and employers of labour consider the
proposed Bill impossible. A large proportion of skilled labour, which is none too
plentiful, is paid by the hour and they don’t want the Bill. It will certainly
handicap Canadians in competing with the foreigners and as you say: ‘It is the
thin edge of the wedge.’ I am writing our members and the Honourable W. L.
Mackenzie King on these lines. Yours truly, C. O. Palmer, secretary treasurer.'
The next is from the Prescott Board of Trade: —
At a meeting of the Prescott Board of Trade held 20th inst., it was moved
by Mr. H. Bankin and seconded by Mr. L. H. Daniels, that the Prescott Board of
Trade do protest against the passage of Bill No. 21, a compulsory Eight-Hour
Day Bill, feeling that its passage would be detrimental to the business interests
o-f the country, and that the secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers Associa-
tion be authorized to represent this Board of Trade in protesting against the pas-
sage of said Bill. The motion was carried. Yours truly, W. F. Maepherson,
secretary Prescott Board of Trade.’
MR. MURRAY.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
241
APPENDIX No. 4
The next is from the Walkerville Board of Trade:
‘Your circular of January 13th is just received and in reply would state, we
to-day took this matter up at our Board of Trade and by an unanimous vote the
secretary was instructed to write a letter to yourselves, the secretary of the com-
mittee at the House of Commons and Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, voicing
the protest of our Board in the passing of Bill Ho. 21, Compulsory Eight-
Hour Hay and would ask you to do whatever you can in our behalf against the
proposed legislation. Yours truly, J. W. Coatsworth, secretary treasurer.
By the Chairman:
Q. You mentioned in your evidence that you understood a number of protests
had been received from boards of trade. Did you mean received by this committee
or by the Manufacturers’ Association ?— A. By this committee.
Mr. Stanfield.— I received one.
Action Following Circulars Deceived.
By the Chairman:
Q. Perhaps it would be well to turn these over to the secretary. Do you think,
Mr. Murray, that these boards of trade would have taken any action on this Bill
if it had not been brought to their attention by the circular sent out by the Manufac-
turers’ Association? — A. I do not know whether that is a fair question. The fact is
that in the smaller towns the boards of trade are not particularly active, and unless
some one brings such matters to their attention they hold their meetings very infre-
quently. Our idea in sending the circular out was that it would not escape their
notice altogether.
Q. What is the point in the question that you think is unfair? — A. Well, just
whether or not they took action in response to a request from us.
Mr. Staples. — Mr. Chairman, you had a great many communications from various
boards of trade throughout the Dominion in answer to the circular sent out by the
clerk with the Bill.
The Chairman. — Certainly. I might say I think it was quite proper on the part
of the Manufacturers’ Association if they thought fit to send out the circular they
did. I am not objecting to that. But I think it is well for this committee to know
what percentage of communications have come on account of the circular sent out by
the Manufacturers’ Association, and how many from independent action on the part of
these individual boards of trade.
Mr. Staples. — It had to be brought to their attention by somebody.
The Chairman. — I think it is an advantage to know by whom it had been brought.
I understand that the secretary was instructed to send out a circular.
Mr. Staples. — The inference I would take from your statement put to Mr. Murray
wlas that they were trying to stir up an agitation against this legislation. I think
they would be quite justified in doing so along the lines of argument produced this
morning.
The Chairman.— I do not take any exception to that interpretation. Mr. Murray,
in his statement, represented that the whole agitation for the Bill had been worked up
by the men connected with the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress, and that but
for them there would be no movement on foot for an eight-hour-day Bill.
Mr. Staples. — Is he not right in that statement?
The Chairman. — I am not prepared to say. My own opinion is that he is not;
I think, quite apart from the men organized in trades unions, there are a great many
workmen in favour of an eight-hour day. But I think it is quite true that the
action of the Trades and Labour Congress furthered this particular agitation in
4—16
242
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
favour of an eight-hour Bill just as, on the other hand, the action of the Manufac-
turers’ Association has greatly furthered the agitation against it.
Mr. Knowles. — Was this circular put in?
The Chairman. — It is in. One was sent to the Boards of trade and the other to
members of the Manufacturers’ Association.
Mr. Knowles. — ITow is it that there are only three or four communications from
boards of trade here?
The Chairman. — These are sent to Mr. Murray, instructing him to appear on
their behalf and authorizing him to express their views.
By Mr. Enoivles:
Q. Wais the circular sent to every board of trade in Canada?
The Witness. — I cannot say positively that I sent it to every board of trade, be-
cause it is difficult to get a list.
Q. To which boards of trade did you send it? — A. To the boards of trade in the
list given in Heatons Commercial Hand Book.
Q. That does not mean boards of trade only in manufacturing towns ? — A. Oh, no.
Mr. Staples. — Have we had any recent communications from the agricultural
classes ?
The Clerk. — The latest was one received from the United Farmers of Alberta.
Mr. Staples.- — What does that say?
The Chairman.— (Reading) :
United Farmers of Alberta, Stetler Branch, Local Union 189, Stetler, Al-
berta, March 10, 1910. Mr. V. Clouthier, Clerk of Committee, House of Com-
mons, Ottawa. Dear Sir, — Be Bill 21, respecting hours o£ labour on public
works. In answer to yours of the 18th ult., I beg to inform you that this matter
was fully discussed at our regular meeting on Saturday last, 5th instant, when
the following resolution was adopted: — ‘That eight hours should constitute a
day’s labour for all clerks or others similarly engaged on indoor work, while for
labourers, workmen or mechanics, ten hours should be the limit.’ The reason for
this course was on account of the difficulty already experienced by farmers in the
province in obtaining hired help and the feeling of the meeting was that by ‘mak-
ing the hours of labour on public works less than on a farm this difficulty would
be still further enhanced. Yours truly, Henry Arthur Steele, Secretary.
The secretary informs me that thirty-nine replies have been received from boards
of trade to the circular sent out by this committee.
Mr. Macdonell. — That letter you read was from only one local union.
The Chairman. — A local branch.
By Mr. Verville:
y. Why is it you have taken the report of the Trades and Labour Congress for
1906 instead of a later one?
The Witness. — That was in order that I might compare the strength of organized
labour with the total labour force in our factories and the latest information I could
get as to the total number working in our factories was the census of 1906.
Q. Of course you do not know what difference exists now comparing 1906 and
the present? — A. No, I do not. I am prepared to believe that there may have been
a considerable increase in the strength of the Trades and Labour Congress since 1906.
Q. You mentioned a moment ago in very emphatic terms about the hours that
the plumbers, especially in Winnipeg, were working. You put very strong pressure
on that, probably you wished to impress the committee. I suppose you do not know
why that exists ? — A. As I stated I simply took the rule.
ME. MURE AY.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
243
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. I suppose you are not aware that in some shops they keep the men hanging
around doing nothing? — A. No, I was not aware.
Q. That is what they were doing. The men got tired of going there and waiting
for work. In some places they furnished waiting rooms and decks of cards. The men
decided that from now on, if the boss wanted a man to be there at eight o’clock, he
was willing to go there, but if the boss did not want him he would not go. That is
exactly the reason why the men said that if you want us to be here in the morning we
will come but we will want a half day’s pay. If you do not want us we will stay away;
if you want us at twelve o’clock you will have to pay a half day’s wage? — A. Accord-
ing to the rule they receive $2.25 for that.
Operation of Bill on Construction.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. I was going to suggest that we take Mr. Murray’s own suggestion that he
should return at some later date. In the meantime I and probably other members
of the committee would like to read his report so that on any matters arising out of it
we could question him. Mr. Murray, you have been dealing with this Bill as a Bill
respecting the hours on public works and your statement contains arguments directly
against the Bill. Now what I would like to know is if you would consider it, suppos-
ing that a Bill of that nature regarding hours of labour on public buildings is confined
to buildings of the Dominion of Canada, assuming that to be passed have you consid-
ered what exceptions, if any, should be made in that Bill? — A. VV hat exceptions we
would take to the Bill?
Q. I do not mean exceptions to, but what particular items should be excepted from
the operation of the Bill. For instance, in the Bill before the American Con-
gress there are a number of exceptions. There have always been exceptions in all
those Bills wherever introduced so far as I know. Have you considered what excep-
tions should be made in a Bill of that kind, assuming it to become law? — A. And
assuming it to apply only to the erection of buildings for the government?
Q. Public works, Dominion public works and buildings? — A. I cannot say that
I have studied it from that point of view but offhand I would make this statement,
that we would object to it, that we would wish to have exceptions made in favour of,
for instance, carpenters, because we employ carpenters in our factories. We would
want to have exceptions in favour of bricklayers because we employ bricklayers in
our industrial establishments, as for instance in the Hamilton Steel and Iron Co.
and in favour of
Q. I do not think you quite understand the question. I do not mean particular
classes or particular trades. In America, for instance, the transportation companies
are excepted. Matters of extreme urgency are excepted. A state of war existing in
the country would form another exception. I do not mean individual trades? A.
That is a pretty difficult question for me to answer offhand.
Q. You might consider that question? — A. Generally I would say even though
the Bill were restricted to a limited number of industries or restricted to the erection
of public works for the government solely and absolutely there would be this objection
to it that indirectly it would affect the hours of labour in other forms of private
employment; for example, the carpenters who work for the government are members
of the same union as the carpenters employed in other work.
Q. That is an argument against the Bill. I do not mean these workers, I mean
what exceptions, assuming the Bill to be passed, should be made from the operation
of the Bill. For instance you dealt with transportation interests in your report. In
the American Bill that is an exception and there are some other exceptions? — A. I
would wish time to think that over because it is a pretty big question.
4— 16*
244
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Influenced by Circular.
By the Chairman :
Q. I want to ask you another question. I hope you won’t think it unfair, but it
is on the same lines as the last one. I understand you sent out a circular to how
many members of the association? — A. To about 2,500.
Q. And in the circular you suggest a number of reasons why the Bill should not
he passed. Now do you think the effect of your having sent out the circular contain-
ing certain suggestions, do you think that that influenced any of those who have seen
it, do you think it has had an influence on the expression of opinion that has been
given? — A. I do.
Q. And do you think that the information is any the less valuable for that
reason?— A. I do not.
Q. Bo you think that if the matter had not been brought to the attention of
members of the association through a special circular of this kind many of them
would have known of this Bill, would have communicated with the government in
reference to it? — A. They might have learned of it through your secretary who I
understand was instructed to forward copies to interested parties. But apart from
that they would not have taken action because many to whom I have spoken expressed
the opinion that the Bill would not be passed, that it was not necessary to take action
in opposition to it, and it was only by pointing out to them the necessity for action
that I believed they would be induced to take such action.
Q. Your association is formed for the purpose of protecting its individual mem-
bers and therefore in a question of this kind it would be the duty of the executive
of the association to bring to the attention of the members anything likely to affect
them?- — A. Precisely. We are sending out circulars on kindred subjects all the time,
on matters affecting the licensing of provincial companies for instances. I sent out
one two weeks ago and will send out one this week. Whether it- is labour or any-
thing else we feel it to be our duty to advise our interests of what is pending.
Q. That is your duty? — A. That is what I am there for.
Q. In speaking of the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress you made some re-
ference to having had association or connection with the American Pederation of
Labour. Has the Manufacturers’ Association any connection, direct on indirect, with
the Manufacturer’s Association in the United States? — A. Absolutely none.
Q. Not with any Employers’ Association in Canada or the United States? — A.
Neither in Canada nor the United States.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You have sent a delegate to their convention? — A. To the Employers’ Asso-
ciation do you mean?
Q. Yes. — A. No.
Q. Or the Manufacturers’ Association? — A. Personally, I attended one meeting
of the National Association of Manufacturers in New York, but not as a fraternal
delegate, simply by courtesy of one of the officials down there in order to find out
how they ran their meetings and the subjects in which they were interested. I had
no status there whatever. That was three years ago and I have not been at one since.
Benefits of Legislation re Labour.
By the Chairman:
Q. As I understand the early part of your brief you frankly admit on behalf of
the Manufacturers’ Association that there may be strong reasons for parliament legis-
lating on hours of labour under certain conditions ? — A. Yes.
MR. MURRAY.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
245
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Conditions adversely affecting the health of employees and matters of that
kind? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you think past legislation on those lines has been beneficial to the working
classes? — A. I think on the whole it has.
Q. You mentioned you were not sure where the shorter hour movement was going
to stop and you referred to the conditions when they worKed formerly in factories
for 14 hours or 12 hours. Do you think that these hours were detrimental? — A. I
can conceive that they might have been. Not, of course, having been there and not
having seen the conditions under which the work is performed it is impossible for
me to say.
Q. I would go this far and say it is admitted by all of us that an eighteen-hour
day is dertimental. I will go as far and say that a two-hour day is an economic impos-
sibility. There is a medium somewhere and it is in an effort to find that medium
that we are engaged at the present time, that this committee is engaged.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Did you ever work at manual work ? — A. Yes, I put myself through college
by manual labour.
Q. Manual labour in college? — A. No, manual labour done in vacation.
Q. Not as a practical man, just through your vacation? — A. Just a common
labourer.
Q. In your vacation? — A. In my vacation and I worked 12 hours a day.
Q. But only for a couple of months a year? — A. I worked three or four months
in a year, some days not so long, but when the weather was fine I would work some-
times 12 and 14 hours a day and at the hardest kind of work.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you think, looking at the legislation in the past of shortening hours of
labour, speaking generally, do you think it has been for the advantage of the com-
munity?— A. I think generally it has for the reason that the result has come about
through the influence of economic conditions. It has been allowed to develop naturally.
Q. Then your objection, if I understand rightly, to this legislation or rather to
a measure of this kind is not so much an objection to the eight-hour movement as to
this particular method of bringing it about. Is that it? — A. That is it.
Q. You mentioned that organized labour was a small percentage of the total
labour. Can you say what proportion of the total population the working classes
comprise, leaving aside the question of organized labour? — A. That would depend
upon what you would include as labour. Bor instance, would you include all
shop assistants, telephone operators and so on?
Q. All who work for wages as opposed to those who either work for themselves as
independent farmers or who are employers and get their returns in the form of divi-
dends and interest? — A. I have never thought over that question but just off-hand I
would isay probably fifty per cent, perhaps over fifty per cent. That is guess work only.
Q. Would it follow that because only a small percentage of labour was organized
and was asking for this legislation, the others would not be equally affected for
good or ill in consequence of the legislation? — A. I do not think that that would
follow at all. But the point I tried to make clear was this. It is not fair for the
committee to assume in the absence of evidence from unorganized labour that they
want an eight-hour Bill.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Did you get any representation from unorganized manufacturers against it?
— A. No, we did not try to get any representation.
Q. I suppose the labour people did the same thing? — A. I cannot say as to that.
246
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By the Chairman:
Q. I think you have anticipated all the questions that should be asked as to the
effect of the Bill. I do not know that I have any further questions to ask at this
moment. However, just referring specifically to the Bill itself. You have looked
it over carefully? — A. Yes.
Q. What have you got to say in its favour? — A. Nothing.
Q. If it were restricted to what its title would appear to indicate it was intended
to apply, namely, hours of labour on public works and not to go beyond that, would
the objections you have urged be as strongly urged? — A. You mean the eliminating
of the clause relating to sub-contracts.
Q. Yes, as I understand it, the Bill as it now stands would affect manufacturing
establishments if they should be, through sub-contritcts, drawn into government work,
but if the Bill were restricted to apply only to public works in the sense of public
buildings would you be inclined to urge the arguments which you have put forward?
— A. I could not conscientiously advance the same arguments I have advanced to-day.
But we would still, I think, be inclined to oppose it as vigorously as ever on account
of the effect it would have indirectly in compelling shorter hours in our factories.
Q. Would it affect the business of the manufacturers at all. Supposing a law
went into effect requiring on all public buildings that the workers on those public
buildings only should be on an eight-hour day, would that affect the manufacturers
of this country? — A. I think it would have an immediate effect because a large
number of their help in the localities where government work is in progress would
leave them in order to take advantage of the shorter day.
Unopposed to Principle of the Measure.
By Mr. Turcotte:
Q. Did I understand that you were not opposed to the principle of .the measure?
—A. Not opposedi to the principle of the eight-hour day.
Q. I suppose you mean by legislation? — A. The meaning I wish this committee
to take is that we are opposed to being compelled to give an eight-hour day before
economic conditions bring it about naturally.
By the Chairman:
Q. Legislation is an artificial way of effecting the result. Is that what you mean?
—A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Murray, as I understand it, is in favour of the shortening of hours if
.that can be brought about through a change in economic conditions. I suppose you
include individual contracts between employers and employees where one of the parties
is strong enough to enforce a change? — A. Where the conditions permit it.
By Mr. Turcotte:
Q. You admit that the principle would be looked at by the manufacturers with
a good eye? — A. You mean the principle of the Bill?
Q. The measure as it is, if it were not brought by legislation but quietly by econ-
omic processes, the manufacturers would not have any objection? — A. Let me explain
myself this way. So far as the shorter working hours can be brought about by nego-
tiations between unions and employers the Manufacturers’ Association would offer no
opposition whatsoever. It would not appear in any agitation to counteract that.
Q. Would they favour it? — A. Our attitude would be neutral.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. But on the other hand, I do not suppose that the manufacturers in all the
industries are against organized labour? — A. Some of them might be against; as an
association, we are not.
MR. MURRAY.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
247
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Then the Manufacturers’ Association, you say, never fought organized labour
as a body? — A. It might be interpreted) that way, it might be said we are fighting
organized labour here to-day. I suppose we are.
Q. I mean to say outside fighting before a committee of the House like this ? — A.
You mean in such matters as strikes and so on?
Q. Yes. — A. Ho, as an organization we’ have never fought a strike.
Q. Never had anything to do directly, or indirectly, with a strike?- -A. Abso-
lutely nothing.
By the Chairman:
Q. I think the point 'that Mr. Turcotte has raised is an important one. As I
understand it, what you have reference to is this : to-day the manufacturers contend
that it is impossible for them to do certain things because the industries with which
they are competing in other countries do not do the same thing and what you wish
(to find out from Air. Murray is whether in the event of it being possible to effect con-
ditions equally all along the line, he would favour an eight-hour day generally being
brought about. What is your feeling, Mr. Murray, in that regard?— A. I do not
think that the Manufacturers’ Association would offer any objections whatever to a
standard eight-hour day in this country so long as the competition they had to meet
in their own home market was operating similarly on the continent.
Mr. C. B. Watt. — Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed one word with reference to
that answer of Mr. Murray’s. That affects the milling industry very much. He said
in their own home market. As millers, we have to compete in Great Britain and with
the millers all over the world, and the eight-hour movement would affect us most
terribly in that respect. I do not know whether Mr. Murray had that in view or not.
I may say I am a member of the Manufacturers’ Association. I received one of those
circulars referred to, but I did not think it was necessary to reply to it, and it has not
teen dealt with by our association as an association, for the reason that we did not
think the Bill would become law, and if if did become law we did not know whether
it would affect us or not, because it said hours of labour on public works. That would
not affect us, but that other clause about contracts would. Millers tender for the
supply of flour to public institutions, and if that clause were enacted as it looks to
me, every miller would be barred.
The Chairman. — If you could see your way, Air. Watt, to give us your evidence,
it would he very advantageous to have your views on this point. Could you arrange
to be present some Wednesday?
Mr. Watt. — -We have not dealt with it as an association, and all I could do would
be to express my own personal opinion.
The Chairman.— I think the organization you represent is such an important one
that it would be very desirable that the committee should have your point of view on
a measure of this kind. If you could arrange to appear before the committee, I think
it would be eminently desirable.
Air. Watt. — It is possible I may be here on 5th April.
The Chairman. — I think we will subpoena you. We would like to have you here,
Mr. Watt.
Air. Watt. — So far as I am concerned I would be very pleased to give my views.
Mr. Macdonell. — Arou would not need to be authorized by others. You could give
us the facts relating to your business, and these facts would relate probably to the
industry as a whole.
The Chairman. — Before the committee adjourns, I would like to thank Air.
Murray for his evidence. I think manufacturers have reason to feel that their side
of the argument has been very ably and fully presented.
The committee adjourned.
248
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ho. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
House op Commons,
Committee Room Ho. 34,
April 6, 1910.
The Committee met at 11.45 o’clock a.m., the Chairman, Hon. Mr. King, presid-
ing.
Mr. John Herbert Lauer, called as a witness, sworn and examined: —
By the Chairman:
Q. What is your full name, Mr. Lauer? — A. John Herbert Lauer.
Q. What position do you hold? Whom do you represent here? — A. I am Secretary-
Treasurer of the Montreal Builders’ Exchange and also of the General Association of
Builders of Canada.
Q. What is the nature of these Associations? — A- They are Associations of
Employers connected with building trades.
Q. How many employers are in the associations, each of them? — A. In Montreal
we have in round figures about three hundred building trades employ-
ers in the Association and the six principal associations of Canada are associated with
us. Our membership is a little over one thousand, probably a thousand and fifty.
Q. What percentage of the employers in the building trades of Montreal are in your
association, have you any idea? — A. Well, of course, Mr. Minister, if it goes by the
question of employers, there are many small employers, many are large, the fairer
percentage would be to give the amount of work they handle. We figure the amount
we represent is between 60 and JO per cent of the work done in the city and district.
Q. That is in the Builders’ Exchange? — A. Yes.
Q; What is the other society you represent? — A. With reference to the Canadian
Association, I have just made a note here, that in the six larger cities of Canada, which
are affiliated with us, the employers represent 1,052. The work represented throughout
the Dominion of Canada last year averaged about a total of $78,000,000, and of the
building operations comprised in that total, these six larger cities achieved about
$55,000,000 for the year.
Q. What is the full name of the association? — A. The Canadian National Asso-
ciation of Builders.
Q. The Canadian National Association of Builders? — A. Yes.
Q. Is there a relationship between the two associations, the National Association
and the Builders’ Exchange?— A. The only relationship is, we are affiliated with the
National body.
Q. The Builders’ Exchange is affiliated with the national body?— A. Yes.
Objects of Employers’ Unions.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Y hat are the objects of these Associations ? — A. In the same relation as the
board of trade bears to other commercial societies.
Q. Is it the same as associations or unions ? Unions are the associations of men,
and associations of employers ?— A. In New Zealand and Australia they are all called
unions whether they are employers or employees. Taken in that broad sense, I suppose
we should consider ourselves a union as well.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
249
APPENDIX No. 4
By the Chairman:
Q. In giving your evidence you feel you can say you are speaking for all those
employers that are represented in this particular association ?— A. Yes, Mr. Chairman,
I was authorized to do so.
Q. Have you seen this Bill. Ho. 21, An Act respecting the Hours of Labour? —
A. Yes.
Q. Have you examined its contents carefully? — A. Yes.
Q. What have you to say in favour of the provisions therein contained? — A. As
it stands at present I have very little to say in its favour, in fact I have come up to
speak against its general character.
Q. What do you object to in it? — A. If you wish me to make a statement of the
notes I have prepared, I shall be very pleased to do so.
Q. Just make a full statement. — A. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, I am sorry to
say that on this occasion our association is only represented by myself in this con-
nection, and by our worthy president who has come here from Quebec.
We were here as you are aware on the 23rd, and we had a pretty strong
delegation of practical men, and I should be very pleased to have their evidence put
in, and I trust that at some later date it will be found possible to have it put in.
Therefore, if the cause I represent to-day lacks any strength, I trust you will put it
down to infirmity of mine rather than to any weakness in our cause or in our case. I
was reading over the evidence already published by your committee, given by Mr.
Murray on a previous occasion, I think on 16th March, and I feel the cause of the
employers has already been so ably stated by Mr. Murray, who produced a written
document, that I feel much diffidence in going over much the same ground again, es-
pecially. as I have had no knowledge of anything in the written statement. As I just
statdd in answer to your first question, I have come here to-day representing the
Builders Association of Montreal in particular, and of Canada in general.
Q.. Excuse me, are there any other building associations? — A. There are some of
minor importance, one in Vancouver, Edmonton, and Calgary.
Q. When was your Association formed? — A. In 1897.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Do any companies or person controlling lumber yards belong to the associa-
tion?— A. Yes, we have nearly all the prominent lumber people of' Montreal.
Q. Retail merchants ? — A. Ho, wholesale merchants, lumber mills, saw and
planing mills. .
Q. As well as retail merchants?— A. We represent retail and wholesale, I mean
where lumber merchants are manufacturing for the trade.
Q. Are the Mountain Mills in it? — A. Yes, mills, &c.
Q. Mountain Mills? — A. Yes, some of the largest mills.
Q. Any of the Saskatchewan mills? — A. Hot so far. We have not those Western
mills in association with us.
The Chairman:
Q. Mr. Knowles mentioned some particular mill?
Resolutions Adopted by Employers’ Unions.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Yes, the Mountain Mills in British Columbia. — A. Ho, I am speaking of our
local people. I was authorized to come to this committee by a resolution adopted by
the Montreal association on the 18th January and also by a resolution adopted by the
London Convention of Builders on February 9th and 10th. These resolutions I have
had the honour of transmitting to you. If you wish them read now, I will be pleased
to do so. *
250
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
The Chairman. — You might put them all in. Read them out.— A. (Reading.)
Copy of resolution adopted unanimously at a meeting of the convention held at Lon-
don, Canada, on the 8th and 9th February, 1910, re Bill to limit work on government
contracts to eight hours per day.
1. Whereas the adoption by the federal government of an eight-hour day on
all public works, would -promptly result in a similar demand to be extended to all pri-
vate building contracts; and
2. Whereas such a law would undoubtedly lead to increased cost of building opera-
tions and consequently increase of rentals, constituting an added burden to the great
body of tenants, including artisans and mechanics residing in our larger cities, to
whom present high rents are already a serious item in the cost of living ; and
3. Whereas any such arbitrary limitation of the working day is opposed to the
climatic conditions of Canada, inasmuch as exterior building is already confined by
nature to about seven months, in which limited period it is essential to get all outside
work completed; and
4. Whereas such a measure wlould constitute a ‘ privileged ’ class, opposed to the
democratic principles, of ‘ equal rights for all,’ and would unjustly discriminate both
against mechanics and contractors, on non-public works:
5. Be it resolved, that while this association is ready at all times to co-operate
with the government in supporting legislation for protection of life and limb in
hazardous occupations, whether by shortening the hours of work or by other protective
measures, such protection is uncalled for in the building trades, and the proposed legis-
lation would be against public policy and constitute an unwarrantable interference
cvith the personal liberty of the individual unjust alike to the worker, who would
thereby be prevented from turning his spare capital (i.e. his labour) to account by
utilizing it to make prudent provision for the winter months, and the contractor who
on most contracts is bound to complete by a certain time limit, and who would thus be
discouraged from competing on government works owing to the great risk involved;
Resolved further, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Chairman of the
Select Parliamentary Committee and that a delegation follow later at the convenience
of the committee;
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. That is from whom? — A. That was adopted at the National Convention on
February 9th and 10th.
Q. By the National Association of Builders of Canada? — A. Yes.
Q. Where was it held? — A. In London.
I will quote here a report of the Commission on the hours of labour dated March
2nd at Halifax, N.S., showing that the Labour Commission reported against the
possibility of the reduction of hours of work. Here is what they say: —
‘ The commission undertook the work in sympathy with the effort to shorten
the working day, believing that any humanitarian interest of the workers would
be promoted without lessening the hours of manual toil. It is the first investi-
gation of the kind attended in Nova Scotia and there were difficulties arising
from the lack of statistics and accurate evidence on some of the most relevant
subjects, from the fact that employers of labour had given little attention to the
question, that labour organization is limited, and that there were controversies
and strikes in the coal industry.
The Commission states its belief, however, that a general compulsory eight-
hour law would be at present a fatal blow to the industrial prospectors of Nova
Scotia. Such industries as fishing, farming, and lumbering are not suitable for
such legislation, and this applies also to dock and wharf labour, and to shipping.
‘ The manufacturing industries would be put, by merely a provincial law,
under a great disadvantage in ctampeting with those of other proyinces. An
MR. LATJER.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
251
APPENDIX No. 4
eight-hour law for any industry should be applicable to all the competing firms
in that industry, hut this condition could not be secured by a provincial law.
‘ So far as coal mining is concerned, the commission would gladly report in
favour of a shorter day, if the facts permitted them to do so. The existing
market for Nova Scotia steel, however, , presents features of a grave character.
The coal industry is fundamental to the welfare of the province and before
enacting legislation which would undoubtedly add to the cost of operating tne
mines, or seriously reducing wages, further consideration should be given to the
features referred to.’
In dealing with the matter, you have already, no doubt, put before this
committee the evidence given by the Royal Commission in the province of Nova
Scotia.
I do not propose to read a great deal of the evidence from the commission,
as you no doubt have it on record, but I cannot help at this moment alluding
to one or two paragraphs of the report of that committee. The Royal Com-
mission was appointed by the Nova Scotia Government, and was composed of
men by no means opposed to any question that would be detrimental to the great
body of workers in the country. Yet, at the end of their labours, the report
contains the very significant words : ‘ The commission is satisfied that the
present working day in the shops and stores is too long, and that it could be
shortened without any detriment to any class in the community.’
It goes on to refer to the fact that the hours of work in drug stores could be
lessened also, and should be lessened. They consider that six days a week are
enough for employees of street car companies and that legislation to that effect
would be justifiable, also that six days a week were enough for bar-
ber shops. They consider that nurses in the provincial hospitals are on
duty too many hours in view of the nature of the work and the nature of the
wages, and that while an eight-hour system may not be the best for hospital
work, the number of hours off duty and holidays should be increased even if
some additional expenditure be incurred. They further consider that boys
employed in hotels, should not be required to work more than seventy or seventy-
five hours a week, but that a maximum of not more than sixty hours weekly
should be prescribed. The commission was also of opinion that one of the
greatest needs of many wage earners in Nqva Scotia is that of securing employ-
ment during the winter months. The commission conclude the report on the
Dominion Iron and Steel Company, stating ‘ that so far as the industry is con-
cerned an eight-hour day would result in a greatly enlarged labour force in every
department and in probably some additional expenditure in the plant, clerical
staff and supervision. One of two things must happen, as competition will
take care of the prices of product, — either, rates and wages will remain as they
are, in which case the earnings of each employee will be reduced below the point
of a living wage, or the rate will be increased in proportion to, the reduction in
time and the increase will be added to the cost of operation.’ At present either
alternative will be fatal. I am bringing in these matters generally in support of
my argument, which I shall bring ini at the end, that this Bill is an unjust dis-
crimination against the building trades. I am showing that there are many
fields open for government legislation and supervision, in which such supervision
would not be against the policy of the country, would not be to restrain its de-
velopment, and would be beneficial to those classes referred to. I am endeavour-
ing toi show that the hours now occupied in the building trades are not detri-
mental to health and that there is no necessity for government interference.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. What are the hours now? — A. Nine hours. We have a general working week of
fifty-four hours.
252
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Nine liours, by everybody you refer to?- — A. The only exception is in the
case of shovel and pick men whoi work ten hours.
By the Chairman:
What cities are represented in your association? — A. Quebec, Montreal,
Ottawa, Toronto, London and Winnipeg. They are the six largest building centres
in the country.
Q. Are the hours of labour nine in Quebec, in the building trades? — A. Mr. Ness-
bitt will be able to explain that.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Are you sure that Line hours prevail with regard to all the people you em-
ploy with the exception of labourers. Take for example office hands? — -A. They get
no protection, unfortunately, from any organization.
Q. I understand the nine hours refers to all the people you represent?
By Mr. Smith:
Q. The builders time is not determined by law? — A. No.
By the Chairman:
Q. I understand Mr. Lauer is stating that the labour employed by the employers
in this association works at present only nine hours? — A. Fifty-four hours a week.
Mr. Smith. — That is what I asked him.
By the Chairman:
Q. I asked him for that reason what cities were represented in his association.
If you want to take into account the labour employed by contractors in smaller cen-
tres in the province of Quebec, and if you went down to the maritime provinces,
would what you have said hold true as to the hours of work? — A. We have no asso-
ciation in the maritime provinces.
Q. Do you happen to know personally the hours of labour in the building trades
in these centres? — A. I don’t think they work more than nine hours in the largest!
cities in Nova Scotia. I don’t know about the smaller ones.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. In what way do they arrive at nine hours in these different cities? — A. I am
coming to that a little later.
Exceptions re Nine-hour Day.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. I think it would be better to clear it up now. Take for example the people
you represent, the employers, would you have many men employed driving logs; the
mill men I have spoken of? — A. We do not deal in our association with the people
out in the bush.
Q. Then you are not making the statement that the people you represent give
their people a nine-hour day? — A. I am representing the building trades; I am not
representing the people out in the woods.
Q. I understood you to say that the people you represent in the capacity of
employers give their people a nine-hour day and do not make them work longer? Do
you make that statement absolutely ? — A. I say on the average ; there may be some
minor exception, but that is the general rule.
MR. LATTER.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
253
APPENDIX No. 4
The Chairman. — In some cases do they work eight hours? — A. In some cases, yes,
sir, they work eight hours, and there again, as I will show a little later, where you have
one class of men working eight hours and one class working nine hours, if those men
come an hour sooner in the morning and leave an hour earlier in the evening, such
discrimination causes dissatisfaction against those who work longer. If you have
stone cutters working eight hours, you are causing dissatisfaction amongst the brick-
layers who are workng nine hours, and who naturally object — I should imagine so in
seeing the men walk away from the plant an hour sooner than they do.
Q. Does that exist now? — A. Yes, sir, it does exist now.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. That would be removed by the universal eight-hour day? — A. It might be
removed the other way by a nine-hour day.
Q. I asked you if it would be removed by an eight-hour day? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Do the stone cutters have an eight-hour day? — A. Yes, I wish also to quote
this very short paragraph with reference to this report of the commission, which I
think is very important. I have given a general report of the proceedings of that
commission, and this matter refers to the report of the Dominion Iron and Steel Com-
pany, which does not directly interest me, but they state this: —
“ One of the two things must happen, as competition will take care of the
prices of product — either, rates or wages will remain as they are, in which case
the earnings of each employee will be reduced below the point of a living wage,
or the rates will be increased in proportion to the reduction of time, and the in-
crease will be added to the cost of operation. At present either alternative would
be fatal.
‘ The men cannot afford such a reduction and an industry which has received
municipal, provincial and federal aid, and which up to the current year has re-
ported chiefly expenditure and loss, cannot stand such a large increase to the
cost of its production.
‘ No one can deny, ‘ states the report,’ that a day of twelve hours manual labour
or of twelve hours or even ten hours on ovens, furnaces and machines, amid the
conditions of such an industry is too long and leaves the man little time, inclina-
tion or energy for any other interests.’
‘ The commission would gladly report in favour of the shorter day if it
could; under the present conditions the men cannot live on eight hours’ pay and
the company cannot afford twelve hours’ pay for eight hours’ work.”
I noticed from the report of this commission and the evidence given that there
seemed a certain willingness on the part of the committee to take out of the Bill
certain trades and manufacturers where it was proposed than an enght-hour day would
be impracticable —
The Chairman. — I do not know that the committee expressed any views on that
point. — A. It talks about public works. Public works in most cases involve the
building trades, and canal or wharf construction, the construction of post
offices, &c. There is no evidence whatever to show that the average week of fifty-
four hours constitutes a hardship or that there is any general demand for a limita-
tion to eight hours. Even organized labour representing a minority of the total
workers in the Dominion, so far as I have seen any evidence, is practically silent.
I understand you will hear from them a little later but there certainly seems no en-
thusiasm, so far as I can judge, and I read the papers pretty carefully, in the demand
for an eight-hour day.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. What is your reason for saying that those organizations are a minority of the
labour people? — A. We know they are.
252
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Nine hours, by everybody you refer to ? — A. The only exception is in the
case of shovel and pick men who work ten hours.
By the Chairman:
What cities are represented in your association? — A. Quebec, Montreal,
Ottawa, Toronto, London and Winnipeg. They are the six largest building centres
in the country.
Q. Are the hours of labour nine in Quebec, in the building trades?- — A. Mr. Ness-
bitt will be able to explain that.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Are you sure that hine hours prevail with regard to all the people you em-
ploy with the exception of labourers. Take for example office hands? — A. They get
no protection, unfortunately, from any organization.
Q. I understand the nine hours refers to all the people you represent?
By Mr. Smith:
Q. The builders time is not determined by law? — A. No.
By the Chairman :
Q. I understand Mr. Lauer is stating that the labour employed by the employers
in this association works at present only nine hours?- — A. Fifty -four hours a week.
Mr. Smith.— That is what I asked him.
By the Chairman :
Q. I asked him for that reason what cities were represented in his association.
If you want to take into account the labour employed by contractors in smaller cen-
tres in the province of Quebec, and if you went down to the maritime provinces,
would what you have said hold true as to the hours of work?- — A. We have no asso-
ciation in the maritime provinces.
Q. Do you happen to know personally the hours of labour in the building trades
in these centres? — A. I don’t think they work more than nine hours in the largest
cities in Nova Scotia. I don’t know about the smaller ones.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. In what way do they arrive at nine hours in these different cities? — A. I am
coming to that a little later.
Exceptions re Nine-hour Day.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. I think it would be better to clear it up now. Take for example the people
you represent, the employers, would you have many men employed driving logs; the
mill men I have spoken of? — A. We do not deal in our association with the people
out in the bush.
Q. Then you are not making the statement that the people you represent give
their people a nine-hour day ? — A. I am representing the building trades ; I am not
representing the people out in the woods.
Q. I understood you to say that the people you represent in the capacity of
employers give their people a nine-hour day and do not make them work longer? Do
you make that statement absolutely ? — A. I say on the average ; there may be some
minor exception, but that is the general rule.
MR. LATTER.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
253
APPENDIX No. 4
The Chairman. — In some cases do they work eight hours? — A. In some cases, yes,
sir, they work eight hours, and there again, as I will show a little later, where you have
one class of men working eight hours and one class working nine hours, if those men
come an hour sooner in the morning and leave an hour earlier in the evening, such
discrimination causes dissatisfaction against those who work longer. If you have
stone cutters working eight hours, you are causing dissatisfaction amongst the brick-
layers who are workng nine hours, and who naturally object— I should imagine so in
seeing the men walk away from the plant an hour sooner than they do.
Q. Does that exist now?— A. Yes, sir, it does exist now.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. That would be removed by the universal eight-hour day? — A. It might be
removed the other way by a nine-hour day.
Q. I asked you if it would be removed by an eight -hour day? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Do the stone cutters have an eight-hour day? — A. Yes, I wish also to quote
this very short paragraph with reference to this report of the commission, which I
think is very important. I have given a general report of the proceedings of that
commission, and this matter refers to the report of the Dominion Iron and Steel Com-
pany, which does not directly interest me, but they state this: —
“ One of the two things must happen, as competition will take care of the
prices of product — either, rates or wages will remain as they are, in which case
the earnings of each employee will be reduced below the point of a living wage,
or the rates will be increased in proportion to the reduction of time, and the in-
crease will be added to the cost of operation. At present either alternative would
be fatal.
‘ The men cannot afford such a reduction and an industry which has received
municipal, provincial and federal aid, and which up to the current year has re-
ported chiefly expenditure and loss, cannot stand such a large increase to the
cost of its production.
‘ No one can deny, ‘ states the report,’ that a day of twelve hours manual labour
or of twelve hours or even ten hours on ovens, furnaces and machines, amid the
conditions of such an industry is too long and leaves the man little time, inclina-
tion or energy for any other interests.’
‘ The commission would gladly report in favour of the shorter day if it
could; under the present conditions the men cannot live on eight hours’ pay and
the company cannot afford twelve hours’ pay for eight hours’ work.”
I noticed from the report of this commission and the evidence given that there
seemed a certain willingness on the part of the committee to take out of the Bill
certain trades and manufacturers where it was proposed than an enght-hour day would
be impracticable —
The Chairman. — I do not know that the committee expressed any views on that
point. — A. It talks about public works. Public works in most cases involve the
building trades, and canal or wharf construction, the construction of post
offices, &c. There is no evidence whatever to show that the average week of fifty-
four hours constitutes a hardship or that there is any general demand for a limita-
tion to eight hours. Even organized labour representing a minority of the total
workers in the Dominion, so far as I have seen any evidence, is practically silent.
I understand you will hear from them a little later but there certainly seems no en-
thusiasm, so far as I can judge, and I read the papers pretty carefully, in the demand
for an eight-hour day.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. What is your reason for saying that those organizations are a minority of the
labour people? — A. We know they are.
254
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. How do you know? — A. We know they are, because we know that the figures
represented by the various labour trades’ unions represented less than 50 per cent of
the workers of the Dominion. Ho doubt you have evidence on file here showing the
total number of workers comprised in the various organized trades, and I think you
will agree that they do not represent anything like the total workers of the Dominion
of Canada.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You say, 50 per cent? — A. I said less than 50 per cent. I should say person-
ally there are less than 30 per cent.
Q. That would' be your idea? — A. That would be my personal idea, but I have
not the figures at my fingers’ ends to give you. I am open to correction, of course.
Objections to Unincorporated Unions.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Are the men organized in your enterprise in Montreal that you represent?
Have they a union? — A. I suppose all trades have unions. I mean the bulk of the
skilled trades.
Q. Have they unions in the sense that they negotiate with you as union men? —
A. We do not officially recognize the unions.
Q. Have you had any demand for a shorter day? — A. Ho, sir. The demands that
are made for the different trades in the building trades are as a rule generally a
matter of pay, not a matter of hours.
Q. Have they ever approached your company in an endeavour to have recogni-
tion of the unions? — A. Yes, sir, we always have them every year.
Q. Does your company object to it? — A. We do object to recognizing any
union except on the principle that unless they are organized and incorporated they
have no legal existence.
Q. As a matter of fact you have objected to negotiate with bona fide trade unions?
— A. We have always been willing to work with bona fide workers.
Q. I say your association has objected to negotiate and make settlements with
bona fide trade unions? — A. Hot in every case.
Q. But they have on some occasions? — A. They have where the union has not
been incorporated. There is one exception in Quebec, the bricklayers’ union; we
had an agreement for two years with them.
Q. That is you would be willing to negotiate with registered unions? — A. Yes.
(Q. Your objection to negotiate with trades unions is due to the fact that they
are not incorporated? — A. The fact that they are not responsible for whatever they
agree to.
Q. That is a matter of opinion, but it is mainly because they are not incorporated ?
— A. I contend, and I have always contended, and I think I am right, that incorpora-
tion implies that a number of people who come together for the purpose of business
come together with an idea of carrying out their responsibility, and unless they are
registered or incorporated they are not bound to carry out their responsibility.
Q. I suppose you are aware that the Privy Council of England has recently
decided contrary to your views? — A. That is one case, but y/ou are quite aware also
that that decision is a recent one.
Q. I am just drawing your attention to the fact that the highest court of the
British empire upheld that your view is incorrect, that they are responsible whether
they have any official incorporation or not?— A. Quite right, but you must remember
that that is the first of its kind given, and it was only a recent one. Up to this they
were not responsible. I could give you case after case where they made agreements
and they have not lived up to them, and the fact of the matter is they might start
MR. LATJER, ^
COMMITTEE RE bill No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
255
APPENDIX No. 4
an organization to-day and call themselves an A 33 C union and might change its
name to-morrow and call it the X Y Z union.
Q. Is your own association incorporated? — A. Yes. *
The Bricklayers’ Union.
By Mr. Vervilh:
Q. You would have no objection to treating with an incorporated union? — A.
No.
Q. Are the bricklayers incorporated in Montreal? — A. Yes.
Q. You know they are incorporated? — A. They told us so.
Q. You know that because you went to the trouble to find out? — A. I did.
Q. What was the reason that in 1908 you would not renew the agreement with
the bricklayers’ union?— A. Because we were not satisfied with the conditions we had
and we proposed other conditions to them which they would not accept.
Q. At the same time you would not deal with them under any circumstances? — -
A. No, sir, that is not correct. We offered to deal with them but they would not
accept.
Q. You have refused to deal with them this year, I suppose? — A. No, sir, we
have not refused to deal with them.
Q. I have seen some of your letters the contents of which sound a good deal like
that.- — A. We said we had established open shops and we saw no reason to depart from it.
Q. What does that mean? — A. We do not discriminate against a man if he
chooses to belong to an organization; he has perfect liberty to do so. If you wish to
belong to an association you have perfect liberty tp do so.
Q. Do you find any trouble in dealing with any of those men since you do not
wish to recognize them? — A. We have no trouble at all.
Q. You had trouble before? — A. We had a good deal of trouble, during the time
we had the two years’ agreement with them, that is the reason we state unless the
agreement we had with them could be considerably modified, we could not renew it.
Q. What was the trouble* you had? Was it on account of the business agent
going on the job? — A. That was one objection. We do not propose to say that anybody
not engaged by our employers should dictate to any one who is in their employ; and
our second trouble is that any union that insists upon the union man, good or bad, be-
ing paid a certain rate of wages, would not be recognized by us, and we turned it down.
We consider that is only common sense, and we think you would probably do the
same if you had to employ.
Q. Is there much difference between the wages now and before in the brick-
layers’ union? — A. Good men are getting all they ever got.
Q. Have y/ou prevented the business agent going on the job, the same as you
did before? — A. He is not going on the job in business hours.
Q. He is not? — A. Not that I am aware of.
Q. You are not sure of tl at? — A. I have not been notified by any one.
Q. I can tell you that he goes on the job any time of the day, if not prevented.
I am pretty sure of that. I advance this statement because I know it — A. That is all
right. I may go into your house and force myself in, but I have no legal right there.
Q. He cannot force his way in? — A. He can force his way if he is not prevented
from going, but we claim it is trespass if he has not business there.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. I understood you to say that you were quite agreeable to make settlements
with incorporated unions? — A. We are prepared to deal with them at any time.
Q. But you have objection to negotiate arrangements with other unions that are
not incorporated? — A. We had, yes.
256
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
By Mr. Verville:
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Was it not offered to the Builders’ Exchange, by the bricklayers that they
were willing to accept a reduction and re-sign another agreement for 1903 ? — A. The
offer they made in 1908 was still insisting on the uniform rate of pay. That was one
of the chief things we could not agree upon.
Q. Did they not offer to accept a reduction in wages? — A. They offered to accept
a reduction of five cents per hour.
Mr. Knowles. — I am going to make an observation. We have got a little away
from the eight-hour clause; there is no question of that, and I think that the witness’
own evidence is perhaps a little too general in some ways. For example, he is talking
a good deal about legislation that is absolutely beyond the jurisdiction of this Parlia-
ment. We are very glad to have his views on it — I don’t say that in any critical
way — but perhaps both he and ourselves should keep in mind that we are here on the
question of legislation for an eight-hour day.
Witness. — I did not come here to discuss incorporation of unions; that discussion
was introduced by one of your members. I will endeavour to confine my remarks
entirely to the question of an eight-hour day. One of the great objections against the
eight-hour day in this country, as we contend, is its impracticability. We claim that
owing to the widely divergent climatic conditions in Canada, we are physically
prevented from putting any arbitrary limit — within reason, of course — upon the time
at which a man should work when he is occupied in outside work. In the eastern and
northern sections of Canada open-air trades can only partially make use of the
twenty-four hours. In winter and in had weather, hours are limited by nature; and
taking the outside trades all around. I doubt if even now, without any special legis-
lation, more than eight hours are worked on the average. In fact, my opinion is they
are less. Now, if by Act of Parliament you reduce the already limited working time,
you will make many trades unprofitable not merely to the employers, hut to the men.
I claim, without fear of contradiction, that such legislation would be against the
interests or the real wishes of the working man. We are faced by constantly increasing
cost of living. We see it in every newspaper we read. Who is the greatest sufferer?
We all admit that the workmen of Canada are the largest proportion of the community,
and if we are dealing for the good of the greatest number surely we also have to con-
sider the evil that might fall upon the greatest number through the limitation of his
earning capacity, and therefore the reduction of his salary. How is this increased
cost to be met ? Surely not by limiting the earning power of the men. If demanding
nine hours’ pay for eight hours’ work, then it is only a subterfuge for an increase of
pay. But we must remember that Canada is not alone in the world. We have the world
in competition — Germany, Austria, Belgium, and other long-hour and small-pay coun-
tries ; and while our men would be idle, or limited in time, those other people would be
working while we are asleep, and put us out of business. I take the opportunity here
to quote to the committee some examples of similar legislation in other countries,
which would surely be the best evidence that we can have on the question that is
under consideration. Only last Saturday, under the ‘ Labour News ’ given in the
Montreal papers we had this remark: —
In 1868 the American Government established the eight-hour day for its
employees, but the law was frequently violated, and the President of the Republic
had the law revoked. Since then several states have enacted an eight-hour day
law, but in almost every case it has been ineffective.
The Chairman. — We are getting especial evidence on that point.
Mr. Smith. — Yes, and that is general information that can be collected.
The Witness.- — I understand. We are none of us original; we have all got to
live by other people’s thoughts. I beg to quote also from some recent papers on the
effect of eight-hour day legislation in Great Britain.
ME. LAUEE.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
257
APPENDIX No. 4
The British Eight-hour Act — Comments.
By the Chairman :
Q. What is that paper you have? — A. The January number of F airplay.
Q. Is that a labour paper? — A. I don’t know, sir, I couldn’t tell you; it is a
shipping journal.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Where is it published? — A. Published in England, in London.
Q. It is an English paper? — A. Yes, sir, it is an English paper. Kow, I want
to give you just one short quotation.
By the Chairman :
Q. Let us know where it is from and know whom it is by. A quotation is no
good unless we have the source of it. Is it an employers’ paper, or a workingman’s
opinion, or a socialist publication? — A. It is neither, I should take it; it is a journal
published in the shipping interests. I was only going to quote you from this the
result
Q. You have not yet told us who is responsible for it? — A. I don’t know who is
the editor of the paper. (Handing copy of paper to the chairman).
The Chairman. — It is called F airplay : Weekly Shipping Journal. There is no
use giving us a quotation unless we know who is responsible.
The Witness.- — It is an editorial.
Mr. Knowles. — All the more important if it is an editorial.
The Chairman. — Apparently there is nothing but the contents to indicate in
whose interest it is published. It seems to be a particular journal published in the
shipping interests.
Mr. Verville. — It is so fixed that nobody will know what it is.
The Witness. — We have all got to learn from what we read. We can’t make any
progress without learning other people’s thoughts. The title of the paper is Fairplay.
If it is not fair play, I should be very pleased to be put right.
Mr. Verville. — I hope everything is marked fair play.
The Witness. — That is what we desire. Llere is the short quotation I wish to
read from this publication entitled Fairplay, published in London. Eng. : —
‘ The evil influence of the Eight-hour Act is likely to permanently prejudice
the British coal export trade ’
By the Chairman :
Q. What Eight-hours Act is that? — A. I presume this is the last Act published;
I don’t know when the Act came into operation.
Q. Do you know what Act it is — what state it applies to? — A. Evidently it ap-
plies to collieries. It is dealing with coal. I only wish to show this, in the contention
I made just now— that the reduction of hours with the increased cost of living is
depriving the working man of part of his revenue, and therefore not benefiting him,
but interfering with his personal rights, which I don’t think should be interfered
with without very good reason.
Mr. Smith. — This law you are reading about was petitioned for by all the mining
unions of England unanimously, so that it is not against the individual rights of the
employed.
The Witness. — I wish to show you from this quotation that the very people who
petitioned for it want it changed.
Mr. Smith. — That is just the opinion of that editor.
The Witness. — Will you allow me just to read this section, and then you can
draw your own deduction in regard to the matter and determine as to the miners who
are distinctly against the measure: —
4—17
258
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
“ The Act was no sooner introduced in South Wales than the hewers found
that their earnings were reduced. In the Tyne district the Act had no sooner
come into force than the colliers there have found! the arrangements necessary,
to sustain the required output too exhausting. In the meantime, the cost of coal
had been permanently enchanced, and our competitive power injured and the
prosperity of the British coal trade in the future jeopardized. Just at the mo-
ment, when everything should be working smoothly, speculation, with all its
disturbing consequence has become rampant. At Newcastle the price of best
steams advanced to II shillings, but seeing that owners refused to charter noth-
ing was done. Foreigners and shippers generally refuse to operate more than is
actually necessary. At Cardiff on Monday last, orders were very scarce and
offers were not numerous, thus owners are made to suffer also. At Newcastle,
the market has been practically paralyzed.
By the Chairman:
Q. Have you any labour publications dealing with that law? Have you any
editorials from a labour publication?— A. Yes, I will give you those in a moment. I
now beg to quote from the February issue of Fairplay: —
“ Complaints from all quarters crop up day by day of the disastrous effects of
the Eight-Hour Bill. Railway companies and steamship companies all sing the
same song and swell the same chorus. Every industry which is dependent on
coal — and what industry is not? — is suffering from the increased cost of the pro-
duction caused by the Act. It was clearly foreseen and foretold that this would
be the case, but what was not so clearly foreseen was that the men themselves in
whose interests and at whose dictation the Act was passed are loudest in the out-
cry against it.”
Now, here are the authentic minutes of a conference between the Federated
Engineering Employers and The Joint Committee of Affiliated Trade Unions, that I
don’t think any one here will dispute. The Confercence was held in the Westmin-
ster Palace Hotel, London, when the question of the ‘ 48 hours ’ dispute first came up,
and which resulted in that disastrous strike in the engineering trade, which lasted
a whole year.
By the Chairman:
Q. What is the date of that? — A. 1897.
Q.. Where are those minutes published ?— A. This was published by authority of
the Joint Conference.
Q. By whom? — A. I think it was published simply for reference for the two bodies.
This is a meeting in which the opinions of the men and of the employers were both
taken down verbatim. I presume that the subject-matter is therefore to be looked
upon with reasonable conclusion; it is a fair statement of the case. The chair-
man of the meeting — a gentleman by the name of Colonel Dyer started in here by say-
i^fi after having heard of these different demands for forty-eight hours, and the
question of overtime, and all the rest of it,— ‘ the vote ’—this is referring to the vote
to which that gentleman (Mr. Smith) just referred, in which he said that the unions
had asked for it —
The vote in favour of the eight-hour day for the nine hours pay would be
almost a foregone conclusion. I should vote for it myself if I could get nine
hours’ pay for eight hours’ work, and I cannot conceive any one voting against
it; therefore I don’t attach very much importance to the vote.”
Then a little further along he says: —
MR. LATTER.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 259
APPENDIX No. 4
I question if they should have 48 hours’ work for fifty-four hours’ pay, but
it was never put before them that they were never to do any overtime, or that
they were to confine themselves to 48 hours’ work, for 48 hours’ pay. That is the
way it should be looked upon, and to say that the men themselves would not
work overtime, we have proved the contrary, because in Woolwich these mech-
anics do their eight hours’ work and immediately they come outside they set to and
work at mechanic s work and interfere with the regular workmen who mend
bicycles. One can scarcely say that that is a fair way of looking at a 48 hours
a week. Suppose it was possible to limit by law the work of any mechanic or
the work of any (workman to 48 hours, it would mean that when he conies home
he would not be allowed to dig in his garden, because if he did he would be
interfering with gardener’s work, and what right has he to do that? If he
mended his own bpots what right has he to interfere with the proper work of
the boot maker? Why should he work as a mechanic eight hours and interfere
with other trades after the eight hours? Personally I cannot see the' slightest
object in limiting the hours of labour beyond what will interfere with a man’s
health and his duties as a citizen, and I don’t think that anybody can say that
54 hours a week is an amount of work which will interfere with his health or his
doing his best in other branches of what constitutes a citizen’s duty. Personallv,
I wish to goodness that I could limit my work to nine hours a day. I have never
done it for the last thirty years, and I don’t see any prospect for the next thirty
years, if I am above ground, and I cannot see what is the use of limiting the hours
of labour.”
As regards labour being more valuable than it was claimed oni behalf of the men
—that if they worked less hours they would do more work— this is the reply of the
chairman : —
‘ As regards labour being more valuable since then, we have taken some
notes, and we find that before 1872 men took very much larger wages than they
have done since, and that the amount of production was very much larger than
it is just now ; also that the amount of work that each individual man did was
larger than it is just now. Therefore, it does not follow, as a fact, that in forty-
eight hours a man will do more work than he did with fifty-seven hours before
1872. On the contrary, we have direct evidence from Mr. Richmond, in London,
who voluntarily gave eight hours before there was any demand made upon him,
and he had to revert to the fifty-four hours, because he found that after keeping
his accounts most carefully, with a view to comparing the two systems, that, per-
hour, in 48 hours so much work was not done as had been formerly done when he
worked the 54. Now, that is a very strong argument against the argument which
has been raised — that a man’s labour is better for 48 hours and that he will in-
crease the production very much, and work better than if he were working at
54 hours.’
That is evidence given at the conference between the Federated Engineering Em-
ployers and the Joint Committee of Affiliated Trade Unions.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Have you selected any expressions from representatives of the union? — A.
I guess they will be able to give their evidence when they are up here.
By the Chairman:
Q. Mr. Smith means, in connection with this conference? — A. No, I have not.
"4— 17*
260
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Smith:
Q. You have read the extract from the employers’ side of that report; I just
asked if you had looked over the statements of the union representatives? — A. No, I
did noSt go through the whole book. It is a pretty large amount of reading to go
through.
By the Chairman:
Qi. This seems a valuable publication; it is curious that it does not show where
it is gotten up? — A. I think it was only printed privately for the benefit of the two
bodies that met.
Mr. Smith.' — What they do in England is to get together and subscribe for the
printing of those conference notes, but they are not regularly printed.
The Witness. — I wish now to make a short reference to labour conditions in
Australia, Australia is the country of labour unions, and they practically run the
whole country, from the federal to the state parliaments, and therefore I should
imagine that something that occurs there would be of1 value to this present committee.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. What are you reading from ? — A. I am reading from a quotation signed by
John Foster Eraser, in the London Standard.
By the Chairman :
Q. Who is Foster Fraser? — A. He is one of their special editors. He is quoted
here on March 28, 1910.
Q. What paper is he quoted in? — A. It is quoted in the Montreal Gazette, and
this is what is stated here — this gentleman, Mr. John Foster Fraser, is entirely in
sympathy with labour unions, and therefore he writes from their standpoint and not
from the standpoint of a man who is writing on behalf of capital or employers.
Q. Is l»e a unionist himself? — A. He says so here. He states here at the end that
he is.
Q. Elitirely? — A. lie says: ‘I am personally in favour of trade unions.’
Q. You don’t know of him other than just from that extract? — A. No other,
than that he is the correspondent of the London Standard. This is what he says: —
“ The eight-hour day is operative throughout the Commonwealth, and both
employer and employed are liable to punishment if longer hours are worked. La-
bour governments come and go, but whoever is in power, the workingman’s vote
has to be nursed, and during the last ten years stacks of statutes have been passed.
Wages boards and arbitration courts have been set up; the eight -hour day some-
times means forty-eight hours a week, but as the workman wants to get away at
noon on Saturday it is often forty-four hours, and in some cases it is only forty-
two hours. Shops, except in Tasmania, come within the limitation of the hours plan,
even to small shops looked after by the proprietor and members of his family.
There is a provision in Victoria, however, that shops where there is not more than
one assistant, paid or not paid, shall be allowed to remain open for two hours a
day longer than other shops where more assistants are engaged. The law through-
out the Commonwealth is that all shops, save those I have just mentioned, close
at 6 o’clock each night on four days of the week, 10 o’clock on one day (in South
Australia it is 9 o’clock), and 1 o'clock in the afternoon one day, thus providing
a half-holiday. Accordingly, after 6 o’clock in the evening, scarcely a shop is to
be found open. Hotels and public houses are allowed to remain open much longer
—though no employees must work longer than eight hours — with the consequence
that a cynical friend was able to remark whilst we were strolling through the
Melbourne streets : ‘ You see, a poor woman cannot buy a loafi of bread after
6 o’clock, but her husband can buy drink up till 10 o’clock.’
MR. LATJER.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
261
APPENDIX No. 4
By the Chairman:
Q. That kind of quotation, I think, falls in the category Mr. Knowles had re-
ference to ; I mean to say, there is not much use in giving the committee expressions
that appear in a paper, that may be written by any one. If the views are views that
you entertain, you may give them as your own, but don’t give us any more extracts ? —
A. No, sir, I have no more extracts to give you.
Mr. Smith. — This man’s opinion is nothing to this committee.
The Chairman. — No, it is Mr. Lauer’s own opinion we want to get.
The Witness. — Now, I wish to refer more particularly to the question of an eight-
hour day as it has come under the cognizance of some of our own members. I have
one case where one of our members owns large quarries in New Brunswick and he told
me a short time ago, when I was discussing this question with him
Quarrymen — Shop Mechanics.
By the Chairman :
Q. What is his name? — A. Is it necessary to give names?
Q. I don’t see why you should object, unless there is some special reason. —
A. The name of this firm is William Hood & Sons.
Q. I think it is always desirable, when you get a statement, to give the name? —
A. I have r.o objection. The statement of William Hood & Sons is that the men
after working in their quarries for nine hours, in order to increase their revenue go
farming for another quarter or half a day longer — showing that there is no desire on
the part of the men to lessen their earning capacity. I have another case of a firm in
Montreal — Jackson & Co., carpenters, who employ 126 men. Mr. Jackson told me last
week that his shop mechanics are now working nine hours, and they have given notice
to leave him because they want to work ten hours to make more money, although he
is paying them 35 cents an hour — pretty good pay.
Q. Do you think we could get a couple of those men to give us evidence here? —
any one of those shop mechanics?
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Where does Mr. Jackson keep his shop? — A. Hibernia street, Point St.
Charles.
Mr. Smith. — I think I would take that address.
The Chairman. — I think if we could get a couple of those men here, it would be
a very good thing.
The Witness. — There is a man who claims as a fact, not as any theory at all,
that his men come to him and want longer hours.
The Chairman. — That is all important.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Did they go there as a body? — A. Those are shop mechanics, men who
look after his turning machines and lathes.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. They had no other ground for leaving him except the short hours?— A. No
other. They could not earn enough money. If you lived in Montreal you would
know that the living there is very expensive.
Q. You say that the complaint was not under-pay ?— A. No, sir, they were
getting full pay. Mr. Verville will tell you that 35 cents is all that they ask; they
never ask more.
Mr. Verville— They have been asking 30 cents for a good many years. .
The Witness.— This man paid 35. I have another case to show how this Act is
often evaded.
262
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Alberta Government Contract — Eight-hour Conditions.
By the Chairman:
Q. What Act is that? — -A. Where the government puts in a clause in a contract
that an eight-hour day must be complied with on all work in a particular job.
Q. Where do they do that?
By Mr. Smith:
Q. They don’t do that.— A. There is one particular case I have here in my mind
and I can’t give you the man’s name because it might prejudice him. but I can give
you the case and the work.
Q. Dominion government? — A. No. I am speaking of provincial government.
This is the government of Saskatchewan at Edmonton.
By the Chairman :
Q. And it is a condition in this contract? — A. Eight hours, yes.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. You mean Eegina, Saskatchewan, or Alberta? — A. No, Alberta. Edmonton
is the capital city of Alberta, isn’t it? It was my mistake.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. That is important; if they have a law to that effect we ought to have some
evidence? — A. I was only just going to show how this is evaded.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you know the text of the. Jaw? — A. No, sir, I have not seen the law
Q. Are you sure there is a law?— A. This gentleman did not tell me there is a
“T’ ™ T® ?aid thlS Pf^ular contract he had with the government in Alberta pro-
vided that those men should work eight hours.
Q. It is a condition in the contract?— A. It is a condition in the contract.
Q. You cannot say whether it is by virtue of any legislation or not?— A. I
could not say lie didn t show me the contract, but what he did tell me was this—
he is one of the largest employers of labour in the stone business— he told me that
teriTV Lm ShlftS °f Cight Ws each- 1 said, 1 How do you manage to
"f °l' “uat *e « very expensive job if a man can only work eight hours, and
ion he is laid off. He said. Oh, they have lots of means of evading the law.’
SaJ!w!f ie’ the emP1()yer evaded the law, but I am simply stating what
e told me— that those men evaded the law by going in under a second batch and
getting over-time that way.
Q. How could they do that without his evading it?— A. I suppose they called
themselves, something else in order to get in the second batch.
Q. If he knew that, he certainly was violating his contract. No wonder he did
not want to give his name?— A I am only saying that the men themselves do this,
.y evidence, if serious, is laughable m some ways, I admit. It is only to show you
that it is not theumversal desire on behalf of the men to limit themselves to eight
hours of work. When he has a chance of eight hours of work he is looking for more
because he wants more money.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Was that on the construction of the legislative buildings? — A I can’t tell
you ; I am not at liberty to say. ’ can r Tel1
MR. LA UER.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
263
APPENDIX No. 4 •
By the Chairman:
Q. Would you think that the employer had evaded the law? — A. I couldn’t say.
You can draw your own conclusions. He is a very able man.
Q. What do you think? — A. Well, I suppose he connived at it.
Q. I am sure he did, if what he told you was true. — A. That may be. It will
only show you that the men evade it when they can.
The Chairman. — I think it shows that the employer will evade it if he can.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Have we any very large stone employers in Montreal? — A. I think we have.
Q. Have they ever complained of the eight-hour day? — A. Hot to me. You mean
stonecutters.
Q. Yes. — A. No, sir.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Are stonecutters in your employ paid by the hour? — A. Yes.
Q. Have they ever applied to you to have their hours extended? — A. Not to me.
No, but then you must remember that where they work eight hours — this is the point
with this proposed legislation, one of the most debatable points to my mind
Q. But you have been trying to demonstrate to the committee that the men them-
selves wanted longer hours when they were paid by the hour ; now you employ men by
the hour and I ask you if your men applied for longer hours? — A. No, but allow me
to point this out, that because they work eight hours, that does not prevent them
working overtime. Now, if this Bill becomes an Act it would prevent overtime.
Further Eeasons for Opposing Bill.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you object to overtime? — A. What I say is this, that it is an interference
with a man’s personal liberty. If I work eight hours
Q. But in regard to the question asked by Mr. Smith, are we to understand that
if this Bill of Mr. Verville’s were so amended that overtime was permitted, you would
not have any objection to offer to the eight-hour feature of it? — A. Well, I would not
have the same objection that I have now, for the simple reason that you would not
then be limiting a man’s earning capacity, which you certainly are by that Bill as it
stands now.
Q. Your objection is chiefly to the man’s earning capacity ; is that what we are to
understand ? — A. Well, I contend that a man’s earning capacity is going to be very
seriously crippled by this legislation unless he can make it a blind for getting a larger
amount of pay.
Q. Do you feel equally strong about the employers’ profit-making capacity? — A.
You can’t show me very many wealthy builders. The men that have made money
in building are few and far between.
Q. You are representing the Employers’ Association? — A. Yes.
Q. But this morning you laid special emphasis on the wage-earners’ earning
capacity and have been arguing from that point of view. While we couldl expect to
get a good deal of evidence on that point from the workingmen themselves and their
organizations, I would like to ask you now with regard to the employers’ side of it—
whether you see an equal objection in the effect that the Bill would have on the pro-
fit-making of employers? — A. Well, it comes to this so far as the employers are con-
cerned: Who pays the bill in the end? It is you and I and the rest of us. If an
employer has to pay more for his time and material, and if we look at labour as a
commodity, I suppose it represents 40 per cent of the outlay, and if that commodity
is going to be increased in price either by lessening the hours or raising the rate,
which is the same thing, then the public are going to foot the bill ; we are all going to
264
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
pay for it. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, referring to your remark that I was parti-
cularly alluding to the wage-earner, after all it is upon the wage-earner that the great
bulk of such increase will fall. If the prices have risen, as we have reason to believe,
50 or 60 per cent, surely 50 per cent or 60 per cent of this increased cost is going to
fall on him indirectly.
Q. Let us see if we understand you correctly. You say your objection to the
measure is that it is going to limit the earning capacity of the working men, and
secondly, because the burdeni of it is going to fall on the community; but you do n;ot
,say anything about the effect it is going to have on the employer. Are we to judge
from that as an employers’ association you are perfectly indifferent from
the point of view of the profits which the employers themselves would be able to
make? — A. Well, I am indifferent, for this reason: That the employers, if they had
to charge more for their work, would naturally put it upton the public.
Q. That is the point we want to clearly understand. If I understand your evi-
dence aright, the employers as employers have no objection to offer to the measure? —
A. No, I won’t say that.
Q. They aie indifferent? — A. I wouldn’t say that. They do object to the mea-
sure and I have given you reasons just now.
Q. I am speaking of employers as employers, not objections that they have made
on behalf of labour or oni behalf of the general public; but looking at their self-
interest, you say they are indifferent to their own self-interest? — A. No, I don’t think
indifferent at all. I think the proper answer to that would be this: That if you are
going to establish an eight-hour day, or propose it, in any one particular trade, why
should that one trade be picked out? Why should it not be applied to every one?
Why should I work more than eight hours, or any one else? I think our employers
do object to the building trades being selected as the one trade which is to be affected
by this legislation.
Q. Do they object on the ground of their own self-interest, or on the ground of
how is it going to affect the public, or how it is going to affect the working classes?—
A. I think it affects their own self-interest to this extent, that if the cost of construc-
ion is going to be materially increased, it will militate against their self-interest,
because, they will have less to do ; people will be more reluctant to build or to put
money into such enterprises.
Q. That is the point of the employers’ self-interest. — A. It is really combined
in this case with the self-interest of the worker. I think the two are very closely
connected. I can t see that you can injure one without injuring the other.
Q. That may be; but the point we want to ascertain from you, as representing
the Employers’ Association is whether, in regard to their own self-interest — leaving
aside the working classes and humanity and all the rest of it— they are opposed to
this measure because it is going to affect them disadvantageous^? — A. Yes.
Q. They are, for that reason? — A. Yes, they are opposed to it.
Profit Making and Production Under Shorter Hours.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. Do you think that the employer would make as great a profit, or that any one
could not contract under the eight-hours a day law as he does at present?— A. Not if
this was a law limited omy to a certain section of work such as you prop’ose. You
say only government works and government sub-contracts.
Q. Still, you would think he would make the excess in his charge and take it out
of the poor taxpayer?— A. No, I don’t see how he could, because if he was doing
outside work, outside of government work, how could he keep the two things separ-
ate?
MR. LVUER,
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
265
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. How do you mean that it would come out of the taxpayer? — A. It would
all come out of the taxpayer at the end, certainly.
Q. If the employer does not make the excess in his charge, how is it going to
come out of the taxpayer? — A. It is going to give him less to spend.
Q. No; I am talking about any particular contract; how can it fall on the tax
payer so that he will pay an excessive price, and also fall on the contractor in the
way of taking away his profits?
By Mr. Smith:
Q. How can a reduction of hours — I mean paid by the hour — affect the cost of
production? — A. It raises it.
Q. A man who works ten hours at a certain rate per hour is reduced as to hours
but Joperates at the same rate per hour ; how would that raise the cost of production ?
— A. That is very easily answered. A man’s fixed charges continue. You take a
man who has got capital sunk in machinery and buildings and in plant and in office
work; he has got to go on paying his office staff, his draughtsmen, his interest on his
machinery which is not running; he is losing that extra hour or two hours on interest
on his investment.
A
Q. We were discussing the question of men being affected who were paid by the
hour; that would not be a loss to the contractor? — A. Yes, it would, because he is not
getting his work out of his machinery and out of his investment.
By the Chairman:
Q. Is not that the whole point of the objection of the employers to the shortening
of the hours, that it simply means you add to their fixed charges instead of you having
the labourers working for as long a period of time? That is the real objection and
that is practically the whole objection ?— A. I think so; I think it is a very serious
objection.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. That might be met by re-arrangement of work ; if you could find other men to
follow the shift of eight hours the machinery might be used continuously? — A. But
if things are running smoothly, what object is there in dislocating them — pulling the
tree up by the roots To see how it is growing.
Mr. Smith. — That is the old objection to every reform —
The committee adjourned at 1.40 p.m. until 3.20 p.m.
Boom 34, House op Commons,
April 6, 1910.
The committee met at 3.20 p.m., the Chairman, Hon. Mr. King, presiding.
Climatic Conditions and Labour.
Mr. John Herbert Lauer recalled, continued his testimony as follows: —
The Witness.- — If you will permit me, I shall just cover a few points. I would like
very much to have time to hear Mr. Nesbitt who is a practical man, and who has to
catch the 4.40 train, so I will not detain him. In order to resume, in very short
and few words what I have tried to state from my own conviction, speaking on behalf
of the trades I represent, I would like to say, that climatic conditions in Canada are
not yet in such a condition as to warrant the compulsory enforcement of an eight-hour
266
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Bill. With reference to the trades I speak for, we feel confident that the climatic
conditions in Canada are such that great loss would ensue to the contractors at large,
and the builders and building public in particular. Houses which are only partially
closed in for the winter could not be completed and any one acquainted with builders
knows that in the climate we have in the province of Quebec, such a house would
become almost a wreck during the winter season, therefore, great loss would entail
upon the contractor who had charge of the building, and upon the public for whom he
was building. Furthermore, in connection with contracts that are built on time
(and nearly every contract has a penalty clause in it to-day) I think I am quite just
and fair in stating that with a compulsory eight-hour Bill the contractors would be
placed at a great disadvantage. Furthermore, I wish to say in conclusion with
reference to the general question, that employers of labour are just as much interested
as employees in having a contented and happy condition to work under, and if the
men in business saw that better results could be obtained by a shorter day, I am quite
sure they would of their own accord be only too willing to introduce shorter hours
from a selfish interest, even if from no higher interest, and a compulsory enactment
of the character imposed is quite unnecessary, because climatic conditions in the
country would bring it about without any compulsion whatever. In fact, where cer-
tain trades have been shortened to nine hours, this has been brought about without
any legislative enactment, and if it can be conclusively shown that in eight hours we
can get as much work done and that the men are earning as much, I am sure that the
contractors in the building trades would be just as willing as any member here present
to see an eight-hour Bill. As I pointed out previously where they have fixed
charges which create the same result, whether the men are working or not, we feel that
those fixed charges would entail a very serious loss to the employers; and I cannot do
better than to conclude with a few words that I note in the last issue of the Labour
Gazette, in which the Chairman, Mr. King, in introducing the Anti-Combines Bill,
made this statement : —
“ The somewhat lengthy title of this Bill may help to explain its scope and
purpose. The short title is the Combinations’ Investigation Act. As human in-
genuity has devised a great many forms of combination for the purpose of affect-
ing an increase in prices, or restriction in competition, an effort has been made in
this measure to give a definition of the word ‘ combine ’ sufficiently comprehensive
to embrace all forms of combination, which may have this effect, and in par-
ticular to make it clear that this measure shall have reference to all forms of
combination, as are popularly known as monopolies, trusts, mergers and
combines. This legislation differs in some particulars from legislation
of a like nature, which has been introduced in some other countries in that it
is not aimed against combines or mergers as such, but rather against the exercise
of combines, mergers or monopolies, in an unfair manner, of the powers which
they may get from that form of organization. This is an age of organization
and not merely of local or national competition, but of world-wide competition and
any industry or any nation which wishes to hold its own in the field of com-
petition must do much in the way of perfecting organization. A highly organized
industry should, from the faculties it has of improving production, lead to greater
efficiency and economies of one kind and another, which should, on the whole
benefit the consuming public, but, we know that in other countries, and possibly
also in this country, organizations have not always used their corporate powers
primarily to the advantage of the consumers, but have taken, in some cases,
possibly, an unfair advantage to themselves. This measure seeks to afford means
of conserving to the public some of the benefits which arise from large organiz-
ations of capital for the purpose of business and commerce. It is organized
society which alone makes the organization of capital and industry possible, and
the people have a right to expect and to look to the government to see that their
MR. LATTER.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
267
APPENDIX No. 4
rights shall be conserved and that their liberties shall not be curtailed by privi
leges which they permit others to enjoy.”
and 1 Td feel h,nr Tv, I + 1 C°1'1;! 3( d would add t0 the str<?ngth of that remark,
« I feel. sure that to. my thinking, I have established the point that nine
ours a day m the open air is not against the physical resources of the human frame
to stand that there is no hardship endured and no complaint ever made that I am
aware of m the building trade for which I am here speaking, that nine hours has been
found too much for human endurance, and under those conditions I submit that this
legislation is uncalled for and inimical to the best interests of the community
By Mr. Smith:
. . Q‘ H°W hns have y°u beea in this country f-A. I have been in this country
sixteen years. J
Q. Have you any connection with any private contracting firms? — A No sir
my duties are entirely m connection with the association.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. In the opinions that you have expressed regarding the length of time to work
were you considering this Bill as a general Bill applying to all work, or just as bein-
restricted to government work?-A. I made this statement in the beginning that if
this Bill were restricted to one particular trade, it would not stop, but would even-
tually affect all trades. H I was a contractor with a job on one side of the road with
certain conditions, I could not make any difference on the other side of the road
Q. You make no difference whether this is restricted to government work or not?
A. No, sir, take the city of Montreal, if they pay a certain rate of wages to their
ordinary day labourers, say at the present time about 20 cents an hour, I believe it
would be impossible for building contractors to get those same labourers for 174 or
18 cents an hour; if the city was working men for eight hours a day, we certainlv
could not get them to work for a private contractor nine hours a day, therefore, the
-Dill would affect the whole community in the end.
Q. Ultimately?
The Chairman:
Q. Just one or two questions: You spoke about the disadvantage the employer
would be under in consequence of the penalty clause attached to their contracts re-
quiring work to be finished at a particular time. That would be a strong reason why
it this law went into effect, provision should be made that it should not apply to ex-
isting contracts, or contracts already entered into, but would it be of any force as
respects contracts, which might be subsequently entered into on the understanding
there should be an eight-hour day?— A. 1 think it would for this reason— you take a
great class of building that goes on in Montreal and Toronto. The plans come out
of the architects’ ofllces late in the year. If you could get contracts fixed and awarded
in the first part of April, it is quite possible you could get through the work before
the snow flies, but with most of the architects the work comes out late in the vear
and practically the bulk of the work is not ready to be commenced until, at the very
earliest, late in July; we see it on time work also. You have to remember the
large bulk of the work is of the investment class on the part of proprietors who wish
to rent houses for fall occupation. There is great anxiety to have these houses ready
for the 1st of October. If these houses are not built up and completed by that time,
they practically lose half a year’s rental.
Q. It is because of these climatic conditions that this time limit would be an
important consideration ?— A. I think that is the most important objection I have
against the Bill, speaking from our standpoint.
268
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. That would not apply, speaking of British Columbia where they build the
■whole year round? — A. It would not apply, much in the west, I should say, where
the climate is milder, but in this country and in the northernmost points of the
Northwest and in Quebec, these conditions would certainly apply.
Q. There are localities in this country where the building trades are working
practically only eight hours a day at the present time? — A. I belieye in British
Columbia.
Q. That being so, have the arguments you have urged any force, as respects
building in those localities? — A. In British Columbia you must remember the cli-
mate is different. Nearly all the structures are wooden structures. There is not
nearly the same time required to build them as in Montreal where the buildings are
very solid.
Q. Are we to understand that you base your objection not so much on the eight-
hour principle as its application under certain climatic conditions? — A. I understand
it is against the climatic conditions of Montreal, and I think there is a direct mone-
tary loss where people have investments in machinery and power and, where that
power has stopped running an hour a day, the loss is correspondingly larger.
Q. Would you be prepared to admit that this law, if it went into effect might
not affect adversely the building trades in certain localities, although it might affect
them adversely in other localities? — A. I can only speak of the districts I know of.
, By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Practically in Toronto we have an eight-hour day in the building trades, and
we have not, found the effect to be as the witness states? — A. Don’t you find a cor-
responding rise in cost ?
Mr. Macdonell. — No.
Q. Pardon me saying it, but the rate of wages is very much higher in Toronto
than in Quebec.
By the Chairman:
Q. The hours are shorter? — A. Certainly if the man can only work eight hours
he wants more for his eight hours than nine.
Q. No, it has not been found so. — A. Take the trade the honourable member for
Maisonneuve represents, the plumbers, I know the plumbers in Toronto are getting
7 1 or 10 cents an hour more than in Montreal.
#
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. You were speaking of the serious consequences that would ensue providing
the building trade was on the basis of an eight -hour day service or work? — A. Yes.
Q. That condition prevails to-day in Toronto; as a general statement that is
true. How do you make your argument agree with that. The conditions there are
not as you predict they would be? — A. I think Toronto bears out a good deal what
I say. The climate is not so severe as it is in Quebec, and the difference between
an hour shorter which you claim they work there, is reflected in the higher cost they
pay for the labour for that shorter day.
Q. Do you think it would follow if shorter hours obtained in your province
that the wages would likely rise too? — A. Certainly, the man is not going to live for
any lesis mofney. How can a man live; if he has a hard struggle to live on a nine
hour wage he certainly cannot live on the eight-hour wage.
Q. The shortening of the hours would not affect adversely the earning of the
man? — A. It might not; it depends how much would be invested in building under
those conditions.
MR. I, A HER .
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURIS OF LABOUR
269
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Do I understand you to say that the Builders’ Exchange of Montreal are
■anxious to protect the men by preventing the passage of that law, or is it their own
protection they are after? I have heard you say time and time again that they cannot
earn enough money and that they cannot live on certain wages, &c. Is it the intention
to protect the labouring classes or to protect themselves? — A. I take it if there was
a general demand for this shorter day that you are speaking of that the demand
would make itself heard and apparent.
Q. \ou have also istated in your remarks that legislation was not pressed
by the labouring people very much, that is to say, you had not seen anything in the
papers?— A. We had not heard of it, sir.
Q. I hat is to say because you have not seen it in the papers, it has not
been pressed? — A. In various notifications we received from different branches of
organized unions this year, up to a recent time, we have had no question made of any
number of hours. It has not been put forward at all.
Q. Is that the reason they would not be in favour of this matter? — A. It strikes
me if they were anxious to get it, they would make it one of their demands.
Q. What business would they have to ask that as a demand of the Builders’ Ex-
change?—A. They don’t ask it of the Builders’ Exchange, but they notify us as, a
matter of courtesy when they notify all the employers.
By the Chairman:
Q. What you said had to do largely with the question of the application of a
measure of this kind to work generally. If you were to restrict it to government
contracts alone would the objections you have urged be as strong as if the Bill were
limited to that extent? — A. I think the restriction of this proposed enactment to
government buildings would make the confusion worse.
Q. Do you think it woidd be better to make it applicable to all buildings whether
government buildings or not? — A. I certainly do, if there is any change made in the
law, I would make it apply to every one not only in building trades, but let it apply
to every industry.
Q. Yon would be inclined to have it apply to building generally rather than to
buildings the government were erecting. You would rather have the wider applica-
tion than the narrower? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Is the Builders’ Exchange of Montreal against organized labour? — A. I don’t
know what you mean by ‘ against.’ We know perfectly well that organized labour
is a factor in the community and in many ways it is a beneficial factor, but that does
not mean to say that we cannot agree to certain things which are promoted by
organized labour.
Q. I suppose that is vice versa ? — A. Yes.
Q. Would you have any objection to the men organizing in the trades you repre-
sent?— A. We do not object, provided they do not force certain objectionable features
of their organization upon us. We claim they have the right to ask certain things, but
that does not say they are going to get all they ask.
Witness discharged.
Mr. Edward Theodore Nesbitt called as a witness, sworn and examined.
By the Chairman:
Q. Whom do you represent here to-day? — A. I represent the Canadian National
Association of Builders, of which I am president, and also the Builders’ Exchange of
Quebec.
270
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Is that a separate body from the one in Montreal? — A. It is affiliated with
the National Builders’ body.
Q. I he Canadian National Association of Builders? — A. Yes.
Q. That is the one of which Mr. Lauer is secretary? — A. Yes.
Q. It is an association composed of about eight individual associations? — A.
Yes, sir.
Q. lie represents the Montreal one and you represent the Quebec Builders’
Association ?— A. I am president of both concerns, and he is secretary of both. It
takes in the whole country.
Q. You have not any cities in the west further than Winnipeg?— A. Not further
than Winnipeg. We are taking steps now to organize other cities.
Q. Have you looked over this Bill? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What have you to say about it ? — A. In the first place I would like to show
you a copy of a resolution adopted unanimously at a meeting held for the purpose —
That Quebec Builders’ Association, I might say, goes under a French name. I will
read this resolution; it is in French.
Copie d une resolution adoptee unanimement a une assemblee, convoquee
specialement a cette fin, par l’Association das Constructeurs de Quebec, tenue
le 21 mars courant, a 5 heures p.m.
Propose par Chevalier J . E. Martineau, seconde par Emile Cote.
Que Monsieur E. T. Nesbitt, President de L’Association soit charge, d’aller
representer 1 Association des Constructeurs de Quebec et de protester, en son
nom, contre 1 adoption du projet de Loi concernant les huit heures de travail, qui
sera discute a Ottawa, mardi le 23 mars courant a 11 heures a.m. devant le comite
de la chambre des communes, nomme pour etudier ce pro jet de Loi, (Quebec, le
22 mars, 1910.)
Certifie vraie copie des minutes de l’assemblee du 21 mars courant (1910.).
(Signe) J. Geo. Lefaivre,
Secretaire.
This is a resolution authorizing me to represent the Builders’ Exchange of
Quebec, at this meeting, and to protest against the Bill in their name.
Q. How many employers does that association represent? — A. We represent 66
employers.
Q. What proportion of the employers of Quebec is that? — A. I would venture to
say it takes in all the principal ones, and that would mean about 80 per cent of the
employers in numbers.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Of the city of Quebec? — A. Yes.
By the Chairman :
Q. What have you to say on behalf of this 80 per cent? Do you think this other
20 per cent would agree with you?— A. I have no reason to doubt that they would. To
begin with, the difficulties that I see!- — speaking for myself and speaking from
my experience is that the petition is made in that Bill for only government con-
tractors, men employed under government contracts. Now, for instance, take my own
position, I am a general contractor doing contract work, sub-contracts of the
government contractors to make windows, sashes, doors, blinds, supply them with
lumber, &c. According to the provisions of this Bill I note that the men
working on such sub-contracts would have to work eight hours a day or else would
be subject to a fine.
ME. NESBITT.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
271
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. If you knock out tke sub-contract fellows would that end your objection to
the measure? A. No, it would not, decidedly not. To further explain, I might have
men working on one side of the bench to make a window and a door for a contractor,
and others on the other side. You see the difficulties we would be under on that
point.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. What hours do your men work? — A. Carpenters and joiners work ten hours.
Q. What wages do they get? — A. Twenty cents an hour. It depends on their
ability.
By the Chairman:
Q. I understood Mr. Lauer to say that all the employees represented or engaged
by the National Association worked only nine hours ? — A. I am talking of only fac-
tory work, preparing door sashes, planing lumber and sawing it and getting it ready
for the builder on the buildings themselves.
Q. Does that include bricklayers? — A. No, the bricklayers and masons work nine
hours a day. The carpenters work ten.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Your friend, in his evidence, said the stone masons worked nine hours a day ?
— A. Stone cutters, not masons.
Hours — Winter and Summer.
By the Chairman:
Q. I thought he said all labour employed by the employers who are members of
this association, worked nine hours a day ? — A. I think he got mixed up. He was
talking for Montreal. Now, another point I would like to make, leaving out the
question as to whether it is to be applied to government work or not. You were talk-
ing of the difference between eight and ten hours. I am speaking from knowledge and
experience. We work in our town eight hours a day in winter ; we cannot work
any more because it is too dark. We have some good sensible workmen, and when the
days become longer at the end of January, they do not like to work longer, be-
cause it is too cold outside. As soon as the weather conditions change they immed-
iately clamoured for a longer day’s work. The custom down in Quebec is that we
work eight hours from 1st November, ‘ La Toussaint,,’ ‘ All Saints day,’ until Easter
week. As you know Easter came very early this year. Last year it was very late.
This year there was not a word. As soon as Easter Monday came, we started working
ten hours a day and everybody was satisfied and happy and were glad, but last year,
about Easter, my men came to me and asked me why I did not commence working ten
hours a day. They said they had been working long enough at eight hours a day, and
having worked little enough all winter, they clamoured for it. I said business was not
yery good and you had better wait a little for it. I said we had always waited for
Easter week in other years. They said, ‘ well, the weather its fine, why don’t we do it.
Other shops are doing it?’
By Mr. Verville:
' Q. Is it because they are anxious to work the ten hours or that they are anxious
to get the money? — A. Anxious to get the money. I want to give you another ex-
tperience of mine. About two years ago my joiners came to me one morning and said
they could not work under the old conditions. I asked them what was the matter.
The first thing they asked for was to have their wages increased from 17 to 20 cents
an hour. I immediately acquiesced. I said, ‘ Yes, go back to work.’ One man pull-
ed out a paper, the spokesman for the crowd, and said, ‘ We want to work nine hours
272
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
a clay.’ I said, ‘ That is too bad.’ Climatic conditions are such, we have to work eight
hours a day in winter. Now you want to work nine hours a day, and how are you
going to benefit? You are getting 20 cents an hour for nine hours, and before you
were getting 17j cents for ten hours.’ What was the object? The object was they
were going to have one hour more to devote to their family1. I said, ‘ Don’t you think
it would be showing more devotion to your family to bring home $1.20 more to your
family than sitting on the doorstep?’
By the Chairman:
Q. Is that your point of view? — A. Judging from the amount of wages they re-
ceive.
Q. Would that apply equally if the hours were longer and a man did not see
anything of his family? Supposing a man working ten hours a day, he has to have
eight hours sleep, and there are twenty-four hours in the day, it leaves six hours, all
the time he has in his home. Supposing you add the two hours reducing it to four,
do you think a man would be doing much by his family? — A. You could argue on
that all day long, but the point I am trying to make is this, that it was a means of
increasing the wages. It stood to reason that no man was going to sacrifice 20 cents
a day, for these very men clamoured for work. When I send them out to the country
to put up buildings, outside, those men ask me when they leave my shop if they could
work over-time while they were cut there, that is one of the first things they ask.
Q. They are away from their families then; they want to get back to their fami-
lies as fast as they Can.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. They are anxi'ous to get back to their families? — A. They are anxious to get
away from them, if you want my experience of it.
Q. Of course, I can take your experience, but I cannot take the working man’s
experience.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you say that applies to working men generally, that they are anxious
to get away from their families ? — A. After the winter is over they want to get away
from town to work ; they are buried in a little blouse all winter.
Q. Is that anxiety to get away from their families, or anxiety to get work? — A.
I have men in my joiner shop working and those men come to me when they know
there is a building going up, they come to me and beg of me to let them go.
By Mr. Browse:
Q. Are you a married man?- — A. Yes. The object of these men is to make more
money. But the main point remains that they do not want their hours of work cur-
tailed. They want them increased, and their anxiety in the spring of the year is to
be changed off fr'om eight to ten hours.
Output— Winter and Summer.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Do you find any material difference in the output of the work during the
winter eight hours and the summer ten hours? — A. Yes, sir, very much so.
Q. How much? — A. I have a planing mill and a sash and door and box factory,
making mouldings and all that kind of thing. My books are there to show that when
I am working eight hours a day in winter time, that my mill plant does not show
any profit at all. Of course, the men work eight hours and get eight hours’ pay,
but remember, my fixed charges are such— I have about $13,000 worth of
machinery, the interest has to be paid on that, wear and tear; the insurance is very
high; it costs 8 per cent to insure.
MR. NESBITT.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
273
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Is there as much difference as the difference between the two sets of hours ? —
A. Yes.
By the Chairman :
Q. Do you say you don’t make any profit at all? Why don’t you close up? — A.
I might ask you folks why you don’t go home after the session. I have to keep going
and I cannot close up. I say my mill plant shows no profit during that time. I do
not talk at out the building business, or the lumber business. I am talking ab-out the
machinery itself.
Q. What about the business as a whole? — A. The business as a whole shows a
profit for the year. Certainly, I see that it does. I keep my books separate, and my
mill plant is earning no money at all. Anybody does that. I find I have to have the
machinery, yet I can only make that machinery pay, say, during the four months in
the year that we are down to eight hours. During four months in the year that
machinery does not make any money. During the other eight months it does.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Do you make anything off the labour you employ on the machinery? — A. The
labourers have to be paid the same, but the machinery and the two extra hours repre-
sent a profit. It takes eight hours a day to run the machinery and the two extra
hours show profit. It does not make any difference with the men, because they are
getting their eight hours’ pay and they are doing eight hours’ work. They are always
clamouring for overtime. They are courting favour with my yard men to see who will
work overtime.
Q. They are always clamouring for overtime? — A. Those men are all making
overtime. I can show you in my little yard there, among each other they are court-
ing favour with my yard men to see who can work overtime.
Overtime — Skilled Labour.
By the Chairman :
Q. Do you give them extra for overtime? — A. Yes.
Q. How much? — A. We give them five hours for three and a half after night.
They work from half past seven to ten and get five hours’ work.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Are they anxious to make that overtime for the pleasure of making hours ? —
A. No, they don’t work for fun. They are working for money.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. What hours’ work do you have on Saturday ? — A. Hy men get a quarter of an
hour every day. They commence at a quarter to one every day and knock off at half
past four on Saturdays. We tried to work it to get off at one o’clock on Saturdays,
two or three of us tried it down in Quebec, but we couldn’t work it. It meant a
loss of two or three hours a week and they wouldn’t do it, they wouldn’t lose it.
Now, there is another very, very important item. In this country we are short of
skilled labour. There is nobody knows it better than the carpenter. We are very
short of skilled labour, owing to the peculiar conditions that exist. We have no real
system of apprenticeship, and the number of our joiners and carpenters is very limited.
Now, if you adopt the eight -hour day you immediately increase the demand by 20%.
It will take five men to do the work of four. Now, in connection with that I find also,
in reading, if my memory serves me right, that the government have been compelled
by the labour element to restrict the emigration of skilled labour from Europe or
England. I don’t think I can be contradicted on that point.
4—18
274
COMMITTEE RE BILL i\ o. zi — auums ur nacut/ii
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By the Chairman:
Q. You are quite right in that? — A. In view of those two facts — that skilled
labour is limited —
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. How do you make out that skilled labour is limited? When you are employing
joiners at 17£ cents an hour. Surely there must have been a very great quantity of
labour?— A. I am speaking of Quebec. Wages are lower all round in Quebec.
Q. But even with that? — A. I want to tell you this, that the skilled joiner in
Quebec gets good fair wages. I am paying joiners as much as $3.50 a day down
there.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. How many of them are you paying? — A. I am only paying one but he is a good
cracker- jack of a man.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. I understood you to say that you increased the wages from 17J to 20 cents an
hour? — A. Yes.
Q. It didn’t strike me that there could be any great scarcity of labour ? — A. There
was no scarcity of labour, but there was a tremendous scarcity of skilled labour, and
the price will give you an idea of how scarce it was because real good men we were
paying $2.50 and $2.75.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You really" manage to do all your work with the mechanics you have there
now? — A. Yes, and my hair is getting gray over it, too. You go and ask any architect
down there; summon some architect and ask him what kind of labour we have. I
tell you we haven’t one man in twenty — and I know what I am talking about— that is
really skilled, that you could put a piece of work in his hands and know that he will
do it without some one superintending. I have a joiner shop of twenty men. I have
my foreman, and I won’t let him do anything else but go from one bench to the other
and see that it is done.
Q. What brought that condition? — A. It is want of apprentices. We have no
system of apprenticeship.
By the Chairman:
Q. Want of technical training? — A. Technical training.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Whose fault is that?— A. It is a condition that exists. I don’t know if you
can attribute it to the labour union, or to the age we live in. You take the children,
for instance the boys of those men, those joiners. Usually the boy follows his father’s
trade, as a rule. Well, those men have no control over the boys now-a-days. Remem-
ber, we are in the twentieth century. Just as soon as a boy can earn two or three
dollars a week he has got a suit of clothes out of the Fashion Craft or ready-made
clothing shop, and a cigarette, and he stands at the street corner; his father loses
control over him altogether. He goes out to the little cheap moving-picture show and
he considers that he is the whole push, and listens to nobody. You can’t, bind that
boy to an apprenticeship. I have had them in my shop.
By the Chairman:
Q. That is getting a little way from the Bill? — A. I want to give you the reason
why we are short of labour, short of skilled labour. That is one of the conditions.
HE. NESBITT.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
275
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. VerviUe:
■ ?' a^°-vt°U ®xp€ct *hat 17^ cents is an ambition for any man to become a mech-
anic .—A. No, sir, certainly it is not. Those men have men on the other side of the
bene i working for $2.50 a day. Why don’t they qualify to get the same wages as
that man. Give them a system of apprenticeship and let them qualify.
. Have you n®v?r done anything? Were you ever asked by the Trades Union
m any way to establish a system of apprenticeship ?— A. No, sir, not to mv know-
ledge, never was.
Q. You say you are short of skilled labour; for how many months? — A. Twelve
months.
Q- Then 1 suppose there is nobody idle at all in your city during the year?— A.
Well, I might say, in a great number of cases, if not altogether, because in winter
or in the fall of the year, or when work diminishes, we fire out the culls, we don’t fire
out the best men.
Q. But in case of the demand of the men for higher wages, those men that you
classify as rubbish or no good are always good enough to replace a mechanic * — A
What can we do when we can’t get what we want? We have to take what we can get.
Q. lou are responsible for creating those men that are good mechanics ?— A.
How do you mean responsible? The work has to be done, and if we can’t get it done
by one man we must get two to do it, and the foreman must devote practically all
his time to those men. We pair off a good man with that man ami try t'o get the
work done m that way. We take a man who is very good inside, to build sashes and
doors, and so on, then take another rough man for the rough work.
Q. But is not the rpugh man just as valuable to you as the man that does fine
work m the shop? A. Certainly, in that particular sphere we must have them. The
house can’t go up alone; we must have one in the shop and the other one on the
building.
Q. Then if they are classified properly, one is worth as much as the other?— A
No, he is not doing such important work, because the man in the shjop at the bench
is making sash and frame, which have got to be accurately put together, while the other
man has simply to take it out and put it on the wall and plumb it.
Q. Suppose you took the man that was used to do the fine work and put him out-
side, would you derive as much benefit?— A. I would derive more. The man knows
what to do, and he goes about it in a proper way.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Have any trades unions objected to any system of apprenticeship? A I
never went into it thoroughly, but they do restrict them to a certain number of men.
Q. Have they done so with you?— A. No, because we never recognized them Our
Builders’ Exchange won’t recognize the unions in any shape or form we will not
treat with them.
Union Labour — Objection.
By the Chairman:
Q. Why is that ? — A. Because we treat with our men individually.
. Q- What is the difference ?— A. Because they come along with all those condi-
tions. They come along with all kinds of conditions. They wanted me to sian a
contract one day.
Q. What is the objection to that?— A. Signing a contract? Well, if you had
seen the conditions of it you would know. I was to allow a delegate, or somebody, a
walking boss, to come into my shop every day and walk around. I can’t see what
business I bad to allow a man to come in.
4— 18*
-276
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. If the terms of the contract were all right have you any objection to signing
a contract? — A. Yes, I have. Until those men have something t,o fall back upon
their organization. Let them be incorporated, and then let them have something that
we can seize upon. What is the use of my going into a contract to build a house for
you if I have nothing to fall back upon? When you are going to build a house you
are going to look for a responsible man. If he signs a contract you will see that
there is something behind it to fulfil it.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Have you ever had, in your city, anybody enter into a contract of any kind
with a trades’ union?- — A. Not that I know of.
Q. You never did? — A. Not that I know of. I don’t say we never did.
Q. I suppose you are aware it was done in other cities? — A. Not personally aware
of it. I have heard of agreements made about wages and one thing and another with
men, but I never have, not from personal knowledge.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you think all employers in your organization take your point of view, on
account of this disability of not entering into a contract with labour? — A. Yes, sir.
We have isixty-six members in our organization, and when the carpenters threatened
to strike years ago, every carpenter, every buiiding contractor on our membership
list signed an agreement not to recognize them.
Q. But apart from your association, do you think employers generally take that
point of view — that it is not advisable to enter into a contract if they can get a con-
tract with them? — A. I could not speak for others.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Is it just a mutual agreement — that those men sign an agreement with your
association that they will abide by the association? Just a mutual agreement of their
own free will? — A. Our association? Yes, sir.
Q. You don’t impose a fine or anything on them at all? — A. We agreed among
ourselves that we would make a forfeit of a certain number of dollars in the event of
anybody breaking away from the agreement. It was the only way to get hold of it.
Q. Bind it by a -certain amount of money? — A. Yes.
Agreements — Operations — Hours — Wages.
By the Chairmart:
Q. Breaking away from what? — A. Breaking away from that condition, by the
bond that we entered into.
Q. Have you any condition as to the rate at which you can accept building offers
and contracts? — A. No, sir, perfectly free, absolutely free. We enter into competi-
tion between each other.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You have nobody in your association to revise prices or anything like that? —
A. Nothing whatever, nothing of the kind. I look at this — and I suppose a great
many in discussing it in our association look at it — from the point of view of higher
wages. Our opinion is that it is simply introducing the thin edge of the wedge. H
the government grant the eight-hour law, then conditions would be such that men will
be expected to work under it, and the man working across the street or across the
bench, as the case may be, will exact the same condition as the government. Then
it comes down to working it, and it means an increase of wages which has to be made
up, because of the cost of living, and everybody is complaining about the increased
cost of living. W^ ell, if you increase the cost of building houses by an eight-hour
day, down in our country it means 20 per cent.
MR. NESBITT.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
277
APPENDIX No. 4
By the Chairman:
Q. But I think you said you are prepared to admit that in some parts of Canada
to-day they are working entirely on the eight-hour basis in the building trades? —
A. I heard Mr. Lauer say so.
Q. Do you know yourself that they are? — A. No, sir.
Q. I can tell you, from the evidence we have had here that they are working on
an eight-hour basis? — A. That is the reason for their complaints about the high
cost of living. It reacts on the men themselves.
Q., It may be one of the reasons? — A. Labour enters into the whole of the cost
of the house. ,
Q. The fact that you are not aware that men are working on an eight-hour basis
in other parts of Canada when they actually are so working, would go to show pretty
conclusively that the eight-hour day does not necessarily injure other parts of the
Dominion? — A. I am not prepared to admit that. You say they are working eight
hours a day in Toronto, I understood you to say?
Mr. Macdonell. — Yes.
The Witness. — How much are they getting an hour?
Mr. Macdonell. — $3.50 a day.
The Witness. — That is a great deal higher than we are paying down there.
By the Chairman:
Q. Still, that has not affected you adversely, because you did not know they
were working eight hours a day? — A. Our men are getting $2.50 for ten hours. Well,,
if you want them to work eight hours per day it will be equivalent to the increase ta
$3.50, won’t it?
Q. But the fact is that you have an eight-hour day in some parts of Canada to-
day and it does not affect you adversely. Now, if you had an eight-hour clausd
applicable to certain contracts, would it affect adversely other contracts? — A. Yes,
certainly; it decidedly will.
Buildings — Building Trades.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Would your opinion be that it will affect the building trade? — A. The build-
ing trade throughout.
Q. Take Toronto; I may tell you that the building trades there are on an eight-
hour basis almost entirely; they are all working eight hours, and yet there is more
building going on in Toronto to-day than in any other city in Canada — a very much
greater amount of building in value, than in Montreal or any other city in Canada.
Now, how does that square with your opinion? — A. You can hardly compare con-
ditions in Toronto and in Quebec. There is no comparison to be made. Toronto is
growing; there is a new element coming in there all the time with money, and they
want a house and they must have it. Down in our end of the country there is no
such thing.
By the Chairman :
Q. Is not Montreal growing? — A. No.
Q. Is not Quebec city growing? — A. No.
Q. When did it stop ?— A. Oh, a long time ago.
By Mr. Yerville:
Q. I suppose you are proprietor of a good many buildings that jou are renting
in Quebec? — A. No, I am proprietor of two houses.
Q. Those who are proprietors of houses are basing the rent of their houses on
the cost, I suppose, according to present conditions? — A. Yes.
278
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Now, the houses that were built about twenty or twenty- five years ago,
have also increased in rent in proportion to the rent of new buildings at the present
time? — A. No, they have not, because the demand is for modem buildings to day,
and the old buildings in Quebec are simply old shacks, tumble-down.
By the Chairman :
Q. They have new buildings? — A. Yes, they have very many new buildings.
Q. Then it must be growing? — A. It is not growing. It is simply that people
are trying to live in modern houses.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. At the same time you will acknowledge that houses are very scarce in Quebec,
and rents are as high as in Montreal? — A. I would not like to contradict you, but I
could drive you through parts of Quebec, and you know our renting season is the 1st
of lebruary, and we have overdone the building. I can show you whole rows of houses
to rent.
Q. They have houses to rent in Montreal, but they are building more?- — A. That
f oes not say. that there are none idle in Quebec. Remember, there is a reason for
Montreal building tenements. The inhabitants there are increasing at the rate of
20,000 a y ear, or perhaps more. It is only a question of a few months before the
tenements will be filled, but in Quebec it is different; the only man that comes to
Quebec comes to get out again.
Q. I have, been in a good many houses in Quebec, and there are people living
t lore and paying, in proportion to the houses they occupy, a great deal more than
in Montreal?— A. lhat was last year. Rents are going down to-day. I can give
A°u proof of it. I can show you scores of houses to rent to-day.
/
Labour Conditions at Port of Quebec.
/
By the Chairman:
Q. Have you other objections to offer to this Bill— any other points?— A. There
is no greater illustration of the ill effects of the eight-hour day than the port of
Quebec to-day. I don’t think you have got a better illustration of the harm that an
eight-hour Bill would do to any community.
Q- Why* A. You take. the eight -hour law in the shipping business, for instance.
I was born and brought up in Quebec, and very much interested in shipping, because
my father was a ship-builder, and I was during the first years of my life naturally
very much interested in shipping. To-day the grass is growing on the wharfs down
there. You can’t get a steamship to stop at Quebec unless it is compelled to do so,
outside of the C.P.R.
Q. Is that due to eight hours? — A. Yes.
Q. I thought you said they worked ten and eleven hours in Quebec? — A. I am
talking of the ship labourers, the eight-hour day in that, because they were not
honest, they were not sincere. They worked eight hours and ten hours, and twenty-
four hours a. day, but it was simply a means of getting an increase in wages after
four o’clock m the afternoon. Who ever heard of a ship coming into a port and only
working eight hours out of the twenty-four? In every port of the world they work
twenty-four hours a day.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. And is that the only reason
and I think I can get the Shipping
MR, NESBITT.
in Quebec now?— A. I say it is the only reason,
Federation in Montreal to say the same thing.
COMMITTEE RE RILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
279
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Smith:
Q. How was this eight-hour law brought about? — A. By the ship labourers
themselves, years ago. They did everything they could to drive the business away.
They commenced by refusing to allow steam winches to be used in ships. Then they
commenced by asking nine hours; then they got down to eight; then they imposed so
many conditions that they drove the ships away.
By the Chairman:
Q. Was that eight hours peculiar to Quebec? — A. Peculiar to Quebec. No other
port would tolerate it. — St. John, nor Halifax, nor Montreal.
Q. Suppose they had a universal law to say they would have to work eight hours;
would they suffer then? — A. Yes. The shipping business would suffer.
Q. Suppose it had been applicable to Montreal, St. John and all the rest of them;
was not the reason Quebec suffered because it was singled out? — A. It would have
the effect of driving the shipping away to foreign ports where they could work ten
and twelve hours.
Q. If eight hours had been made applicable by one general law to all the Cana-
dian ports, would not Quebec have been in a better position than it is? — A. No; I
claim it would have driven the shipping away from the St. Lawrence altogether. If
anything has held the shipping in Canada at all it is your open shop in Montreal,
and allowing them to work as long as they like at reasonable prices.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Were the shipbuilders paid by the hour at that time? — A. No, they used to
be paid by the day. During the shipbuilding days the carpenters very seldom got
much more than a dollar a day. There have been no ships built in Quebec, I venture
to say, since about 1873 or 1875.
Q. They were then wooden ships? — A. They were all wooden ships, yes. I
would like to further remark about that reducing the number of hours a day and in
the same breath asking the government to restrict the emigration of skilled labour
from Europe. What are we to understand by that? Is it that they want to make
labour so scarce that the demand will be such that the price will have to go up?
That is the only thing we can infer from it.
Employers" Objections to Bill Summarized.
By the Chairman:
Q. I think you are right? — A. Well, is that fair?
Q. I suppose it is fair for every man to try to get all he can as long as he takes
legitimate methods. It is just as fair for labour to do that as for employers to get
in a large supply of labour with a view to reducing rates? — A. It is not the quantity
so much as the quality that we are worrying about.
Q. Would you be as strongly opposed to this Bill if it were limited in its appli-
cation to government buildings only, public buildings, the actual work of construc-
tion of public buildings? — A. I would be. I would just oppose it as strongly, for
I represent an association among whom are a great many government contractors —
buildings, wharfs, canals, and work on canals, railroads and that kind of tiling —
and for instance you take wharf building as an example; it can on y be done in sum-
mer; there is no question about doing it in winter — I am talking about tide-water
wharfs — you can only do it in summer, and if you are restricted to eight hours a
day you can’t say, ‘ Pile on more men,’ for you can’t put more men than enough to
do the work. You can crowd the -wharf full of men, but they can’t work to advan-
tage; there are only a certain number of men that can work to advantage.
Q. Could you get over that difficulty by working' two eight -hour shifts ?- — A.
280
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
IIow could you do that? You would want to have sixteen hours of daylight; and
who is going to run the job? What foreman wants to get up at 4 o’clock in the
morning?
By Mr. Smith:
Q. I hat is done in thousands of industries? — A. It is done in coal mines where
it is pitch dark, but in wharf-building and such work as that, you have conditions
to deal with that you have not in any other line of business. You have got tides
and the wind to contend with, and if you were restricted as to hours, you couldn’t
do the work.
Q. Suppose you were limited to public buildings and did not say anything about
wharfs, would you have any objection to a measure of that kind?— the government
giving extra payment so as to make good the difference? — A. Well, if the country
would stand for it so as to pay the amount of extra cost.
Q. Would you be quite satisfied ? — A. 1 have nothing to say if the government
are willing to stand for the increased cost of everything.^
Q. I hat is what I am asking you for the moment; if the government were pre-
pared to. do it, would you have any objection to a Bill of that sort?— A. I would,
because it would reflect on all other conditions, on all other work. It would affect
all of us. We have it in Quebec to-day on the Marine and Fisheries wharf, where
they employ quite a number of carpenters, and lighthouses, and goodness knows what
all. All our best men have gone.
Q. Why ? — A. Because they are giving higher wages.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Y ou can’t blame them ? — A. I don’t blame them for getting better wages,
but it demoralizes you can’t get them to come hack. They have got an easy time;
they are going. to work for the government, and there seems to be a charm about it;
they can put in their time and get higher wages. You take bridge-building, for
instance, in the fall of the year on a railroad, if we are restricted to eight hours we
can t. pile on men as we would like to. There are a certain number of men to do
certain work. Never mind how many men you have on hand, you can’t put more than
enough to run it.
By the Chairman:
Q. In Australia they have a universal eight-hour day, haven’t they ?— A. I don’t
know.
Q. I hey have in some of the States there, and have to build bridges and rail-
roads and everything there. They seem to manage it?— A. I claim that the men,
l you lestrict them to eight hours a day, they will be like what I saw when I was
driving home the other night. I saw a little gasoline exhaust pipe sticking out of
a shed on a back street, and I went to see it. I says, ‘ What’s that ? ’ I found out it
was one of my joiners working there.. He had got a little gasoline engine and it was
puffing there and working there at eight or nine and ten o’clock at night, doing all
kinds of little work. lie had two more hours to spare.
Q. Was that because he was anxious to work several more hours? A. It was
not because he was anxious to work; it was to make more money.
Q. Your objection is to them having extra time on their hands; you want them to
do the work for the men by whom they are employed?— A. No, he can do as he like®
There are very many men. working ten hours a day, and they have extra time.
. Q. What was your objection to this man with the exhaust pipe?— A I have no
objection at all.
^ wo»ld be illdustrious they can do it still?— A. Yes, but according to
your Bill they can t do that.
MR. NESBITT.
COMMITTEE liE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
281
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Yes? — A. Then don’t let them say it is to improve their condition by working
eight hours a day, and tell us that working nine or ten hours is too much for a human
being, that we are overdoing it, since they knock off at four o’clock to go and work
more for themselves.
Mr. Smith. — But there are certain social responsibilities which every man has
to attend to.
Chairman. — A man may get tired laying bricks and find recreation in working
an exhaust pump. Thank you very much for your evidence.
Witness. — I don’t know that I can add anything more except to say that we are
opposed to it on account of the climatic conditions, for one reason, and the increased
cost of building and of living in general.
Chair m an. — I thank you. You and Mr. Lauer have given us very good evidence
as to the objections the employers have, and the reasons for their objections. We are
very much obliged to you for giving us that point of view.
Ontario Carpenters re Bill Mo. 21.
Mr. John Tweed, sworn and examined.
By the Chairman:
Q. What is your occupation? — A. Carpenter.
Q. Where do you live? — A. Toronto.
Q. Have you any connection with any labour organization in this country? — A.
Yes, sir.
Q. What labour organization? — A. Carpenters’ organization.
Q. Carpenters’ Union? — A. Yes.
Q. Have you any connection with the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress?
— A. Mot at present.
Q. Do you hold any office in connection with the Carpenters’ Union in Toronto?
— A. Not in Toronto, but I am general organizer for the carpenters in Ontario here.
Q. For the American Federation of Labour? — A. Mo, for the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners.
Q. Is that an international organization? — A. It is an international organization.
Q. Is it affiliated with. the American Federation of Labour? — A. Yes.
Q. Have you had an opportunity to look at this Bill which Mr. Yerville has in-
troduced?— A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with its provisions? — A. Yes, pretty well.
Q. Are you able to give this committee an idea how the carpenters, who are mem-
bers of the organization you have spoken of, are likely to view a measure of this kind ?
— A. They view it very favourably.
Q. What are the advantages they see in the Bill?. — A. Well, a reduction of the
hours of labour always creates a better condition for the workers, more recreation for
themselves, and a chance to educate themselves better. Another thing, by reducing
the hours of labour it takes competition away from the trade. When there is com-
petition it gives other people a chance that are looking for work and an opportunity
to get work.
Q. In a city like Toronto, would a measure of this kind have an effect upon the
labour there? — A. In what way?
Q. What hours do the carpenters work in Toronto?— A. Eight hours a day.
Q. If this measure became law would it affect Toronto at all? — A. Not at all.
Q. What advantage would it then be if it did not affect conditions in Toronto?
— A. Having an eight-hour day it would not affect them there, but it would
affect places outside of Toronto.
282
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Would that have any indirect effect on the condition of labour in Toronto?
—A. Yes.
Q. So it would have an indirect effect? — -A. It would have an indirect effect. I
thought you asked me so far as it applied to Toronto alone.
Q. Well, I did. To what extent does the eight-hour day prevail among the car-
penters in Canada? — A. Well, I think Toronto is the only place.
Q- Do you know anything about the west, about British Columbia? — A. No, not
much.
Q. You could not say as to that? — A. I could not say as to that.
Conditions Prevalent re Hours for Carpenters.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. IIow far does that association extend in Canada?1 — A. All over Canada.
Q. By what method did you get the eight-hour law in Toronto? — A. By our own
local conditions.
Q. Did you try to enforce the same conditions at other places? — A. We are try-
ing to.
Q. Have you tried to do so? — A. We have tried to do so.
Q. It is funny you should be able to get them in Toronto and could not get
them in Hamilton and other places close at hand?— A. We are trying to do so.
Q. You are keeping up the agitation in favour of extending the same principle
all over the unions ? A. Yes, most of the other places are working nine hours a day.
I hey are agitating to reduce from nine to eight. I say that in the city of Toronto
four-fifths of the employers would not go back to the nine, or ten-hour day in any
case. J J
By Mr. Verville:
Q. That is not only your opinion, it is the opinion of the employers that you
lear every day? A. It is the opinion of the employers themselves; they get better
results. The men are physically better qualified.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Do you think we could get any employers from Toronto to give evidence
to that effect? Would you recommend any employers in Toronto?— A. I could not
just say off-hand, but it is the general opinion there any way.
Q. That is very important evidence to get from the employers ?— A. Do you think
you could get anybody ? A. The men are qualified better physically to do a better
day’s work than they ever were at nine or ten hours.
Q. Do 5 ou think you could select any two carpenters in Toronto to give that
ei idence ? -A. I don t know that I could at the present moment.
By Mr. Stanfield:
How many months of the year are they building in Toronto? — A. Put that
question again.
Q. How many months of the year are they building in Toronto. How many
months do they work?— A. They work any where from nine to ten months in the
year.
Q. The climatic conditions are better there? — A. Yes.
Effect of Climatic Conditions.
By the Chairman:
Q. 1 ou heard the evidence given by the last witness? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you think the difference in the climatic conditions would have any affect
on the question of hours, or should have ?— A. No, I don’t think it ought to. ‘ Not to
any great extent.
ME. TWEED.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
283
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Do you think, when carpenters can only work eight months of the year, they
would be as desirous of having an eight-hour law as in parts where they can work
ten or twelve? — A. Human nature is human nature all the world over. There are
very many mechanics of all trades that would work twenty-four hours a day if they
could, but the general tendency is towards reducing the hours of labour, notwith-
standing what that gentleman said. These men are compelled to work ten hours a
day, simply owing to the conditions that exist. It is not that they want to work
ten hours a day, but any man working at 20 cents an hour with the conditions
existing in Canada, must and is compelled to get all the hours that he can work in
order to make nearly a decent living at all out of it. It is not that he wants to work
ten hours a day, but, as I said before, there is a certain percentage will work twenty-
four hours a day if they can. The larger majority want to work the short hours,
but I think, although you will find men who will work the long hours, most of the
men prefer to work the short hours.
Q. Supposing that being the truth, and the government should pass a measure
to make a universal eight-hour day, and it would say to the working men you
must work only eight hours a day, would a measure of that kind be a hardship or
would it be a help to men who are members of the different associations? — A. It
would be a hardship in this way, that if they were compelled to work for the same
amount they are being paid in Quebec, 20 cents an hour, it would mean a reduction in
their income of 40 cents a day.
Q. Do you feel that a measure of this kind, unless it were accompanied by some
provision insuring that they receive the same amount per day for the shorter time
would be harmful? — A. It would be harmful, certainly it would.
Q. So that you favour the eight-hour Bill, provided that along with it is a stipu-
lation that the amount of money to be paid for the eight hours work, must be the
same as at the time the law goes into effect, but otherwise you would not favour it.
If you were asked now whether you would be agreeable to having an eight-hour Bill
passed, even if it knocked two hours off every man who is working ten, and one hour
off every man who is working nine, would you advocate a measure of that kind? —
A. I would, simply because it would create a demand for men and where there is
a demand made for men, naturally an increase of wages must follow.
Q. Tou think one of the difficulties in the reduction of hours would be that
supply and demand would be so altered that the demand would automatically follow ?
' A. Yes, we have always had an increase of wages to compensate for it.
Q. Might it lead to some hardship in the interval? — A. It might for the time
being, but we have always had to be self-sacrificing.
Q. You feel that the point of view of labour would be that a temporary sacrifice
is worth having for a permanent gain?- — A. Yes.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Have you any unions connected with that association in Quebec? — A. Yes.
Q. What is the difference between the standard of wages in Quebec and Ontario?
— A. I don’t know just exactly; I could not answer that question, but I know they
are very small compared with what they are in the west.
Q. They are lower in Quebec, lower wages and shorter hofirs in Quebec. Is that
fhe same National Hnion that you have in Ontario? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you keep up agitation to bring about equality? — A. We do all we can to
get better conditions for our men.
Sufficiency of Skilled Mechanics — Apprentices.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Now you have heard the evidence given a little while ago about the shortage of
skilled mechanics. Do you feel a shortage of mechanics at any time of the year? —
A. No.
284
COMMITTEE RE DILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Or for many months, or for what length of time? — A. We find where there
is a shortage of skilled mechanics it is on account of the low wages. If employers
will pay decent wages they have no shortage of mechanics. It is the fault of the
employers themselves, that they have driven away good mechanics, on account of the
low wages that they have been paying.
Q. It is for that reason that they go elsewhere where they can get more money?
—A. Yes.
Q. And, of course, the less competent mechanics have to remain? — A. Yes.
Q. You have heard also about apprenticeship. In your association do you stipu-
late anything regarding apprenticeship, the length of time a man should serve to
become a mechanic, &c. ? — A. That is governed by local conditions. That is one of
the platforms of our organization, the establishment of a regular apprenticeship
system.
Q. One of the principles of your association? — A. Yes.
Q. And you try to carry it out as much as possible? — A. Yes.
Q- If you enter into an agreement you always have that stipulated in your agree-
ment?— A. Not always.
Q. Most generally? — A. Most generally.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Do you stipulate the number of apprentices? — A. Yes.
Q. Have you a copy of the regulations here? — A. No, I have not. That is gov-
erned by local conditions.
Q. You say you have a provision in your regulations ?— A. That is a platform. I
might say the apprenticeship system has gone out of vogue, so far as the carpenter
business is concerned, but in the last years we have been trying to establish it again,
and I believe in the city of Chicago they are trying it again.
Q. You are encouraging a system of apprenticeship? — A. We are encouraging the
apprenticeship system.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. I believe, in your platform you require a certain number of years apprentice-
ship for any one before he is classified as a fair mechanic? — A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever had any objection from the employers as to the time you
would like men to serve as apprentices or the age he should begin his apprenticeship?—
A. No, I cannot say that I ever heard. Anywhere from fourteen to sixteen years of
age Tip to such time as he is competent to demand the average rate of wages?
Q. Were you ever asked by the employers that a man of the age of twenty or
twenty-two should be classified as an apprentice for a certain period of time ? — A. Oh,
yes, but they class them as what they call improvers.
Q. About what value of tools have you got to carry in your trade, generally speak
ing? — A. Anywhere from $50 to $125 worth.
Q. 1 ou have to iurnish all your own tools? — A. We have to furnish all our own
tools.
Organization — Wages per Hour.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. What proportion of the carpenters in Toronto are organized? — A. About 40
per cent,
Q. About 40 per cent? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. What wages prevail there?— A. Anywhere from 33 to 40 cents.
ME. TWEED.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
235
APPENDIX No. 4
By the Chairman:
Q. How does the percentage of work organized compare with unorganized? — A.
Organized labour gets the highest wages.
Q. What is the difference? — A. The minimum is 33 cents an hour, and the best
mechanics get from 33 to 45 cents.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. That is in the organized? — A. Yes.
Q. What do they get in the unorganized? — A. That is a difficult question to
answer. It is a difficult matter to get a non-union man to tell what he is getting.
Q. I just want a general idea?— A. I know there are unorganized carpenters in
Toronto getting anywhere from 25 to 35 cents an hour.
Q. Is there any difference in the work by the organized and the unorganized
carpenter? — A. Yes.
Q. What is the difference? — A. The organized work eight hours a day and
some of the unorganized work any hours they can get.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. What number of hours do the organized carpenters work per week? — A.
Forty-four; they work eight hours a day for five days and four hours on Saturday.
Q. They get paid by the hour? — A. Paid by the hour.
By Mr. Terville:
Q. What method have the carpenters taken to increase their wages and reduce
their hours as they have in Toronto? — A. Organization, that is all.
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. Supposing that the hours of labour are reduced in every industry, you say
one idea of organized labour is to get more wages. Supposing this idea is carried
out what effect will it have on the general living? — A. Not any more effect than it
has at the present time. I might say so far as the building trade is concerned, the
employer of labour generally puts up the argument that the great cost of building
is in the wages they are paying, whereas it is not a fact. I might say that the price
of lumber has gone up.
Q. Have the wages of the lumbermen gone up? — A. Certainly lumber and hard-
ware and everything else has gone up and all the lumbermen have to do is to notify
the employers of labour that, lumber has gone up $3 or $4 a thousand, as the case may
be. You will never find' a kick but just as soon as the working men ask for an in-
crease in Wages, then the kick is general and the public is alarmed, thinking that
the few cents asked for by the labourer is going to increase the cost of that building
to such an extent that it will be prohibitory.
Q. If you reduce the hours of labour on everything, the labouring man will have
to pay more for his food and his clothes? How much better off would he be? A.
That would be governed by the circumstances and by the wages he is receiving.
Q. The more the commodities will go up? — A. Yes.
Q. So from a financial standpoint he will not be better off? — A. Why should
not a carpenter get the same wages to meet this increased cost of living as well as
other mechanics? Has he to be bound down because the cost of living is increased?
Is his cause to be kept down in preference to any other mechanic? We want him
to get as much as he can to meet the increased cost of living.
Q. What I was trying to get at is this, that if the hours of labour are reduced —
I am speaking of every industry, I am not speaking of the carpenter industry at
all?— A. Yes.
286
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ao. XI— HOOKE Ob' LABUUK
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Consequently if the hours of labour are reduced and the same wages paid as
for the longer hours, the manufacturer and every one else have to increase the prioe
of their output accordingly? — A. No doubt he would.
Q. The labourer would be obliged to pay that increased cost? — A. Yes.
Increase of Wages — Cost of Living.
By the Chairman:
Q. Have you any idea as to comparing the two, the increase of wages in the last
fifteen years, and the increased cost of living in the last fifteen years, which is the
more?— A. There is no doubt about it that the increased cost of living has gone up
100 per cent and wages have not gone up 20 per cent.
Q. I think you are mistaken in saying 100 per cent?— A. Fifteen years ago you
C°uld get eggs at 10 or 12 cents a dozen, around ^Easter; at present they sell at 25
cents a dozen. That is 100 per cent. Meat has gone up over 100 per cent this last
fifteen years.
The Chairman:
Q. I don’t think it has.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. The meat that working men eat has surely gone up 100 per cent? — A. You
can put it down at i 5 per cent or 50 per cent, and this even overcaps the increase in
wages.
The Chairman:
Q. Do you think that the standard of comfort of the working classes of this
country is lower to-day than it was fifteen years ago in Canada. Take the income
that is derived m earnings and what can be obtained from that income, notwith-
standing the increase of prices, do you think the standard is lower than it was
fifteen years ago? — A. No, I don’t.
Q. I think that meets the point, Mr. Stanfield wished to bring out. I think that
the statistics will show that while prices have gone up, that workingmen are neverthe-
less ab:e, to-day, to. satisfy a larger number of needs, so to speak, than he formerly
could, notwithstanding the rise of prices.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Mr. Tweed, what is your idea as to the cause of increased cost of living? A.
National policy for one thing.
Q. That is a very satisfactory answer. You think protection is a very bad thing?
—A. No, I do not. I think protection carried out reasonably is a very good thing
but my own personal opinion is that it has created such a spirit of greed amongst
the manufacturers of this country that the profits they were satisfied with a few years
ago, they are not satisfied with to-day.
Q. That is what I wanted, your opinion of the increased cost of living That
is a very serious matter in this country to-day? A. Yes.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. The cost of living has increased in equal proportions in free trade countries,
lake England. The increased cost of living has increased as greatly in England
as elsewhere.
The Chairman. — I don’t think it has.
The Witness.— I don’t speak from a partv political point at all
Mr. Smith. It is a very serious problem in this country and we want
what the cause of it is, the real cause of this increased cost of living
MR. TWEED.
to know
L VMM1TTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
287
APPENDIX No. 4
Factory and Farm Labour.
The Chairman:
■ Q. Do you think the shortening of the hours of labour had any influence on the
increased cost of living to bring it up to the subject we are discussing? — A. No, I
do not.
Q. Why not? — A. Well, I will tell you, for every increase in the cost of living
the manufacturers want an increase in the amount of profit. If the manufacturers
would be satisfied with a little less profit than they get, they could sell their goods
a good deal cheaper than what they are doing. Take coal for instance, and the num-
ber of combines in this country to keep up prices away above what they ought to be
already is one instance of the increased cost of living.
Q. Do you think the fact of the shorter hours of labour in manufacturing in
different forms is the reason why men have left farms and come into the city? Do
you think that is a reason at all? — A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. Do you know how farm labour compares in extent with what it was ten years
ago? Do you think there are more labourers on the farm than there were ten years
ago? — A. You will have to ask the farmer for that information.
Q. I think the farmer’s opinion is that there is not„ and the Minister of the On-
tario Bureau of Industries — Mr. James — recently reported that he thought the total
amount of labour on farms in Ontario now is considerably less than it was ten years
ago? — A. The great cause of that is the machinery they are using to-day, which they
did not have ten or fifteen years ago. Now they can sit on the Bulky plough and plough
the ground up. The machinery for cutting grain is improved, so that it necessarily
lessens the cost of farm labour.
Q. You really do not require the same amount of labour to do the same amount
of work? — A. I should not think so.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Supposing we pass this Bill, would the 60 per cent of unorganized carpenters
support it in Toronto? Do you think they would support this measure? — A. I think
so, because while we have a lot of unorganized carpenters in Toronto, mind you, I
might add 20 per cent to what I said before, while they are not organized they are in
sympathy with us.
Q. Why don’t they join the unions?— A. Simply because we have had ample
evidence that they are in sympathy with us, because when we went out on strike they
went out with us.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. Take the conditions in Toronto, eight hours a day in your particular busi-
ness, that is the condition that would prevail if this Bill passed all over. Now, I
understood you a little while ago in your evidence to say the conditions were quite
satisfactory between employer and employee in so far as your particular trade is
concerned in Toronto? — A. Yes, and I might say — I don’t want you to misunder-
stand me, there are employers in Toronto who are not favourable to the eight-hour
day.
Q. But the condition is existing and there is no disturbance? — A. No.
Q. It is working out from day to day and from year to year on the eight-hour
basis? — A. Yes.
Q. Are you working under any agreement, any working agreement? — A. No,
we did have an agreement up to two years ago, not with the Builders’ Exchange, but
with another association of carpenters, an independent builders’ exchange.
Q. That is the master carpenters? — A. We made an agreement with the master
carpenters. That agreement ran out and we are trying to resume it at the present
time.
288
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. Zl—auu tin uf labuuk
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. You are under no agreement? — A. No.
Q. Just simply working; on the eight hour basis at that pay? — A. Yes.
Percentage — Eight and Nine-hour Basis.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Eorty per cent are working on the eight-hour basis? — A. Yes. Excuse me,
there are more than 40 per cent working on the eight-hour basis.
Q. I asked you the difference between the wages of the organized and unorgan-
ized carpenters, and you gave me the difference and then I asked you the difference
between the hours of labour respecting the organized and the unorganized and you said
they were working nine hours a day? — A. I did not tell you that only 40 per cent were
working at that.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. You might tell us now? — A. I might say so far as I can judge, there would
be about 70 per cent working eight hours a day and the other 30 per cent are working
eight and nine hours a day. When I say 20 per cent take a little less than that, for
some of them would work fifteen hours a day if they could get it.
Better Hours — How Obtainable for Effectiveness.
By the Chairman:
Q. You say this eight-hour day has been obtained in Toronto through individual
effort? — A. Through organized effort of the unions.
Q. I mean united individual effort, organized labour? — A. Yes, organized
labour got it.
Q. Not through legislation? — A. No.
Q. Of the two methods of obtaining a result, which do you think is the more
effective? Suppose you want to get an eight-hour day and you can get it in two
ways. You got it in Toronto by individual voluntary effort. You might have the
same result by a general eight-hour law. Which of the two methods do you think
is preferable to bring about an eight-hour condition? — A. I think the best way would
be by the government measure.
Q. You think legislation would be more effective? — A. Yes.
Q. I am speaking now as to which in the long run is going to be of greater service
to the working classes, the result they get through their own combined effort, volun-
tarily, or the result they get through legislation? — A. One would assist the other.
Q. Do you think legislation regarding eight hours would be more effective if
it was made applicable generally or only applicable over a particular field? — A.
Applicable generally.
Q. You would rather see a general eight-hour law? — A. Yes, I think it would
be better for all parties concerned.
Q. Is. it your feeling that as between the law which relates only to particular
classes of work and a general law, the general law would be better? — A. Oh, yes.
Q. Do you think there are any reasons why an eight-hour law would be confined
to one particular trade rather than another, or would you have it applicable to all
trades? — A. There are some classes of trades, I suppose, to which it would not be
applicable.
Q. That it would not be? — A. There might be some that it would not be applic-
able to.
Q. Are there any reasons that you can urge in support of an eight-hour day, say
to the building trades which could not be urged in regard to its application to
some other trade?
MR. TWEED.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
289
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Take the farm labourer? — A. Well, yes, you could make a difference there
between the farm labourer and the building trades.
Q. Do you think the reason for shortening the hours in the building trades is
greater than in the case of farm labour? — A. Yes, because in the case of the farm
labourer, they have their crops out; they have to be attended to, they are depending
on nature, and nature’s laws cannot be disobeyed. It is absolutely necessary for men
sometimes to work longer than eight hours to meet the calls of nature. Supposing
in preparing their ground for the wheat, they have only a limited time to take it in.
It would be a hardship, in my mind, to force the farmer, unless he could get any
amount of men to work in shifts, but I am taking conditions as they are at present.
Q. Take as between factories and the building trades, do you think there are
stronger reasons for having the eight-hour day applicable in the case of building
trades than there is for factories generally? — A. We, as carpenters, in our organiz-
ation, generally allow the factory an hour longer a day than we do the outside men.
Q. Why is that? — A. Simply because they are confined; they have not got the
space. It would be like wanting to put half a dozen more benches in this room.
They are limited in space. Supposing they are over rushed and they want to put on
more men, they have not got the space to put the benches in and put the men to
work at.
Q. That does not take into consideration the health of the employees, which is
fundamental in this legislation? — A. Of course, as I said in the first place, we would
like to see eight hours in the factory and outside, altogether, but that is the condition
that we allow the factory men over the condition that we allow the outside men.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. To help out the factory man himself? — A. To help out the factory man him-
self.
General Application of Law re Hours, Preferred.
By the Chairman:
Q. Irrespective of being a carpenter at all, if you were called upon to enact an
eight-hour law and you were allowed to apply it only to certain industries, would
you go in for making it applicable to trades or callings where they were working
eleven hours, as in the case of the Hamilton industries cited to us the other day,
or would you apply it to some other trades ? — A. I would apply it to all where it could
be applied.
Q- Do you think that certain occupations need it more than others? — A. I would
not like to say that.
Q. As you look over the field of industry, over the different employments in
which people are engaged, do you think there is a strong reason for restricting, by
state enactment, the hours in one case where it would not be equally strong in
another? — A. I don’t know at the present time of any industry that this eight-hour
law could not be applied to, outside of the farming industry.
Q. Take such an industry as we have across the river here, where they arc work-
ing with sulphites and the rest of it, do you think there is a stronger reason for re-
stricting the hours there than there is in another trade? — A. I don’t know any-
thing about that. If I understood anything about sulphite I could give you an
intelligent answer, but I couldn’t give you an intelligent answer on a question I don’t
know anything at all' about.
Hr. Macdonell. — I suppose there will be others from other building trades who
will give evidence.
Mr. Verville. — We will have some at the next meeting.
4—19
290
COMMI 1 TEE RE BILL i\u. zi — u u u no ur ijnn\jun
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Mr. Macdonell. — I would like to ask this gentleman if he knows anything about
any other trades, say in Toronto district; if we could get the information from him
it would be well to have it.
Hours and Wages in Toronto.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. Do you know the hours of labour in Toronto in the building trade, in addi-
tion to the carpenters for whom your are qualified to speak? — A. Yes, the brick-
layers.
Q. What do they work? — A. Eight hours a day. Plasterers eight hours a day;
painters eight hours a day — nearly all, on the building trades.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. How long have they had this, approximately? — A. Oh, the carpenters have
had it this last fifteen years, I guess.
Q. What is the difference between the wages of a carpenter in Toronto now and
when that law was enacted? — A. When we were working eight hours a day first we
were getting twenty cents and twenty-two cents an hour.
Q. What are you getting now ? — A. 33 cents is the minimum.
By Mr. Macdonell :
Q. 3o cents to 45 cents ? — A. 33 cents to 45 cents ; 33 cents is the minimum rate.
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. What hours does the ordinary labourer work? — A. Some eight, some nine,
some ten.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. What hours do the city employees work on the streets? — A. Nine hours, I
think.
Q. What do they get?— A. I think it is 20 cents an hour.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Then practically all the building trades in Toronto work on the eight-hour
day and forty-four hours a week? — A. Yes.
Q. Is there any other part of Ontario where that prevails ?— A. No, but I believe
Niagara Falls is agitating for it and is likely to get it.
Q. And labour conditions are normal in Toronto; there is no disturbance, there
are no differences between the men and the employers at the present time?— A. No,
though the carpenters to-day are asking for an increase of wages.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Do you think the employers of Toronto are more generous than the rest of
the employers of Ontario ? — A. I don’t know that they are any more generous, but a
good many of them are a good deal more intelligent.
On motion of Mr. Verville, seconded by Mr. Smith, the Committee adjourned
until Wednesay next at 11 o’clock.
Committee adjourned at 5.10 p.m.
ME. TWEED.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
291
APPENDIX No. 4
House of Commons,
Committee Room No. 34,
Wednesday, April 13, 1910.
The Committee met at 11 o’clock a.m., the Chairman, Honourable W. L. Macken-
zie King, presiding.
Mr. William Watkins, Springhill, Nova Scotia, called, sworn and examined: —
By the Chairman:
Q. What is your occupation? — A. A coal miner.
Q. Where do you come from? — A. At present Springhill, N.S., and formerly
from South Wales.
Q. How long are you coal mining? — A. Twenty-eight years.
Q. And how long in this country? — A. Six years and nine months.
Q. Are you connected with any labour organizations? — A. Yes, the United Mine
Workers of America.
Q. Do you think you are in a position to speak in a representative way on behalf
of the workingmen there on the subject here? — A. Yes, for the coal miners of Nova
Scotia, and particularly those of Springhill. In fact, I received a communication
from this committee, and I submitted it to the local union, and I was instructed to
say they are in favour of the eight-hour Bill.
Q. Have you looked through this Bill? — A. Yes, sir.
Q What service do the coal miners think it is going to render them? — A. It
does not appear to me to have any direct connection with coal miners as it stands at
present.
Effect of Bill on Mining Operations.
Q. Do you think it would have any indirect effect? — A. It is possible in the
event of the government purchasing or operating coal mines — then it \yould.
Q. It is limited, in other words, to work for which the government itself contracts ?
— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Might it not have an effect in the case of the government buying coal for the
Intercolonial, that is, entering into a contract with one of the companies in Nova
Scotia for the supplying of coal for the Intercolonial — did you examine it to see if
that would come under the Bill? — A. I have not had much time to think the matter
over — it is not many hours since I got the subpoena, and I hadn’t given the matter
very much consideration. But it is possible it would affect such a case indirectly.
Q. It says every contract to which the government of Canada is a party and
which may involve the employment of labourers — if the government were a party to
a contract for a thousand tons of coal or ten thousand tons, that would involve the
employment of labourers or workmen and mechanics, would it not? — A. Yes.
Q. Then that is a contract that should contain the stipulation that no workman or
mechanic in the employment of a contractor, or sub-contractor, or other persons doing,
or contracting to do, the whole or part of the work contemplated by the contract,
shall be permitted or required to work more than eight hours in any one calendar
day, except in cases of extraordinary emergency; would not that force an eight-hour
requirement on any one supplying coal to the government? — A. If I understand this
measure right, it applies to construction work — contracts for construction work.
4 — 19£
292
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. No; the title might give one that impression, but the title of a Bill really does
not matter one way or another — you can call it anything, but it is what it has in its
provisions that counts, and this measure has provided, at least members of the com-
mittee hold that view, that it would go as far as I have indicated — if it were held to
apply to a contract made for coal, say for the Intercolonial, would that be an objection
to the Bill from the point of view of the miners? — A. I do not think so.
Q. Do you think the Bill would be welcomed from that point of view? — A. Yes,
I certainly do.
Miners' Hours.
Q. How are the hours of labour in coal mines regulated? — A. Well, there are
arrangements between the operators and the employees in a number of cases. In
Springhill, for instance, tire coal miner’s time is from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., practically
an eight-hour day — it has been all the time I have been in Springhill.
Q. Then this would not affect the miners of Springhill even if it welnt in!to>
force? — A. No, not practically. There are employees in coal-mines that it would
affect.
Q. Are there any employees who work longer? — A. Yes, the company hands or
the day men who handle the coal work about ten hours.
Q. Do you know how the hours are regulated — I need not say, when it is a matter
of regulation by law, what government has power to enact legislation of that sort — -as
between the Provincial and Dominion Government — you understand the constitu-
tion of this country, that is the Dominion Government, has certain powers in the
matter of legislation and the provinces, others, do you know whether it is to the
Dominion or Provincial Government that is assigned the duty of enacting laws in
regard to hours of labour in mines and factories? — A. I was under the impression it
would be the duty of the Dominion Government to enact such legislation, but I have
been informed since that it is a matter that would have to be dealt with by the
Provinces.
Q. Any laws affecting generally hours would have to ,be enacted by the provinces,
and any legislation of the Dominion that might affect the hours of labour would have
to be restricted to its own contracts — however a measure of this kind by putting in a
stipulation of that sort would reach down as far as the government contract is con-
cerned now admitting that, do you think if the government passed a measure as
introduced it would bring about any conflict between the provinces and the Domin-
ion ? . W ould the provincial authorities view with favour an act of this kind by the
Dominion in respect to coal-mining ? — A. I think probably they would view it favour-
ably.. I think the provincial government would be prepared to follow the lead of the
Dominion in legislation of such a progressive character as this.
Miners and the Eight-hour Day.
Q, How would the coal operators look upon it ? — A. I do not suppose very favour-
ably.
Q. And the men? — A. The men decidedly want the eight-hour day.
Q. You said the miners worked eight hours, but some other men employed
around the mines worked ten hours — if this measure went into force the latter would
be required to work only eight hours, and supposing as a consequence of that they
received only eight hours pay instead of ten hours’ pay, would that be acceptable to
them or popular? — A. No.
Mr. bTANFiELD. How would it do to get the different classes of men working in
the mines?
The Chairman— Would you give the different classes?— A. The engineers and
firemen at the boilers at Springhill work twelve hours a day; and the coal
miners practically work eight hours, and the ordinary mine labourers work ten hours.
I think in most cases miners do not work more than eight hours.
MR WATKINS.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
293
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Then a measure of this kind if made applicable to mines would affect
some men to the extent of four hours and some to the extent of two hours, and some
not at all — it would have a different bearing? — A. Yes.
Mr. Stanfield. — What are the duties of mine labourers? — A. To take the coal
from the mine to the surface, and attend to repairs around the mine generally.
Mr. Ralph Smith. — What are the different classes of miners in the mine work-
ing eight hours and more — the mine labourers work ten hours, — now what are the
classes in the mine that work more than eight? — A. What we call company hands
whose particular duty it is to haul the coal.
Hours of Work not Uniform in Springhill Mines.
Q. Do the timber men? — A. No. They work eight hours.
Q. They are company men too? — A. Yes.
Q. It is only the men that handle the coal from the mine who work ten hours? —
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Any other classes?— A. They are the only classes excepting engine-men and
chain-runners connected with the machinery.
Q. All the men who handle cars and mules are working ten hours? — A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stanfield. — Is not their work as arduous and as hard as the coal-handlers?
— A. Yes, it is, in some cases, but, as a general rule, it is not.
Mr. Ralph Smith. — Do the bosses and men who supervise the mine work more
than eight hours? — A. No, eight hours,— three shifts in the twenty-four.
Q. How do they manage to utilize the labourers ten hours while the miners only
work eight hours? Do they hoist coal after the miner leaves? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. They utilize this labour for the two hours extra? — A. Yes, sir. My opinion
is that all that could be done in eight hours. I think I could prove by evidence
which I could secure that the average time of hoisting coal in the Springhill mines
has not been more than seven and three-quarters hours a day for many years.
Q. Take those who work ten hours, have they had any systematic agitation to
reduce the number of hours to eight? — A. Yes, as members of the Union.
Q. Have they made any representation to the company or have they tried to
bring about an eight-hour day by negotiation? — A. Yes.
Q. Recently? — A. Yes, quite recently, — that is one of the questions in our list
of grievances at present to the company.
Mr. Stanfield. — Do these men belong to your order? — A. Yes.
Mr. Ralph Smith. — Are you connected with the Provincial Workmen’s Associ-
ation?—A. No.
Q. Has the association, which is a very old union in that country
made representations on that question that you know of in favour of eight Lours for
all men employed in the mines?— A. I think they had that under discussion some
years ago, but I do not know very much about that.
Q. Has there been any very strong agitation since you went there five years ago
by any union in favour of eight- hours for all men in the mines? A. Yes, I can
say that in regard to Springhill.
Q. Rut you could not speak for the province generally? A. No, not officially, but
in a general way. My opinion, though, i.s that they would favour such a principle.
Interpretation of Rill re Coal Mining Contracts.
The Chairman. — Speaking particularly of this Act, in the event of it- being
enacted and applied to only such contracts as the government might have with par-
ticular parties — we can take it for granted that that is as far as the government can
go do you think it would be possible to distinguish in the mine between the work done
for the government and the work being done for other parties?— A. It would be pretty
hard to distinguish— everybody connected with the mine is indirectly affected with
the principle involved there.
294
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. What I mean is, in the event of the Cumberland Railway and Coal Com-
pany receiving forty or fifty contracts, and among them is one from the Dominion
government for coal for the Intercolonial Railway — if this law were on the statute-
jbook, it would be necessary to put this stipulation in, and that would require that
every man engaged in the mining of that coal would have to work eight hours; could
that be practicable, that is for the mine management to distinguish between the work
unless they simply said we will work so many days on government coal; do you think
it would be practicable ? — A. I do not think it would. The principle would have to be
adopted in respect to all employees.
Q. The most effective way, so far as coal mining is concerned, to reduce the hours
of labour would appear to be a general law applicable to all rather than a law appli-
cable to particular contracts? — A. Yes.
Q. While that may apply to coal mining, do you think the carrying out of this
principle, where the difficulty of distinguishing would not be encountered with, though
indirectly might in the long run be of service to the miners themselves — perhaps
the question is a little involved — what I mean is that for your province there
would be practical difficulties in applying this to coal on government contracts;
there might not be the same difficulty in construction work on buildings. Would the
application on buildings be helpful in the long run to the coal miners or to any other
class of workers? — A. I think so.
Q. What makes you think so ? — A. It would be an acknowledgment that it was
possible to carry on the industries of the country under the eight-hour day principle ;
and if in one branch, why not in another?
Q. You mean it would help to demonstrate that fact? — A. Yes.
Q. What are the advantages of an eight-hour day? — A. I think it gives the
ordinary workingman more time to recuperate his health and more time for recreation,
etc.
Q. Do you think there is the same advantage to be gained in the eight-hour day
in one trade as another, or has it a special advantage in any particular trade? A. I
think it has special advantages in regard to some particular trades, such as coal min-
ing or any other laborious work.
Q. Where a man is underground and hidden from the light of the sun, you
think a short hour day there is more necessary than for men working in the' sun-
light?— A. It would seem to me to be so, generally speaking.
Q. I should think it would? — A. As I said, I have twenty-eight years’ experience
out of the sunlight, and I can assure you I would appreciate a couple more hours a
day in the sunlight if I could get them.
Q. Would you rather work nine hours on the surface than work eight hours under-
ground at the same pay? — A. I think possibly I would.
Q. I do not know any calling on earth where it seems to me the hours of labour
should be shorter than amongst the coal men; have any members of the committee any
questions ?
By Mr. Verville:
Q. What are the hours of labour in other trades in Springhill? A.
There are no other trades except coal mining in Springhill.
Q. But in construction work of any kind — carpenters and bricklayers? — A. Oh,
yes, there is in that. I was thinking you referred to manufacturers. I think the
general custom is ten hours; in many cases they are paid so much per hour.
Q- That is, they are all paid so much per hour?— A. Yes, most of the men there
that I know of are paid by the hour. There is very little contract work there that
is, regular contract work. ’
Q. I suppose there is no organization in Springhill of any kind except vour
own -they are not numerous enough ?-A. No. There is an organization of railway
MR. WATKINS. lanway
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
295
APPENDIX No. 4
employees of the Cumberland Railway and Coal Company who are connected with the
Railway Brotherhood — a small number.
Mr. Ralph Smith. — Are the different classes of labour men around the mines
members of the union, that is the ordinary carpenters and such like? — A. Yes.
Q. All members of your union ? — A. Yes, every one except those the company has
recently imported. Our union embraces every member of the Cumberland Railway
,and Coal Company except the officials.
Q, And it does now? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. Do you know the hours of work in coal mines throughout Canada generally ?
— A. I believe they have the legal eight hours in British Columbia, but I have not
been there and have no personal knowledge of it. In Pictou county they work prac-
tically an eight-hour day— I think they finish at two o’clock in the afternoon.
Q. You work eight, nine and ten hours in Springhill? — A. Eight, ten and twelve.
The men who dig the coal work an eight-hour day.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Supposing an eight-hour day were established through the mines in Spring-
hill, would that have much effect upon the out-put of the coal there? — A. I do not
think it would lessen it.
Hours — Output — Expense.
By Mr. Macdonell:
Q. What is the reason of the difference— there ’ is an eight-hour day in British
Columbia in the mines there and you have eight, ten and twelve in the mines in
Springhill — what is the reason for that difference? And in Pictou you say they have
eight hours, that is close to you, why have you longer hours than they have?— A. I
suppose in British Columbia the miners agitated the question and succeeded in
getting eight hours.
Q. What is the reason for the operators having their other shift working more
than eight hours while the miners are working only eight hours? — A. The only
reason is to get out the coal each day.
Qr Would they not! get it out, year in and year out as fast if all worked the
eight hours? — A. It is my opinion they would. As I said before the average hours
a day in hoisting is not more than seven and three-quarters. If the system were re-
adjusted you could keep the out-put up and reduce the hours of all.
Q. Then it would not affect the hours of the operators— A. No.
Q. What is their objection to not giving the eight hours now?— A. They think it
would lessen the out-put and increase the expense.
' Q. Have they given a good reason in support of their contention that it would
decrease the out-put? — A. As far as I can see they have not. General experience
gees to show that the eight hours have been adopted with success in different parts
of the world.
Q. You state that the engineers are working twelve hours?— A. Yes, sir..
Q. What for, — is it to get the machinery ready for operation for working the
ten hours?— A. Oh, no, I suppose it is the arrangement originally agreed upon be-
tween the employers and the employees and up to now the employers have not met
the men with the view of lessening the hours. In England where I workeed many
years, the hours for engineers and other classes were eight hours.
Q. Is the out-put as good in England where you worked before under, the eight-
hour day as they are in Springhill ?— A. Yes, isir. If the Committee will permit
me I shall read from an authority.
296
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. What authority is it?— A. It is a book by Ah P. Gilman.
Q. He is a professor of John S. Hopkins University is he not? — A. I think so.
Mr. Verville. I think the authority we would prefer is your actual experience.
Mr. Macdonell. — We want to know the actual facts on the ground.
The Chairman. — That is so, but if there are any facts in .that book, Mr. Watkins,
or statement to which you would like to attract the attention of the committee you
can do it— of course the evidence that is more particularly valuable to us is your
experience, but there may be some paragraph you would like us to note. — A. Yes. I
would like to call the committee’s attention to what Mr. Gilman says. He says in
his Methods of Industrial Peace,’ on page 223 : —
A gradual reduction of the hours of labour to eight as the platform of the
Knights of Labour phrases it, is the second great demand of the trade unions.
It is a very reasonable demand. Trade union writers are apt to use contradictor?
arguments in their advocacy of this reform, but an economist like Mr. John Eae
convincingly shows that the case for an eight-hour day with ten hours’ pay is
well made out from experience. Mr. Eae has so thoroughly discussed this sub-
ject that I can do no better than to borrow from him a few pertinent facts and
comments. He begins by pointing out that the working day was commonly
about eight hours in length in England before the rise of the factory system.
King Alfred’s rule prevailed with early Englishmen so far as work was con-
cerned.
I he introduction into mines and factories of machinery run by steam
lengthened the moderate hours of the miner’s and the farmer’s day to a working
day of twelve, fourteen or even sixteen hours in the cotton factory. In then-
eagerness to get the utmost product from their expensive machinery, the manu-
facturers overlooked the importance of the living machines that they employed.
After a certain limit is reached, it is better for the workmen, and better for the
employer, that the spinner or weaver shall rest. The last hour has too often
‘ eaten up all the profits/
By the Chairman:
Q. I think we are all agreed in this committee on the advantages of the shorter
lours the eight-hour day— where it can be made applicable, but what we are more
particularly seeking to get at is as to whether this Bill will attain that object. The
committee are entirely m sympathy with the question, and cognizant of the advantages
of shorter hours and the mam question is as to whether this measure will help on
this particular object, and whether it would be of service in this connection These
points you have given are well to have, but the mun paint is as to any practical
suggestion you can make as to how this measure could be made applicable to the
Szt-tzS-I" ’y“ a comn,is8ion <£££
• S' T1'!;™3 jhe findmS of the commission in regard to the eight hours in the
mme^ A The finding was not favourable to adopting it at present. Great objection
i--, 3 en >y .® ™mers t0 methods of that commission and its personnel- they
did not consider those men should have been appointed. “
Steps to Enact a Provincial Eight-hour Law.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Did you give evidence before the commission ? — A No
Q. Was there any one representing your organization on the committee L_A No
Q. Was there any labour representative on that commission ?-A There was
Professor Magill of Halifax, and Mr. Macdonald and Mr. David Eobb
V- Mr. Eobb is an operator? — A. Yes.
MR. WATKINS.
COMMITTEE. RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
297
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Who is Mr. Macdonald; is he not a workingman? — A. I do not know his
position. Of course, what I wanted to say was that it was apparently established in
many parts of the world with success, and why should it not be here with equal suc-
cess?
Q. That we can admit, but it does not help us in our committee. What you
want to do is to report to parliament whether this would accomplish what we expect,
and it may be required to modify it in some companies, and in some companies
where it might serve a purpose in the end ; we want to find out how far this Bill will
help to serve the general movement, and it is only on that we are entitled to take
evidence? — A. Yes. As I understand, according to your interpretation, you think
the Bill will gradually extend beyond the bounds laid down there now ; for instance,
in contracts in the coal mines. Y ell, it does seem necessary to discuss these questions
in connection with it.
Q. Quite so? — A. You are well aware an eight-hour day has been established in
England.
Q. By the government of England? — A. Yes.
Q. The province of Nova Scotia could pass a similar law if they wished? — A. Yes.
Q. But this government could not; that is the point. This government is limited
in its powers up to a point — limited to the extent of the conditions in its own con-
tracts, and that is why we are trying to find out if, as drafted, it will cover as wide a
range as this government can hope to cover, and we want to know how that would
work out and whether it would be helpful
By Mr. Balph Smith :
Q. Are the mining unions making any representations to the legislature of Nova
Scotia in favour of the eight -hour law?— A. Yes. I happened to be one of the dele-
gates appointed to attend Halifax during the present session. I was there three weeks
in March and April.
Q. With that object? — A. Yes, with that object. We were discussing the matter
before the committee in connection with Dr. Kendall’s resolutions calling for a
commission to inquire into coal mining and other things, and there was a Bill brought
in, I think on the recommendation of that commission, dealing with the hours of
labour.
Q. There was a Bill brought in? — A. Yes, but that only applied to store em-
ployees and street railway employees, &c.
Mixers’ Wages at Springhill.
Q. What are the average wages of miners in Springhill? — A. The average, I
think, was given as $3 per day for 1908 by the management of the Cumberland
Railway and Coal Company.
Q. You do not know yourself what they are?— A. I know they vary from as
low as 75 cents to as high as five or six dollars.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Seventy- five cents a day?— A. Yes.
Q. Boys or men?- — A. Men.
By Mr. Ralph Smith:
Q. Miners who could mine coal? — A. Yes, able experienced men.
By the Chairman:
Q. Were they paid by the day or contract? — A. Contract.
By Mr. Ralph Smith:
Q. What you mean is that the quality of their place is bad? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. And under the general system of tonnage it is difficult to make wages? —
A. Yes.
298
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS X)F LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Does the company make them up to any standard? — A. No, they have not
been doing that during two years. There was in 1907 an agreement by which they
made it $2.40.
Q. And they do not now? — A. No.
Q. What is the cause? — A. There was a three months’ strike there in 1907, and
we did not succeed as well as we expected, and we are more or less in a helpless
condition, and of course these conditions were forced upon the workingmen then.
Q. Under the system before the strike the companies made the standard $2.40
cents, and to-day they refuse to do that.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. That is to punish you for what you did, they want to starve you out? —
A. That is all I can see to it.
The Chairman. — These questions are interesting, but perhaps a little wide of the
mark?
By Mr. Ralph Smith:
Q. It is important to get the particulars about the pay.— A. That statement may
seem strange to you perhaps, but the conditions vary so much — a man might work
twice as hard for one dollar a day and go to another place and not work near so hard
and get four or five dollars a day. It often happens that way.
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. Do they work day and night in these coal mines? — A. Yes.
Q. Do the engineers and firemen have twelve-hour shifts? — A. Yes.
Q. Just the two shifts? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. In connection with the Cumberland Railway and Coal Company there is a
railway along the line of that, which is forty miles? — A. Thirty- two I think.
Q. And the station masters, they must work all kinds of hours— if this Bill
came into effect they would have to cut down the hours would they not? — A. Yes,
if a general Bill were established applying to all classes of labour no doubt.
Q. There is another question — one that the public is a little interested in, and
I do not know whether it comes under the heading of the Bill or not, but you folks
are agitating for better conditions, and we consumers are after cheaper coal, and
the answer we get is that the miners are getting big wages and they cannot afford
to sell coal cheaper — supposing this law goes into effect, just making it regarding
coal mines, and these labour men get eight hours, would that necessarily put up the
price of coal that we consume ? — A. I do not think that it would very materially.
There may be a temporary disturbance of the system, but in a short while the
consumers and others could be educated to the eight-hour day, and it could be
adopted with success and injure nobody.
Q. But we have to keep an eye on the consumer as well as on the other side, too;
what will affect one may affect the other, and we want to find out.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You said the output would not diminish at all? — A. That is mv opinion.
Q. Then I do not see how the consumer would suffer.
Mr. Stanfield. — But we have.
Mr. Verville. — But the fault should be put upon somebody else.
By Mr. Stanfield:
Q. What was the actual cost price for mining coal five years ago? — A. There
has been no change in my experience in Canada.
Q. What is the average cost of mining coal now?— A. The average price paid to
the miners would be 40 cents a ton— that is, for actual coal digging. The average
wages paid the coal miners, including repair work and all other kinds of work that* a
MR. WATKINS.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
299
APPENDIX No. 4
coal miner does in Springfield, was, last year, Y3-2 cents a ton. The company claimed
their average cost of production was $2.66 or $2.89.
Q. What pay do the labourers get? — A. $1.15 and $1.35, and the average mine
labourer’s pay is $1.52.
Q. That is for ten hours'? — A. Yes, supposed to be ten hours; the majority work
only eight, that is with the exception of the men connected with the haulage of the
coal.
Q. We thank you very much. If there are any statements you would like to
leave with us we would be pleased to have them? — A. ISTo; I would just say that the
principle was generally adopted in many of the States, and here are seventeen differ-
ent agreements that the men have formulatd in the United States and Western Can-
ada, and all these include the eight-hour day.
Q. Could you allow the committee to have them? — A. Yes, sir.
We are very much obliged to you for the evidence you have given.
Witness thereupon retired.
Mr. Joseph Ainey, being duly sworn, deposed: —
By the Chairman:
Q. You live in Montreal, Mr. Ainey? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your occupation ? — A. My trade is that of carpenter.
Experience — Organized Labour — Building Trades.
•
Q. Are you a member of any union in Montreal? — A. I belong to the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
Q. Do you hold any position of importance in any elected bodies? — A. I am a
commissioner of the city of Montreal.
Q. You were elected at the head of a poll or pretty near it, I understand? — A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Are you correspondent for the Labour Gazette? — A. I was for some time,
some years ago.
Q. I think you found you had so much to do that you had to drop it? — A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Have you given us the positions you have held in connection with labour
movements? — A. Well, I am not an officer now.
Q. But what positions have you held? — A. Up to the 1st of February I was presi-
dent of the Building Trades Council of Montreal.
Q. Then you have had an experience which enables you to speak from the point
of view of the men in the building trades? — A. I believe I have some.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You were also president of your union for many terms? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Secretary of the Council? — A. Yes, for three years Secretary of our
District Council.
Q. And also President of the Trades and Labour Congress? — A. Yes, sir.
Bill Ho. 21 — Its Practicability — Its Scope.
By the Chairman:
Q. Were you a member of the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress? — A. I
attended it as a delegate.
Q. You have a pretty good knowledge of the attitude of organized labour? —
A. Yes.
300
COMMITTEE EE BILL No. SI— HOLES OF LABOVE
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Have you looked at this Bill that Mr. Verville has introduced ■ — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you studied it carefully? — A. Yes, I have read it a few times.
Q. And what do you think of it? — A. I think it would benefit the working men
without injury to anybody — that is my belief, without much injury.
Q. Do you think it would work any injury to anybody? — A. Well, in the start
it might.
Q. In what way? — A. It might cause a little increase of the staff on the part of
the employers — on the part of some of them, those who are not now enjoying the eight
hours a day.
Q. Have you formed an idea just how far these provisions extend and how far
it would make the eight-hour day applicable if enacted in the form it is presented? —
A. It is pretty hard to tell. I understand on every contract of the Federal Govern-
ment, that any men employed on the works or in factory work connected with that
contract the Act would have to be in operation.
Q. Or mining? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you think that is practicable and could be worked out ? — A. I think it
could.
Q. In all those lines ? — A. Yes, from my experience.
Q. You heard Mr. Watkins’ evidence as to coal mines? — A. Yes.
Q. Did you agree with him in that? — A. Of course he has more experience in
mining than I have and I must take his statement.
Q. You speak more particularly for the building trades? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. So far as the building trades go, are any of them working eight hours now?
- — A. Yes, in several clues.
Q. In Montreal? — A. Yes, a few trades.
Q. How do you account for the fact that in some places they are working eight
hours and in other places they are not? — A. It depends upon the strength of the
organization.
Q. It depends upon union labour ?• — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that a more effective way of bringing about a result than legislation? —
A. I think it is the best way, but we need legislation to .enforce it.
Q. Legislation is a good supplement? — A. Yes, a good supplement.
Q. Do you happen to know as between the Federal government and the provin-
cial government which has the authority to enact legislation as regarding labour? —
A. Yes, we had that brought up in our local legislation three or four years ago, and
it is left to the provincial legislature.
Q. And as far as the Dominion goes, it is just regarding their own contracts? —
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Regarding the building trades, assuming a contract is given for the building
of a post office in Montreal, would there he any difficulty if that contract contained
a stipulation that all th'e men were to work eight hours a day? — A. I do not think
there would be any to any great extent.
Q. Suppose there were a building on the other side of the road where the same con-
tractor was employing a number of men and they had to work nine hours, would there
be any confusion? — A. There might, but no more than when they have to tender for
different classes of work and where they employ different classes of material and
different classes of mechanics— it would he only a matter of office work.
Q. The payment of most men in the building trades is by the hojjr? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Supposing this law went into effect and the eight-hour men receive only eight
hours’ pay and the others receive pay for nine hours, would that create any dissatis-
faction?— A. It would.
Q. How would you remedy that? — A. The employer would have to pay the same
wages to the eight -hour men.
Q. Supposing the eight-hour men received nine hours’ pay and the nine-hour
men would only get nine hours’ pay, would that create any confusion? — A. It would
MR. AINEY.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
301
APPENDIX No. 4
tend to systematize it, and that is what we are after. Sometimes a firm might be called
upon to tender for work on a bank, and in a bank they only work from eight in the
morning till ten and then from three till five, and they put up with it all right — there
is no trouble.
Q. Do you think if a measure of this sort went through that it should be accom-
panied with an unmistakeable understanding that the pay was to be equivalent to
the full day’s earnings of the day where they worked longer hours? — A. I am not
prepared to say that. I believe that should be left to be settled between the employers
and employees.
Q. Would you leave that question open as to whether the payment for eight hours
should be for eight hours or nine hours? — A. If it could be enacted to have it stipu-
lated, I would prefer it.
Q. It might save some confusion? — A. It would.
Q. Do you think it would be easy to get a measure of that sort through the
Senate? — A. From what I know, I do not believe it would.
Q. Supposing we go one step further — so much for the building itself, and you
required all the firms that were furnishing the sashes and doors to have their em-
ployees only work eight hours; could that be carried out in practice? — -A. It could
be carried out, but that is where it would cause the most trouble.
Q. Supposing, for example, the post office were going up, and you required fifty
windows and you would have to order fifty sashes from some firm, would it be possible
for them, while working at these sashes, to distinguish that work from the work for
others being carried on? — A. It would be possible, but it would mean some more
trouble on the part of the employer.
Q. Would the government be wise in enacting a measure to go that length?—
A That is for the legislators to decide, I suppose.
Hours a>;d Wages in Montreal Building Trades.
By Mr. Ralph Smith:
Q. Has your union brought any pressure to bear on the local legislature in favour
of eight hours? — A. When this Bill was brought up we did' approve of it, and passed
a resolution endorsing the proposition.
Q. But have you ever made any demand upon the legislature? — A. Do you
mean in Quebec?
Q. Yes? — A. No, sir.
Q. Do you remember if the Congress made any demand upon the Quebec gov-
ernment, through their executive, for shorter hours? — A. I do not remember.
Q. How many years are you a member of organized labour? — A. Since 1885.
Q. You have always been directly connected with organized labour since then? —
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were also an organizer for the American Federation of Labour? — A. I
was a volunteer organizer for ten years, and four months general organizer.
Q. During the time you were secretary for the District Council of Montreal, of
Carpenters, what was your mission?— A. To do secretary work and write the minutes
and correspond with different institutions doing business with our council, and
to visit the different establishments and shops and contracts where we had men.
Q. Do you know of a firm by the name of Jackson in Montreal? A. Les.
Q. Do you know if lately there was a demand by some of their men for longei
hours? — A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Do you know the amount of money they paid their men in that shop? A. I
could not say at the present time, but a year ago this winter they were paying good
men twenty-five cents an hour — that was outside men, they had very poor shop
equipment at that time.
302
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Were you ever asked by any one for good men ? — A. I was asked for good men
when they started to install machinery.
Q. As secretary of your Council? — A. Yes, as secretary and general agent, — I
was asked for a good machine man and a good all-round man to take hold of the
shop and run all kinds of machinery.
Q. How much were they willing to pay? — A. They offered twenty-seven and a
half cents.
Q. You do not know whether they are paid thirty-five cents or not? — A. They
are not paying that to ordinary men I am sure.
Q. Because we had evidence here at the last meeting saying that they paid
thirty-five cents. — A. To a general superintendent I think.
Q. The evidence is there to show — then it is not to your knowledge that the men
went to their employer lately and stated if he would not give them ten hours they
would quit? — A. I did not hear that.
Q. And of course being in direct contact with other labour men in Montreal
you would have heard it? — A. Presumably.
The Chairman. — Does that bear on the Bill?
Mr. Verville. — At the last meeting there was a statement to that effect, and I
want in the evidence a counter statement. (To witness) How many hours are the
labourers working for the City of Montreal now? — A. It is nine hours in winter and
ten in summer.
Q. Have you found they are doing less work in nine hours than they do in ten?
—A. No.
Q. Is the city suffering any from it? — A. No, sir.
By the Chairman: *
Q. Why don’t they put them on the eight-hour basis?— A. It would be too ad-
vanced for our city, I believe.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Have you ever had any knowledge of a demand by structural iron workers in
Montreal during the last four or five years, — for an increased rate, because
a person gave evidence that there never was any demand — have you any knowledge
of that? A. les. Four or five years ago there was a demand made by structural
iron workers asking for forty-five cents an hour.
Q. I hat is the maximum rate? — A. Yes, employed by the Dominion Bridge
Company.
Q. Who was the manager then? — A. Mr. Johnston, I understand.
Q. And to your knowledge has there been any discrimination against those who
wanted to organize in that establishment? — A. It is a well known fact that they do
discriminate against union men.
Q. Do they do it at the present time?- — A. Well, there has been an effort to
organize these men last winter and those men who have joined the new movement
were not interfered with, but previously they were.
Q. What is the average working day on contracts of construction in large cities
like Monti eal. That is how many months in a year do they work on an average? —
A. It varies with conditions in different cities. In Montreal it is between eight and
nine months a year.
Q. How many hours do you work in winter time?— A. Outside they cannot work
more than eight hours.
Q. Have you knowledge of the number of men that work in Montreal in different
trades of construction ?— A. It is pretty hard to tell. As to carpenters
Q. Take the carpenters, I believe in winter there is close on to fiftv per cent
who are idle.
MR. AINEY.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
303
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Do you think if eight hours were established on government contracts
extending after a year or so to other constructions, would it paralyze construction
work to any extent in a city like Montreal? — A. Not at all.
Q. You have been foreman in shops for years? — A. Yes, I have.
Q. You have been using machinery all your life; if you had an eight-hour shift
in a factory, could you with good arrangement get as good work in eight hours? —
A. In eight hours as in ten?
Q. As in nine as you say it is at present? — A. I do not think so; not so much
could be done with the output of the machinery.
Q. What percentage is there of labour attached to machinery? Each and every
man at the machinery accomplishes something by his own labour; that is, that
machine is not doing so many strokes a minute for so many hours a day, and I want
to find1 out how you classify the labour attached to that machine — say what time
in a day will the machinery not produce anything, there is a certain amount of labour
lost on that machinery during the change of work? — A. Yes.
Q. What percentage of that? — A. I could not say, because I was never a machine
hand myself.
Machinery, Devices — Time Saved.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. The percentage of that would be very light?- — A. I beg your pardon, it is con-
siderable.
Q. On what kind of machinery would that be? — A. Wood machinery.
Q. Supposing on a planer? — A. It would not affect the planer, but for the sticker
and shaper it would. And on the bandsaw it would considerably, because they have
to make new knives on them on almost every chain.
Q. You think a man would do more work in ten hours on that machinery than
in eight? — A. Yes.
Q. Would he do that year in and year out? — A. That is my belief.
Q. Your opinion is that if a man is on the machinery ten hours and he runs it
for eight hours, there would be a less percentage of lost time if the hours were shorter ?
— A. Experience has shown there is, because men exert themselves more in eight hours
and employers look for new devices to produce more.
Q. Where a machine is adjusted to run just so fast, how could you account for
a man doing as much work in eight as in ten hours? — A. I did not say they did.
Mr. Verville. — My question was as to the amount of lost time in labour that is
attached to a machine in changing from one kind of work to another.
Mr. Marshall. — Would not that apply in eight hours the same as in ten?
Mr. Verville. — Yes.
Mr. Marshall. — You would lose it anyway in ten hours as well as eight. I just
asked it because we had any amount of proof to the contrary, that is the reason of
my asking.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Did you ever go into the matter of the percentage of cost of production if
you adopt the eight hours — that is speaking of machinery ? — A. I have heard state-
ments made. The general contention is that in the long run experience has proven
that in cities where they work eight hours in mills, they do not want to return to nine
hours, and it has not increased the cost of production. To start with, it has increased
it, but things soon right themselves, and after a while it compels the foremen and
employers to improve the machinery in order to put up with new arrangements.
Q. Would a man tire in ten hours and not do as much in ten hours, is that it? -
A. Exactly.
304
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. It depends a good deal upon the class of work, I suppose? — A. Yes. When
working a machine, a man has only to place the wood on it. And the machine itself
does the work, it is not so tiresome.
Q. You cannot crowd that machine; it takes a board just so fast, and a machine
running ten hours will naturally do considerably more work than in eight — that is
where adjusted to a certain speed ? — A. Yes, it will.
Q. The man who is operating this machine, supposing he is getting two or three
dollars a day, would he he willing to have his wages cut down in proportion to eight
hours’ work? — A. We union men do submit to that, knowing or hoping that an in-
crease will soon come.
Q. Would that be satisfactory to the men? — A. I believe so.
Q. Don’t the men say they would rather work ten hours and take the whole pay ?
— A. Some men do it at the instance of the employer.
Q. How do you find the men generally? — A. They are in favour of shorter
hours.
Q. And a reduction in their wages? — A. The men are in favour of short hours
and fair wages.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Are we short of mechanics at any time of the year in Montreal?— A. Hot to
my knowledge.
Q. Never short of mechanics? — A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Do you know if they are ever short of mechanics in any other city you know
of, say Quebec for instance ? — A. I could not say, I do not know the conditions in
Quebec as well as in Montreal.
Q. You remember the time you worked ten hours, and now you work nine hours
- — is there any difference in the time that it takes to put up a building as between
then and now? — A. It takes a shorter time now.
Q. What do you attribute that to? — A. Improved machinery.
Q. And improvement in the men? — A. Men do more to-day, and because tools
are improved also.
Q. Then according to that, an eight-hour day, after a certain time would find
its level the same as nine hours has found its level with the nine? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do they work the question of eight hours now, on buildings where they
have stone cutters and where other trades are working nine — is there any difficulty
there? — A. No, none whatever.
City Contracts, Stipulations re Hours of Work.
By the Chairman:
Q. Let me suggest a question — who orders the contracts in the city of Montreal?
— A. The commissioners.
Q. You are a member of the commission? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What contracts have you on now? — A. Contracts for clothing and boots and
shoes and building construction and pavements.
Q. Take the matter of building construction and these different contracts in
your city, — would it be advisable to put into the contracts a stipulation that those
engaged on the work should work only eight hours — would it help along the move-
ment ? — A. It would help the labour movement.
Q. Why do you not adopt it, I mean the commission; why does not the com-
mission in Montreal do the same thing that Mr. Yerville suggests the government
here should do? — A. For the present it would not be opportune.
Q. Why not? — A. In Montreal in the present situation our relations with our
employers and those in the building trade especially, are not of the best nature, and
have not been during the past four years — in fact it is a continual strife between
ME. AINEY.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
305
APPENDIX No. 4
them and as we have not achieved the eight-hour day in Montreal we cannot appeal
to our general bodies in Montreal to put a clause in the contract.
Q. If this is true for Montreal, is it not more so for the Dominion government,
that has contracts all over the Dominion? — A. If my information is correct, I be-
lieve the majority of workers are working under the eight-hour principle in Canada.
Q. Can you assign any reason why a principle proposed in regard to public con-
tract work should not be equally applicable in a case of cities and provinces, if
applicable at all? — A. I believe the federal government should set the example.
Q. It might be Tight enough from the point of view • of example, but coming
down to the fundamental principle, is there any single argument that can be brought
forth, apart from this question of example, that applies with greater force to the
Dominion government than it would to the provincial governments and municipali-
ties?-— A. There is this argument, if we apply to the city and province, they say:
‘ Why don’t you apply to Ottawa ? ’
Would not that be the surest way to get the federal government to adopt
it; you come from Montreal and you could say: ‘We have done that in Montreal,
and we want you to do it in the Dominion ’ ? — A. It would have some weight, no
doubt, but the federal government has work of its own all over the country.
Q. Exactly, and if it were applied by the municipalities and provincial govern-
ments, you could come with a strong argument to the federal government that it
should do the same thing. Would it not be a very strong argument to present to the
federal government that they should try and adopt a certain thing in regard to its
contracts if each municipality should come here and say: ‘We are following this
principle, and why should you not do the same ’ ? — A. I admit that.
Q. The whole question is part and parcel of the same thing. Personally, I feel
every federal government and provincial and municipal government should have some
provision in their contracts to protect labour, and it seems to me if the argument is
applicable in one case it is in all? — A. Yes; if the Dominion government was” doing
business in Ottawa only, your argument would have more strength ; but doing business
all over, it would do much for the movement for them to provide for the eight hours
in their contracts.
Q. But take your statement a moment ago. You said it would not be opportune
at the present time for the commissioners in Montreal to put a stipulation in their
contract requiring eight hours. Supposing the Dominion government were putting
up a building in Montreal, would not the condition between the contractors and the
men be precisely the same as if it were any other contract; would it not be the same
group of contractors that would tender for the federal contract as for the city work?
— A. It would be the same group ; it might be outsiders, too.
Q. Quite so; but the extent to which it would cause embarrassment in the case
of a city, the same embarrassment would be experienced in case of tenders on federal
government work. I am not saying that they should let the government go ahead
and take its own course, but what I want to know is whether you can urge any reasons
why it should be more applicable to the federal government than to the provincial cr
municipal governments? — A. This eight hours a day question is one of education,
and in some districts it is more advanced than in others.
Q. Have you any clauses in your contracts to protect labour? — A. We have 20
cents an hour minimum.
Fair Wage Clause in City Contracts.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Is there anything before the council now? — A. Yes; we are introducing the
fair wage clause in all contracts. It is now before the attorneys.
4—20
306
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By the Chairman :
Q. Where did you get that idea? — A. From the Dominion government.
Q. I suppose you think that if the Dominion government set the example in that
case they might in the other ? — A. Yes, I think so.
Builders' Exchange — Mail Contract.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Do you know anything about the Building Exchange in Montreal? — A. A
little.
Q. How many trades are connected with that? — A. Officially, I do not know;
there may be seven or eight.
Q. Seven or eight trades? — A. Yes.
Q. About what percentage of the contractors in Montreal are connected with
that Builders’ Exchange?— A. It is hard to ascertain exactly. I know they repre-
sent a very small minority of the employers.
Q. Are you trying now, at the present time to make any dealings with the
Builders’ Exchange in order to arrive at some agreement? — A. Yes, the Builders’
Exchange has been notified.
Q. Have you had an answer? — A. Not to my knowledge — I am not sure on that.
Q. To your knowledge do you suppose they are willing to treat with organized
labour in the City of Montreal? — A. They are not, unless they have changed their
minds since a few months.
Q. And then you say they represent a very small minority of contractors in
Montreal? — A. They do. We asked them for a meeting a year ago this spring and
most of the carpenters and the executive of the Builders’ Exchange were summoned
— there are eight on the executive and only three put in an appearance, the secretary,
president and another man.
Mr. Harvey Hall. — A question I would like to ask is in regard to the inter-
pretation of the Bill, and is with reference to the first section. It says ‘ Every
contract to which the government of Canada is a party, which may involve the em-
ployment of labourers, workmen, or mechanics, shall contain a stipulation that no
labourers, workmen or mechanics in the employ of a contractor or sub-contractor,
or other person doing or contracting to do the whole or a part of the work contem-
plated by the contract, shall not be permitted or required to work more than eight
hours in any one day.’ — To what extent would the Bill apply to railway companies
having a contract for carrying mail?
The Chairman. That is one of the points that we would like some evidence on.
Mr. Hall— A railway company might have the contract to transport mail matter,
and will the Bill include the railway companies?
The Chairman. — We have had different expressions of opinion on that. Accord-
ing to some it would as it is presented now. I think the general opinion is that as
drafted it would apply in cases of mail contracts.
Mr. Hall. — Of course if it does, it would be in the interest of transportation
and railway men that some extension should be made to these clauses in respect to
that, because it would be almost impossible to regulate things on a railway to con-
form with those conditions.
The Chairman. — That is a very important statement, it is precisely that kind of
thing the committee is seeking to get information on. I think the members of the
committee feel that the Bill in some particulars would do a good deal of good and
in other particulars a good deal of harm, and it is to get information on the question
such as you have mentioned that we are here.
Mr. Hall. — Of course I agree with the principle of the Bill.
MR. AINEY.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR 307
APPENDIX No. 4
The Chairman. Quite so we would be pleased to hear you as a witness, but
at any rate the statement you have made now is an important one to the committee.
I think there is no mistake that the Bill as drafted does apply to railways, and ex-
actly the same thing came up in the United States and they made an exemption for
railways and they had to modify it in that particular before making any headway.
(To witness) Have you any statement, Mr. Ainey, that you would like to leave
with the committee, or any further points you wish to touch upon ?
Mr. Ainey. — Hone just at present.
The Chairman. We are thankful to you for coming up and giving us your evi-
dence.
Witness thereupon retired.
The Committee then adjourned until 3.15 p.m.
AFTERNOON SITTING.
Pursuant to adjournment the Committee resumed sitting at 3.15 p.m.. the Chair-
man, Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, presiding.
Mr. Edward J. Stephenson, being duly sworn, deposed:
By the Chairman:
Q. Where do you live Mr. Stephenson ? — A. In Winnipeg.
Q. How long have you lived there? — A. Not very long — about six months.
Q. Were you born in this country? — A. Yes. sir.
Q. How long have you been in the west? — A. About nine years.
Q. What is your occupation or trade? — A. Compositor.
Q. Are you connected with a paper at the present time or any publishing house
or printing office? — A. Not officially — no.
Q. You have given a good deal of study to the question of labour? — A. Yes, I
have tried all I can.
Q. Have you held any position in trade unions? — A. Yes, a member of the Inter-
national Typographical Union, and I have held various positions in labour movements
since I became a member.
Q. Have you made a study of Socialism or any of these questions ? — A. Yes, I
have studied the subsidiary questions to the labour question — I cannot say that I
am in sympathy with everything I study.
Q. But apart from your interest in labour you have been a student
in these matters as well? — A. Yes, I have devoted half my time in the last two or
three years to it, and did the best I could.
Q. You worked twelve hours a day; could you have done much in studying? —
A. I worked more than that.
Short Hours, a Necessary Reform.
Q. But I mean, if working twelve hours a day, would you have had much time
to study?- — A. No, I can give my own experience in that respect. Where I first
worked we had sixty-four hours a week and part of that time we were forced as a
matter of discipline to work one night a week, and in the west I worked nine hours
a day, and when I went to Moosejaw — it was a union town, so to speak — the hours
were reduced to eight hours.
4— 20i
308
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Did you find with the shorter hours you had more time, to study these ques-
tions, or did you put in your time that way? — A. 1 found it was much more pleasant
— life was much more pleasant for me, and I tried to arrive at an opinion that would
satisfy myself so to speak in regard to the merits of the eight-hour day, and. I thought
observing my work, I was doing as much in eight, as I had been doing in nine, before.
Q. What views have you on the eight-hour day? — A. I believe it is a very neces-
sary reform in any county where industry has gained a foothold — -That is modern
industry — I do not speak of primitive methods.
Q. How do you look upon farming; is that primitive work? — A. No; I would not
regard that as an industry in the sense I am speaking.
Q. You are speaking of manufacturing industries or so-called trades? — A. Ye3,
involving manual labour and a certain classification of mental labour. It is hard
to draw the line as between that mental labour which might be regarded as belonging
to the labouring class and that which might be considered as belonging to classes in
the higher level of society.
Q. A man running a linotype has to use his intellect, and has to rise mental effort
as well as physical effort? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you looked at this Bill of Mr. Verville’s? — A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you studied it carefully? — A. No, I cannot say that I have studied the
Bill as I would have liked to ; I did not have the opportunity, but I have read it
over two or three times.
Q. You think you understand the provisions or what is aimed at? — A. Yes, I
think I understand the object of the Bill.
Q. Do you think it would go to help along the eight-hour movement if passed?
— A. I think so.
Q. How? — A. I believe that a certain amount of legislation is necessary along
with economic activity by organized effort among workingmen in order to secure
the reforms which they are entitled to, and which are in the best interests of the com-
munity.
Q. By legislation, do you mean any kind of an Act as long as passed by a legisla-
ture and rightly named? — A. The word legislation would certainly cover every Act
passed.
Q. Do you think an Act called an Eight-hour Act, irrespective altogether of its
contents, if you could get some measure of that kind through the House, would that
be of service to the eight-hour movement? — A. I do not think the passing of a title
by any legislature would be of any use to anybody.
Q. Is it the body of the Bill that is really important? — A. Yes, it is the body
of the Bill, in my mind, that is all-important.
Q. What do you think of the body of this Bill? — A. I am inclined to favour it.
I think it is a good principle all right ; it is applied (substantially in other parts of the
world.
Scope of United States Labour Law and Bill No. 21.
Q. Do you know any country with a law like this? — A. Yes, the United States
has a law which even goes further.
Q. Are you sure of that? — A Yes; I have a copy of the law here somewhere; and
I have a copy of a Bill introduced in January of this year in the Senate of the United
States. If you would like the text I would give it.
Q. Yes, please. When was this passed? — A. In 1892. I may say this report is the
hearing before Sub-Committee No. 1 of the Committee on Labour of the House of
Representatives of the United States.
Q. When was it printed? — A. In 1908. The committee met in February, 1908.
Q. ‘ House of Representatives Report 15651 — Eight Hours for Labour on Govern-
ment Work’? — A. Yes. Would you like the text?
MR. STEPHENSON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
309
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Does it state that this is the present law on the statutes of the United States ?
— A. Yes; an officer of the American Federation of Labour has indicated that for
my guidance.
Q. Does the text indicate it as the present law? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then just read that part of the text? — A. ‘Be it enacted, by the Senate and
House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the service and employment ;of all labourers and mechanics who are now, or
may hereafter be employed by the Government of the United States, by the District
of Columbia, or by any contractor, or sub-contractor, upon any of the public works
of the United States, or of the said District of Columbia, is hereby limited and
restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day, and it shall be unlawful for any
officer of the United States government, or the District of Columbia, or any such
contractor, or sub-contractor, whose duty it shall be to employ, direct or control the
services of such labourers and mechanics, to require or permit any such labourer or
mechanic to work more than eight hours in any calendar day except in cases of extra-
ordinary emergency.’
The second clause is somewhat analogous to the second clause of the one before us.
‘Sec. 2. That any officer or agent of the Government of the United States or
of the District of Columbia, or any contractor or sub-contractor, whose duty it shall
be to employ, direct, or control any labourer or mechanic employed upon any of the
public works of the United States or of the Districts of Columbia, who shall inten-
tionally violate any provision of this Act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour,
and for each and every such offence, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not to ex-
ceed one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by
both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court having jurisdiction
thereof.
‘ Sec. 3. That the provisions of this act shall not be so construed as 'to in any
manner apply to or affect contractors or sub-contractors, or to limit the hours of
daily service of labourers or mechanics engaged upon the public works of the United
States or of the District of Columbia for which contracts have been entered into
prior to the passage of this act.’
I may call attention to the fine and imprisonment which is imposed in the American
law.
Q. Do you notice any difference in that law, in the scope of its application to the
scope of this one proposed? Do you think that has as broad a scope as Mr. \ ervilles
Bill? — A. Yes, I think so.
Q. Take Mr. Yerville’s Bill, it says ‘ Every contract to which the government of
Canada is a party which may involve the employment of labourers, workmen ot
mechanics ’—and if you take that law you have just read, it says ‘ any employees on
public works ’ ? — A. Yes, or any contractor or subcontractor.
Q. In connection with public works, — is it not limited to the public works of the
United States?— A. Yes, it would be.
Q. I think there is that difference,— that Mr. Yerville’s Bill as drafted, applies to
every contract of the government which may employ labour, as in the supplying of
lumber and coal for the Intercolonial— that would not come under it because a
contract for coal would not be labour on public works in the United States. I think
that there is that difference— of course, I may be mistaken?— A. I do not know
whether the word ‘ contractor ’ is a word that would call for special interpretation
or not.— That is ‘contractor or sub-contractor on any public works.’ It might be
extended to cover any work performed on behalf of the government as mending maL
bags for instance.
Q. Would that be public work ?— A. I would say an employer was a contractor.
Q. An employer might be a contractor, but as you understand the public works
of the government, do you take that to include mending mail bags and matters of that
310
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
sort? A. That is not the sense in which it is accepted in Canada either in the pro-
vinces or in the Dominion.
Q. I think you will find in the United States it is not accepted either. We have
had that brought to our attention by Professor Skelton of Queen’s who has made an
analysis of different legislations on the matter and that was a point mentioned, I think
however, what is included there is a big part of what Mr. Yerville has in his Bill as
I understand it — do you so regard it? — in other words, what he has here would cover
all that that law has in it? — A. I do not know that it would in the one particular that
you mention I can see now that perhaps the words ‘ public works ’ would limit it.
Q. He has not as much jail and fine in it as this? But as to the application part
of it, and extension of the eight-hour principle on certain classes of work, Mr. Ver-
ville’s Bill has all that that has in it,' and a good deal more? — A. Oh, it is broader in
scope, I think, T our question was, did I know of any other countries that have the
eight-hour day, and I am informed that they have it in different sections of Australia.
New Zealand, Cape of Good Hope, and on public employment in Great Britain, and
besides that there is a recent law passed over there in respect to coal mines.
Q. In Australia and New Zealand is the eight-hour law applicable to all industries,
or the eight-hour condition in government contracts ?— A. I cannot say further than
this quotation that I have been able to make.
Q. What you are giving now is a statement from some official source?— A. Yes
an official statement from the American Federation of Labour.
Q. I think the statement is correct, but I think there is this point, in some of
these countries mentioned, the eight-hour law is applicable to industries generally—
it is not a question of its application to government contracts ?— A. I understand it
was initiated to an appreciable extent by legislation rather than the activity of work-
ingmen. I think if the eight-hour day is universal that effect has been practically
promoted by legislation.
Q. Taking that point of promoting it by legislation L if you wish to do that in
Canada, which government do you think should be applied to?— A. I think the federal
government.
9‘ 1 have given attention to other witnesses on that point, and I have
definite information that with regard to federal public works it would be the federa1
government.
Provincial and Federal Power to Legislate.
Q. I quite agree in that, but I am speaking of eight hours for the working classe*
generally; who ought to pass a law of that kind?— A. I think the Dominion govern-
ment should.
Q- Do you think that is the way the constitution should be formed, that thev
should have power? — A. I think they have.
_ Q- What makes you say that ?— A. My memory is not very clear in regard to the
British North America Act, but my opinion is that the parliament of Canada has
power.
• Did {rU tT !-ear this Parliament Passing a factory Act or an Act respecting
mines ; A. No, I believe that does belong to the provincial jurisdiction.
Q. And do you know why?— A. Well, it is regarded as a local question.
Q. It ns a question of contract between employer and employee and according to
the British North America Act that class of subjects has to be dealt with by the pro-
vincial government— I think there is no doubt if attempted by legislation to enact an
mgh.-hour day that legislation would have to be passed by the provinces under the
British North America Act as it is at present. I think if you look at the interpretation
of the Act you will find that is true-the length the Dominion government can go
is to put conditions into its own contract just as any employer can do? — A That would
to a large extent put the question up to every provincial legislature in Canada Thai
MR. STEPHENSON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
311
APPENDIX No. 4
is if the federal government required an eight-hour day on public works, I think every
provincial legislature would he compelled to take the same action.
Q. You think if every provincial legislature were to take this action they would
put the question up to the Dominion Government? — A. I do not think they would have
a right to interfere with the action of the legislatures on work respecting public works.
Q. But supposing the provincial governments were to insert a clause to the effect
that on their works eight hours should be worked, and their representatives came here
and pointed out that in their contracts they have eight hours provided for, and they
ask the Dominion to adopt the same course? — A. I think you would have the best side
of it in any kind of argument in which the legislative bodies might be involved.
Q. Which would have the best? — A. The Federal Government.
Q. Would not the Federal Government be obliged to follow the example in that
case? — A. If a public issue, the government would have to support the public opinion
to a large extent.
Q. I think that, but I do not think you understand the force of my remark. If
each province were to adopt what Mr. Yerville suggests to the Dominion to do, it
would be pretty hard for the Dominion to get out of following the example of the pro-
vinces?— A. No, I do not think so.
Q. Then why do you think if the Federal Government were to set the example
the provinces would follow it? — A. Simply because it would produce something in the
application here and there of the principle of shorter hours of labour among certain
classes of mechanics.
Relative Conditions in Provincial and Federal Contracts.
Q. What would produce it?— A. Supposing the Federal Government were building
a post office in Regina, and it was a long job, and the working men of the building
trades engaged on that building would perhaps have a year s work at an average all
round on an eight-hour day principle, well that would exert a strong influence on the
other trades to try and get the same conditions, and if public works and provincial
buildings were commenced before that contract was completed and during its erection,
I think the men would be liable to have the same conditions on them as they had on
the post office.
Q. But supposing I just reverse it and take the case you mentioned— take the
case in Regina where the Provincial Government is putting up a building and in con-
nection with that they have the eight-hour stipulation, and this government should be
asked to put up a post office there, don’t you think this government would find it up to
it to see that the men got the same hours on its contract, that the 1 rovincial Gov em-
inent were providing for the men on their contract? — A. Yes, if the Provincial Gov-
ernment had the eight hours.
Q. Yes, and take it in the case of municipalities, do you think if each munici-
pality were to put in a stipulation that only eight hours a day should be asked, if done
by enough municipalities would it not be a strong reason why the provincial govern-
ments should adopt, the same course?— A. Yes, but the history of legislation does not
go that way.
Cycle of Labour Enactments, How Influenced.
Q. Does it start from the biggest and go to the smallest? — A. No, but it does not
invariably go the other way. In regard to the Fair Wage Act— I do not suppose more
than two or three municipalities and very few provinces have it in force or had it m
force when the Federal Government adopted that, and if you had waited for all the
municipalities to adopt a fair-wage clause or if the province had waited for the muni-
cipalities to have adopted it, a certain amount of injustice would have been done and
the same thing applies in this. If you wait for universal action to guide a general
precedent, I think you will have to wait a long time.
312
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Mr. Ralph Smith. — Don’t you think an agitation would influence a small body
quicker than a larger body? Take British Columbia, they have an eight-hour law in
nearly every industry? — A. As I understand it, it took a lot of agitation in British
Columbia of a pronounced type.
Q. Would it take as much agitation to control a small body as a large one? Is
not the natural method of reform from the smaller to the larger? — A. Not always in
the case of legislation.
The Chairman. — The big fellow is easier hit. The bigger the mark the easier to
get at it — that is why you think the Federal Government should act? — A. That is
about the case. Because, if you go after nine provinces and you get different promises
or different provisions for each, you would have a very complicated state of affairs.
Mr. Smith. T ou understand what can be done by the provinces in some regards
cannot be done by the Dominion ? And the matter you mentioned is not covered by
that argument. So long as the provinces refuse to regulate mines they will remain
unregulated because the Dominion Government has not the power to make them — that
is a point, I would like to get members of the union to see that they have the
power in the provinces?— A. I do not see how this matter of eight hours could be
governed by the provinces, and at the same time that it be the wish of the commit-
tee that the Federal Government have control of that matter.
I he Chairman. I wish we had.- — -A. If that is the case I think they have a per-
fect right to stipulate the hours of labour that shall govern their contracts.
Q. \ ou are perfectly right on that. We all agree, I think, as to the advisability
of an eight-hour day where it can be brought about, and what we are studying now
are the best methods to bring it about and a good deal of misunderstanding has arisen
as to the powers of the Dominion and the provinces, and what we want to know is
which will be the most effective way of working out and bringing about the eight-hour
day. 1 his is the only one thing the Dominion can do, and whether in the long run a
measure ol this kind is more certain of being enacted will depend in a large measure
on what is done in other parts, in the extent that other public bodies have moved in
the matter I think you are right so far as the Dominion Government is concerned,
that if it set an example perhaps it would be followed by some of the provincial gov-
ernments and some of the municipalities as was the case with the Fair Wage Resolu-
tion, and that is a strong motive that prompted Mr. Verville in introducing this Bill.
On the other hand there may be members of parliament who think the proper place to
commence is the municipalities and let them work up to the Dominion, and what we
want to know is, if there is any argument that can be urged apart from the one of ex-
ample to justify the Dominion government in taking the action, and why it could not
be urged with equal force on the Provincial Government ? — A. I dare say it could, but
not with the same probability of success. Your argument for the municipalities to
take up this question would be the same as our asking every member of parliament to
discuss this while it is only introduced by one.
Q. Take the members from British Columbia, they would have no difficulty in
supporting that as they have eight hours in the trades affected now.
Mr. Marshall.— How was that brought about in British Columbia?
The Chairman.— Generally by the trades’ unions themselves. While the British
Columbia men may have an easy time of it in that way, there are members here from
Quebec who have not hours so short, and anything that would increase the wages or
shorten the hour puts a responsibility on them that is more difficult to face and if
the Quebec Government had taken that stand, they could come and say, ‘ Our province
is doing it and why should not the Federal Government do it.’ — A Well mv own
opinion is that in regard to such reforms as these for which a certain amount of legis-
lative action is necessary, that is legislation of this kind, we all accomplish it by in-
direct method. I believe the effect of this law would be to compel everv Provincial
MR. STEPHENSON.
COMMITTEE EE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
313
APPENDIX No. 4
government to give some attention to the question of the hours of labour on their
public works and to definitely settle it for all time at least one way or the other.
Q. What good would that do to the men who only have to work eight hours now,
in the mines for instance?- — A. Well, there are certain groups of workingmen, who
have not perhaps the courage or may not be numerically strong enough to put forth
concerted action to improve their condition. Inherently those men have as good a
right to good conditions as other men.
Q. Do you think the fact of the provinces adopting this principle on public works
would lead the municipalities to do the same thing? — A. Yes; I understand the gov-
ernment of British Columbia passed a law for eight hours on public works.
Q. Do you think that, would tend to have any effect on private establishments? —
A. Undoubtedly.
Q. Then the whole business is like throwing a pebble in a pool and watching the
circles spread out. A. Yes, and this is the place to throw the pebble.
Q. That is the strong reason in your opinion for saying it is the most effective
way of commencing a reform? — A. I have come to the conclusion in reading the
opinions of economists in regard to every phase of the question and I have found that.
Q. Have you read any moralists? — A. Well, sometimes I cannot recognize a
moralist when I read his works.
Q. Coming down to that side of the question do you recognize that the Dominion
Government would have any special responsibility in administering the funds as a
whole in connection with a measure of this sort? — A. No doubt.
Q. If it meant the granting of eight hours in those localities where they are work-
ing nine, ten or eleven hours and the men would only get, eight hours’ pay
would the government be justified in enacting such a law on ethical and
moral grounds? — A. Yes, for when you come to trace that out through all social stages
the community does not loose a cent and is benefited in the long run.
Q. Do you think the net output of work would be the same by working eight hours
as it would under a nine, or ten, or eleven hours? — A. No, but the capacity of con-
sumption of the workingman would be increased.
Q. Would the expenditure of the government be diminished relative to its income
or would it be vastly increased? — A. Not to the extent of the actual conditions shown
in the figures. If the government derived a revenue from the people and such
measures increased the prosperity of the people they would be better prepared to main-
tain the revenue of the government.
Mr. Vervili.e. — As you stated you are a printer, do you know of any law or agree-
ment or any order in council ever passed by the government for an eight-hour day-
have you ever heard of that? — A. No. I believe there is an eight -hour day here in
force in the Printing Bureau, but I do not know whether it is by enactment or what.
Q. If I understand you right you would like to see the Federal Government give
an example to all the provinces and municipalities on the eight-hour day? — A. Yes.
Q. The fact is, you want the father to give an example to the child instead of the
child to the father? — A. Yes.
Q. They have the eight hours in the Printing Bureau since 1896, I suppose you
know that? — A. I do not know the exact date, but it has had a good effect on the
printers throughout Canada.
Q. Take in your own line as a printer, do you do in eight hours as much as you
used to do in nine, or ten ? — A. I believe so, and I have had my employer say the same
thing.
Q. What is the difference in wages received now and formerly for nine hours? —
A. Well, I have worked in different places. I could quote Moose j aw— before the union
there, the employer paid eight to twelve hands a week for nine hours, and when the
union started, it was a maximum of fourteen dollars for eight hours. After a few
months, both employers said they were better satisfied with the new conditions than
with the old.
314
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Are they just as prosperous? — A. Yes, and they are better pleased and they
showed it by the treatment they accorded their employees.
Dr. Turcotte. — How do you explain that you can do as much work in eight
hours as nine? — A. I cannot undertake to explain that.
Q. Ho reason? — A. Yes, there is a reason, but it is not apparent on the surface —
I think a man’s physical well-being is better off, in proportion to the shortness of his
work, to a certain extent.
Q. Are you sure they are giving the same wages at your place as when working
nine hours? — A. Oh yes, in my trade the wages increased. I do not refer to the in-
creased cost of living, but I say the actual money wage has increased without regard
to the increased cost of living.
Q. Did anybody object to the eight hours? — A. Yes they have, but we have over-
come their objections.
Q. You think you have got the right side of the question? — A. Yes, and our views
have been endorsed by public men who are disinterested and far removed from any
influence that could be exerted by members of unions.
Q. Are you sure the eight-hour day does not decrease the production? — A. Ho, I
would not say it decreases the production.
Production not Decreased.
Mr. Verville. — It has not done so in your case?— A. Ho. I believe the records
of our International Union would show that opinion, and information obtained by our
officers goes to show that many employers express the view that the production has not
been decreased.
Dr. Turcotte. — Do you know any other trades in the same position? — A. The
other allied printing trades are practically speaking in the same condition — there are
five or six allied trades in the printing industry.
Mr. Ralph Smith. — Do you say your employer would admit that fact or admitted
that fact that you were doing as much work in eight hours as in nine? — A. Yes.
Q. In Toronto? — A. Ho, in Moosejaw — the Moosejaw Times and the Moosejaw
News, the editors and managers of both papers. I do not exactly remember when it
was — however, it was not at a banquet, and they volunteered the information that they
were better pleased with the new condition.
The Chairman. — There has been an improvement in the machinery to a certain
extent? — A. There has been an improvement in the machinery, but not in the last ten
years so much. There has been in the presses, perhaps, a little bit.
Q. Does it take more physical effort to work a linotype machine than it did to set
up by hand? — A. Yes, a much more nervous strain.
Q. So eight hours’ work on a linotype would be a greater tax on the system and
exhaust more energy than the nine or ten hours’ hand-setting? — A. I would say more
than ten hours hand-setting. I used to be a fast hand-type setter myself and yet I
have noticed the effect that work on the linotype has had on other operators.
Mr. Ralph Smith. — Are you printing now? — A. Hot lately, although I follow it
periodically in this last year or two — I have laid off quite a bit to study and help to
do something for the labour men in various ways.
Q. You live in Toronto now? — A. Ho, in Winnipeg.
Conservation of the Workingman's Vitality.
The Chairman. — I notice you have some documents there— are there any state-
ments you would like to make to the committee? — A. I have a copy of a Bill intro-
duced in the United States on January 20, this year, 1910, and I think its contents
will be interesting to the committee considered along with the other Bill I read which
is already law., I believe the purpose of this Bill is to interpret that other law or
interpret some part of it. I will leave it with the committee,
ME. STEPHENSON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
315
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Who introduced it?— A. It is by Senator Borah.
Q. If you can spare that we might have it filed as an exhibit and arrange to have
it returned to you later on if that is satisfactory I am sure the members of the com-
mittee will be very grateful to you? — A. Yes. I got some of this material by mail
to-day, and I have not had time to look through it, but there is an extract from one
of these pamphlets I would like to present— it is Bulletin 30 of the Committee of One
Hundred, on National Help, being a report on National Vitality, its Wastes and Con-
servation. This committee was appointed by Congress of the United States.
Q. Prepared by Professor Irving Fisher? — A. Yes, of Yale University, who is a
member of the. commission. This commission was appointed to make a comprehensive
investigation into the causes of deterioration or advance in national vitality. And in
regard to the working day I would like to read an extract from Professor Fisher’s re-
marks. On page 45 he says : — ‘ The present working day is a striking example of the
failure to conserve national vitality. In order to keep labour power unimpaired, the
working day should be physiological — i.e., it should he such as would enable the average
individual to completely recuperate over night. Otherwise, instead of a simple daily
cycle, there is a progressive deterioration. A reduction in the length of the work day
would be a chief means of improving the vitality of workmen, as well as the worth
of life to them.’
The fatigue of workmen is largely traceable to their long work day and serves
to start a vicious circle. Fatigue puts the workman in an abnormal frame of mind.
He seeks to deaden his fatigue by alcohol, tobacco, exciting amusements, and excesses
of various kinds. The momentary relief which he thereby obtains is purchased at
the expense of an increasing susceptibility to fatigue, resulting sooner or later in com-
plete depletion of his vital energies and in the contraction of tuberculosis or other
fatal disease. The decrease in the length of the working day has not diminished the
output.’
The Chairman. — That is a very interesting statement.
Mr. Marshall. — And what about the man who does not use tobacco or liquor? —
A. Well, according to the view of the professor he is better off for it.
Q. I understand from that article he takes them in order to stimulate himself
when over-worked? — A. Yes. Our view-points on these questions are very often in-
herited or we become possessed of them by way of prejudice more than a settled con-
viction, but at any rate that is the opinion of the professor, that tobacco is an in-
jurious element to deal with. In regard to the question of waiting for precedents
on the part of municipalities and provinces, I would like to outline the experience of
some of the International Unions. They first start the question of an eight-hour day,
and the International Union having local unions in Canada try to get it in all local
unions and they find that local conditions are such as to prevent them getting them
in some localities and they see they are bound to go on strike for eight hours all
through the jurisdiction, as the printers did, and they were successful. Their argu-
ment was that a printer in Quebec had just as much right to work eight hours as the
printer anywhere else, and there are many cases of that kind, so I think that pressure
is not necessarily needed for municipal or provincial administration in order to de-
termine whether it is fair for the government to go the length contemplated by this
By Mr. Ralph Smith:
Q. You have not any eight-hour law in the printing business — there is no' legis-
lation that regulates the hours of printing? — A. In an indirect way the same as this
Bill would. In some towns and cities we have aldermanic powers or governing au-
thorities in the city to stipulate that their printed matter shall bear the union mark.
That means the eight-hour day shall govern.
316 COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. You did not get it through legislation? — A. No, hut we have clinched it by
legislation. I think that is the case all over the world.
Q. What is the legislation ? — A. Regarding those union labour clauses.
Q. But that is due to trade union efforts ; in all the cities that apply that principle
it is due entirely to the influence of organization — do you know of any country that
has a law regulating hours of labour for printers? — A. No, I do not.
Mr. Marshall.— That is brought about by your own unions? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why not better, then, to handle this question, that is before the House? — A.
They are not strong enough to do it, sir, and some of them are placed in particularly
unfortunate positions.
Q. You say they are not strong enough — that means that two-thirds of the people
are opposed to it? — A. Not necessarily, I believe that is a matter of education.
Q. They must be opposed to it because you find you are not strong enough — do
you think it right for the government to enforce something on the people it does not
want? — A. I do not think this would be the case.
Q. You think it would become law generally in all classes of work? — A. No, T
think the change would be gradual and that is why I advocate a gradual process.
Q. TIow do you think the people would take this generally ? That is on govern-
ment work a man would get as much for eight hours as the men working ten hours?
How do the mechanics feel about it — for instance, you have some men working on a
government contract and getting as much for the eight hours as another man for ten
hours — do you think that would work to the advantage of the workmen generally or
would not there be a feeling brought about that it would not be desirable? — A. No
more than the case between union and non-union men. It is the invariable experience
where unions have attained any standing at all that their members get higher wages
than unorganized men.
Q. For certain work — but I am speaking generally? — A. No, for general work,
and those unorganized men have the remedy in their own hands.
Q. That is why I say, why do you not handle it yourselves and not come to the
government? — A. We say they should get it if they can.
Q. I think that it would be discriminating — I think if you get one class of men
for the same work and pay them as much for eight hours as you pay the men on the
other side of the street for ten hours, it seems to me it would bring about a very un-
desirable feeling among the working class? — A. I do not think that condition arises
very often — I think it would be the nine-hour men as against the eight-hour, in nearly
every case where the eight hours is attained by union activity, there is not infrequently
a drop of two hours, from ten to eight, but generally they cut it down from nine to
eight hours.
Hours and Wages.
Q. My experience with men, and we employ a great many, is that
they complain that we do not give them work enough — of course you are a printer
and would not perhaps have the satae reason— but that is our experience, that we do
not give them hours enough? — A. I think that is something like the men working
eight hours and wanting to get overtime, perhaps — I think that is the element of
selfishness in human nature which makes those fellows want to get more for the same
quality or quantity of work as the next, or rather they want the opportunity to do
more work than their fellow man who is just as good a workman as they.
Q. Take a man in a shop and give him his choice — supposing he was getting two
dollars for ten hours, and if he wishes to work eight his pay will be reduced accord-
ingly— which would he prefer ? — A. I think he would prefer the eight hours.
Q. With the reduced wages? — A. No. I do not think he would with the reduceid
wages.
ME. STEPHENSON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
317
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. You do not catch my question — a man working ten hours and getting two
dollars, and if he works eight hours he gets a dollar sixty ? — A. He would not be willing
to sacrifice forty cents a day for principle.
Q. Then he would want to be paid the same for eight as ten hours? — A. Yes.
But the majority of cases are that he would want to be paid the same for eight as
nine, and for nine as ten but not the same as eight for ten.
Mr. Smith. — This Bill does not provide for wages — it just provides for fixing the
hours — supposing the men are paid by the hour or by the day, but are reduced accord-
ing to the hours proportionately to what they are working now, would that be satis-
factory?— A. I think in some cases it would, but I believe at the same time it would
be for their benefit in the end as a stimulus to them.
Q. And all laws of this kind have been understood to apply shorter hours for the
same wages? — A. Yes, that is one standard, that is the declaration of the International
Trades Union movement — the shorter the hours, the greater the pay.
The Chairman. — You think, if necessary, to add a clause that wages should be
paid pro rata, that it would be better for parliament to leave its hands off the Bill
altogether so far as the working of the clause is concerned — we have a lot of men in
the House that do not see eye to eye in this matter — some men may say if you are
going to make it eight-hours you must put a stipulation that wages must be reduced
accordingly? — A. By longer hours I say they are reducing the consuming power of
those people and injuring the interests of the community.
Q. If you had the responsibility of this committee and a proposition of that kind
were handed to you how would you act? — A. I do not know as I would1 agree to
have the wages reduced proportionately. I think some effort should be made to leave
the wages at or about the same as they were before.
Q. Your feeling is that if this committee should recommend a reduction to an
eight-hour day, that, with it, they should of necessity put as a sine qua non that the
wages should not be less than at present? — A. Well, I am not prepared to say that — I
think if the committee has doubts on that point it should thoroughly investigate be-
fore a clause of that nature should be adopted.
Q. What we want to get from you is as to how it would affect the working class
— we do not want to recommend a Bill that would not be satisfactory, and a Bill that
would leave a doubt as to what it means. — A. I think that to cut two hours off the
day, off the working time of the men, and at the same time reduce their wages pro-
portionately, say forty cents out of two dollars, would be doing the workingmen not
a great deal of good although it would eventually improve his physical condition and
give them more time for recreation, but to reduce their consuming power in that com-
munity by forty cents a day is harmful to the community.
Q. Parliament would not get much thanks? — A. Well, perhaps they would not.
Mr. Verville. — Have you heard much in respect to an eight-hour day — have
you heard anybody say if the day were shorter they should get the same? — A. The'
opinion I have found among workingmen is, that they would expect to get the same.
The feeling is, if they could not have the hours reduced from ten to eight and
still get the same pay, so far as organized workingmen are concerned, they would not
try to reduce the hours.
Q. Where have you heard that, or in what trade? — A. I am mixed with all trades.
Q. Can you cite any particular trade where the members of it told you that? —
A. No, I cannot give any particular instance — I have no memory of just who the
workingmen were, but that is the impression I picked up of their views on the matter.
Q. Are you aware that a large number of trades unions are supporting that Bill
as it is? — A. I do not know whether they are or not — I believe they are.
Q. And do you know there is no stipulation in it so far as wages is concerned? —
A. I know that.
318
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. And still they are supporting it? — A. I believe the trades unions as repre-
sented by the Trades and Labour Congress, at least would be content to leave that
matter of wages to work itself out. I believe it would work itself out in a year op
so in most cases.
Mr. Marshall. — I think the witness is all right — I think he appreciates the fact
that working-men want to get the same for eight hours as ten, and that you cannot
cut the wages down — take the man labouring and having a family, he gets his two
dollars to support that family. And supposing the shopkeeper has to pay as much'
to his clerks for eight hours as for ten hours, the workingman would naturally pay
more for his groceries? — A. No, for I think the shopkeeper can sell as much in two-
thirds of the time as he does during the whole time he is open.
Q. Of course if you get customers as fast as you can wait on them he might,
but any man knows that he has to wait for them?— A. I have in mind the action of
T. Eaton Company in Toronto. I do not think they received any representations from
customers on the matter of reducing the hours of work of their employees, and yet
I believe that store is said to be the largest of its kind in the British empire, which
store is only open from eight to five, and they would not use that system for a week
if they did not do as much trade in the shorter hours as in the longer hours.
Q. But there is only one T. Eaton in this country 1 am speaking of the
ordinary shop, and they would certainly have to add the extra cost to the cost of the
goods? — A. Well, I think the community would just have to buy the same quantity
of goods in less time.
Q. I am speaking of the men who just get enough for the ten hours to keep them
—the only thing in your argument that I can see is that the man’s condition, or health
or rest would be improved — so far as his condition financially is concerned he would
not be as well off as now. We must all admit that the men will demand as much for
eight hours as ten. — A. I do not think it would arise in so many cases as to do an injury
to the funds of the government, and I believe that in order to reach the desired goal
some of these decided steps should be taken in some cases, that is to jump from
ten to eight hours that is, a radical step would be necessary here and there to reach
a uniform result. The same thing occurred in the International Unions I speak of —
some were working ten hours, and they were reduced to eight hours, and their wages
increased in some cases.
Alternative Measures re Hours of Labour.
I he Chairman. Just in connection with the question of wages, do you think it
would be wise lor parliament to enact any legislation that would leave the wages ques-
tion in doubt ? A. TV ell, I do not think it would do much harm in this case.
Q. Do you think it would do any good? — A. It would do more good to leave it
to work itself out than to experiment with it by an arbitrary provision because it
would have to be more or less arbitrary.
Q. Let us see the alternatives — in some cities in Canada the hours of labour at
present run Irom eight, nine, ten and eleven in the building trade — this law would be
made generally applicable and would apply to the men working those different hours,
only, the first question to come up is how are the wages to be affected. In the case of
the eleven -hour men, they would be affected to the extent of three hours and the others
would be affected in different degrees, and do you think parliament should leave any
doubt as to how each should be affected in enacting a measure of this sort? — A. I
hardly follow you in that.
Q. Would it be in the interests of better conditions to leave a point of such vital
importance out, that is a question that is likely to give rise to confusion ? — A. I think
it would cause less confusion if it were left out. You would need something to en-
force it as in the case of fair wages and fair wage officers.
ME. STEPHNSON.
VO M MITT EE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
319
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. I admit that there are two alternative plans — one to say every man working
for the government shall work eight hours, and yet propose he should be paid at the
same rate of pay as in that locality — would a Bill of that kind be satisfactory?- — A. No,
I do not think that rate per hour should govern so much as it does in the fair wage
scale — I think the wages per hour
Q. Coming down to this particular Bill, you feel if parliament put that stipula-
tion in that the wages per day remain as they are, that a measure of that sort reduc-
ing the hours to eight would not be satisfactory to the workingman ?— A. That seems
to me a little involved.
Q. I will make it simpler. Let us assume that parliament to-morrow enacted
that in connection with all labour employed in the construction of public buildings
no man should work more than eight hours a day and should not receive more for
his labour than the customary rate per hour in the locality— would that be satisfac-
tory?— A. No.
Q. That clears that point. Let us take the other extreme and say that all the
men shall be employed only eight hours, but where this law involves a reduction in
present hours no labourer shall suffer any loss but shall be remunerated at the same
rate as he was receiving prior to the enactment of this measure ?— A. Yes, it seems to
me that is the purpose of the Bill.
Q. That would be satisfactory to the working class? — A. Yes, I think so.
Q. But parliament has to consider whether that would be satisfactory to other
classes? — A. Yes, I think it is important that the purchasing power of these work-
men should be maintained at least.
Q. Then between those two clear attitudes, one satisfactory to the workingman
and the other not, there is a third, to say nothing about the wages, but leave it to settle
itself or not— do you think that this third alternative would be satisfactory, that is to
leave it in a state of confusion, and to be fought out between the contractors and the
men?— A. I believe it would in some cases. I believe where the view is held that the
change would be too radical and wrnuld cost the government quite a bit, that work-
ingmen would be willing to compromise, for instance in a change from ten to eight
hours where there might be some difficulty, the workingmen would perhaps consent
to take nine hours’ pay instead of ten hours’ for eight hours’ work. I believe there
would be cases of that kind if it were left to a matter of arrangement between the
government and employees and contractors. As I say, I am not able to state how it
would work out exactly.
Mr. Smith— According to your experience, does not a demand for the reduction
of hours carry with it the understanding and assumption that the wages will be main-
tained, is that not your experience ?— A. Well, no, that is rather the theory than the
universal practice. It is the general practice all right that where the hours are
reduced an effort is made to keep up the pay.
Q. Do you think the workingmen of Canada supporting this Bill by their resolu-
tions—do you think they do not assume that the financial position of the workmen
will remain the same, that is, they will get the same for the eight hours as they were
getting for the larger number of hours ? — A. I do not expect these men working ten
hours expect in every case to get the same for eight hours.
Q. All I have to say, and I have a big experience, is that I never knew a claim for
shorter hours that did not assume the right for the same pay — if it does not carry
that, it has no meaning. — A. In some cases the conception of wffiat the eight hours
means is so clear among the workingmen they will consent to a slight reduction to get
it, figuring that they will get back to the same pay.
Q. But does this not follow too — that is the unions try to demonstrate that a
reduction of hours does not always mean a corresponding reduction of production — -
that a man can do as much in eight as in ten hours, and on that ground, has he not
a right to maintain under those circumstances, that the wages should be maintained?
320
COMMITTEE EE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
— A. That should be a matter of adjustment in the industry. I do not think a man
can start out to-day and do the same work in eight as in ten hours — but ultimately
that end is reached.
Q. Would the reform be better effected by one stroke or by a gradual series of
improved conditions? — A. I think that depends upon circumstances. I think some-
times there is an accumulation of apparent injustices which calls for a radical stroke,
and in other cases it is perhaps better to improve step by step.
Q. Take the case of public works — would it be better to bring them down to
eight hours at once or to reduce it by degrees — do you think that would work more
effectively to reduce them at once? — A. I think the cases would be so few where the
change would be radical that it would be only fair for the government to pass legis-
lation that would have that effect in order to do justice to workmen in that trade work-
ing in other parts of the country.
Q. But if they only confined their efforts to their own public buildings, would
there be much injustice to other workingmen working in other parts — unless you made
it applicable to the trade generally — your point would not have the same force? — A.
It would be very hard to make it applicable to trades generally.
Q. You could not by this government. Have you any other papers you would
like to leave with us? — A. I have some here that I would like to file with the com-
mittee, or I would like to have the privilege of supplementing my oral evidence by a
short written statement. I may say this information came to me from across the line
and ninety per cent of the workingmen of Canada are affiliated with the American
Federation of Labour whmh I represent, so I would like to submit a supplementary
statement.
Q. What are the titles of the papers ?— A. ‘ Eight Hours for Labourers on Gov-
ernment Works.’ A report by Honourable B. H. Metcalfe, Secretary of the Depart-
ment of Commerce of Labour, of the Llouse of Representatives, 4064, Eight-hour Bill —
date of publication 1905, Washington.’ And these here are four pamphlets issued by
the American Federation of Labour itself — two of them are on economics and both
by members of university staffs — one the ‘ History and Philosophy of the Eight Hour
Movement ’ by Lemuel Danryid, and the other the ‘ Economic and Social Importance
of the Eight Hour Movement ’ by George Gunton. I have looked through a portion
of these, and there is an extensive argument to show that a reduction to eight hours
would not harm the community and would benefit the workingman materially, morally
and physically and every other way.
Q. What are your other documents? — A. Here is ‘The Eight Hour Primer;
the Fact, Theory and the Argument,’ by George E. McNeill; and the fourth one is
‘The Eight Hour Workday; its Inauguration, Enforcement and Influences,’ by
Samuel Gompers, President of the Federation.
Q. I think they deal more particularly with the general question of eight hours
than they do with the specific question of this Bill?- — A. Yes; but there are a good
many specific cases mentioned here.
Q. If you like to prepare a statement and have it submitted as part of your evi-
dence, I think the members of the committee would be glad to have it.
Mr. Veryille.— The other statement formally submitted was made in the name
of the association, and, as there will be one from the association, I do not think that
this will be necessary.
The C hairman. It seems to me Mr. Stephenson has given much attention to
this, and I must say his evidence is excellent, and as an argument for eight hours,
his own presence with his knowledge, acquired during his spare moments, is, to
my mind, the best argument for the eight-hour movement. (To witness) I suppose
you earned your own living since a boy? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. How old are you? — A. Twenty-four. I worked since fourteen.
MR. STEPHENSON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21- HOURS OF LABOUR
321
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. And you acquired the knowledge you have given us during your spare mo-
ments, earning your own living at the same time? — A. Yes, sir; and I am only sorrv
I have not been able to enlighten you a little more.
Q. Well, if you go on as you are doing you will do a great service to mankind.
I have asked you to make that statement because requested to. I have no desire to
conflict with any paper that may be submitted by the Trades and Labour Congress.
Mr. Verville.- — I know that no statement of yours will go against any statement
of the Congress? — A. I have here also a bi-monthly publication containing articles
concerning all classes of people, and this volume rs devoted to the improvement of
labour conditions in the United States. It is the May, 1906, edition of that publica-
tion, and there is some attention given to the eight-hour day here and other questions
that affect the working day that I have not had the time to look through. However,
I will leave it with you.
Mr. Stanfield. — There is the question of wharfs and breakwaters; has anything
of that come up?
The Chairman. — I think something of that has come up.
Mr. Stanfield. — The reason I mention it is that the wharfs and breakwaters in
the east, that is the work on them done there is done by farmers, and, if this should
go into effect, it would affect the work on wharfs and also the farmers who want to
work between seasons and who do not want to be limited in the matter of hours.
The Witness. — May I say, for the last nine years I made it a point of going out
on a farm from one to three months every year, and have made it a point to keep in
touch with the views of farmers. I have had eight or nine seasons in the harvest in
the west, and I have noticed a gradual change in the working hours on the western
farm. I know it used to be a common thing to work twelve and fourteen hours in
harvesting in the west, around Regina, nine years ago, and I have worked in different
parts and kept in touch with the Grain Growers’ Association since its inception, and
I know there is a tendency not to work more than ten hours a day — that is work in the
field.
The Chairman. — But Mr. Stanfield is asking about men working in the water.
The Witness. — He speaks about farmers working there, and I want to point out
that the hours of farmers are being shortened the same as those of every other class
of labour.
Mr. Stanfield. — You cannot compare the farmers of Nova Scotia with those out
west, where they have improved machinery and plough with power, while in Nova
Scotia it is mixed farming.
The Witness. — I think it is the experience that mixed farming calls for longer
hours of labour.
Q. What about the men who milk six or seven cows after seven o’clock ? — A. There
should be two shifts of men in some classes of farm work.
The Chairman. — I would like to thank you, Mr. Stephenson, on behalf of the
committee, and to say we all appreciate the evidence you have given.
Witness thereupon retired and the Committee then arose.
4— 21
322
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
House of Commons, Eoom 34,
Wednesday, April 20, 1910.
Special Committee on Bill No. 21 respecting Hours of Labour on Public Works.
The Committee met at 11 o’clock a.m., the Chairman, Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
presiding.
The Chairman. — We are to go on this morning with representations from the
Dominion Trades and Labour Congress. Mr. Draper, are you representing the
Congress ?
Mr. Draper. — Yes, sir.
Mr. Patrick Martin Draper, duly sworn, deposed:
By the Chairman :
Q. What is your occupation? — A. Printer by trade.
Q. W here are you engaged at present ? — A. In the Government Printing Bureau.
Q. Who are you representing this morning? — A. The Trades and Labour Con-
gress of Canada.
Q. And whom do the Trades and Labour Congress represent ?— A. They repre-
sent the Internationa] Trades Union movement for legislative purposes in the Dom-
inion of Canada.
Q. Will you give us an idea of the nature of the congress? — A. The congress
has been in existence for many years, since 1866, and it represents some forty thou-
sand skilled operatives in Canada, from I may say the Atlantic to the Pacific. We
have forty-three trades and labour councils chartered, and practically affiliated with
the congress are 628 local trades unions. The trades and labour councils pay a per
capita tax on their delegates only to the Congress. For example, in the city of
Toronto they have approximately 10,000 men organized and the congress simply
receives the tax on some 213 delegates representing those 10,000 men. I want to
explain that because it is important, in my opinion. Now, while we only represent
40,000 by the collection of the per capita tax, which the books will show, we estimate
that there are over 100,000 men organized throughout the Dominion, although we do
not represent them all— they are not all affiliated. The congress looks after legisla-
tion for those they represent before the Dominion Parliament, and it has nine pro-
vincial executives in the provinces. These provincial executive committees look
after legislation in the provinces, and then to complete the organization we have the
trades and labour councils which are wbat I would call equal to municipal councils
in the municipalities. So you see we have the congress as a Dominion legislative
body, the provincial executives as the provincial legislative bodies, and then we have
the trades and labour councils chartered in forty-three different centres. I suppose
I need not go further
Q. I suppose they are in the centres of the Dominion? — A. These trades and
labour councils are like feeders to the other bodies in the way of legislation— they
appear before the municipalities and look after legislation there.
Q. I gather from what you state the congress is the oldest and largest repre-
sentative body in the Dominion? — A. Yes, for legislative purposes.
Q. What position do you hold in connection with the congress?— A. Secretary-
treasurer, and have been such for ten or eleven years.
MR. DRAPER.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
323
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Does that constitute you a member of the executive? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What other officers are there on the executive ? — A. The executive council is
composed of a president, vice-president and secretary-treasurer.
Q. How long have you held the office of secretary-treasurer? — A. Ten years.
Q. Are we right in assuming that the views which you express here represent
pretty accurately the views of the workers throughout the Dominion, representing
the unions that have either affiliation or hold charters from the Dominion congress ?
— A. I think you are right.
Q. Would we be right in assuming that these views represent the views of any
other workers than those immediately connected with the Congress ? — A. As has been
expressed at the different conventions — I have been at fifteen now — and it has been
expressed at these conventions from year to year, and my views would represent the
views of workers as expressed at the conventions.
Q. But what I want to get at is- this : There are other labour bodies not as large
as yours — the National, for instance — can you say the views expressed by you
would represent their views also? — A. No, sir; I do not represent them in any capa-
city.
Q. They would have to speak for themselves? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Outside the ranks of trade unions there are a large number of men in the
same trades and same calling, and working under the same conditions, in part, to
the members of the unions ; would the views you express be held by them in any de-
gree, do you think? — A. I will only speak for those I represent. I would not say they
are their views, but I think they are.
Q. Do you think the views of organized labour are typical of the views held by
workingmen generally, or would you regard them as being different to any degree? — A.
My analysis, from close observation, has been this, that the organized workers do
represent, in so far as we can secure or obtain information, the views of nearly all
the workers. There may be isolated cases, but, of course, as you will understand, it
is a large constituency and there is a multiplicity of views and very often a great
amount of difference, but I do not think there is any considerable or appreciative
difference between the wage-earners of Canada as a whole on the advisability of
seeking to establish an eight-hour work day.
Q. Do your views represent, in any way, the views held by agricultural labourers
as opposed to those engaged in the trades or manufacturing industries? — A. No.
From my meagre knowledge of agriculture, I think that the circumstances that sur-
round the work that farm hands or farm labourers do are different to the people
whom we are representing. Therefore, I do not desire to have it said that I represent
the agricultural labourer.
Q. Have you ever formed an estimate as to the relative number of men working
on farms as compared with the number in factories and trades? — A. I have en-
deavoured to do so by statistics, but I must say I have not satisfied myself suffi-
ciently to be able to give even approximately what the proportion is. I would not
like to express my opinion on that.
Q. I understand, Mr. Draper, you have a memorial or a memorandum prepared
which sets forth the views of the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress on this
Eight Hour Bill of Mr. Verville’s. Perhaps you would prefer to read the memorial,
and then have the committee ask you any questions on it they desire? — A. Yes. I
may say this memorial has been prepared by the solicitor and executive council of the
Congress, and is largely in reply to the statements made here by Mr. Murray, repre-
senting the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, who appeared against the Bill on
behalf of that association, and I desire to read it with your permission.
Q. Who is the solicitor of the Congress? — A. John G. O’Donoghue, of Toronto.
Q. I think the members of the committee would like to hear the memorial? — A.
(reading) :
4— 21*
324
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Memorial in Behalf of the Trades and Labour Congress.
Gentlemen, — In presenting the views of organized labour in favour of the
Eight Hour Bill now being considered by this committee, I may be permitted to
say a word as to the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association and the argument
presented to this committee by Mr. Murray on behalf of that body in opposition to
the Bill.
The general position of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, as out-
lined in its case, is that of the self-constituted friend of labour — favourable to
trades unions ‘ as long as they are properly conducted.’
Shure,’ said Dooly, ‘ if properly conducted. An’ there ye are. An’ how
wud they have thim conducted? No shtrikes, no rules, no conthracts, no scales,
hardly any wages, an’ dam few mimbers.’
I may state, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, before proceeding any further, that
i shall be pleased to answer any questions, if you desire to ask them, as I go along.
The late Senator Perley placed the C.M.A. in its proper place when he char-
acterized that organization as the biggest trust in Canada, and if it be, as Mr.
Murray says, ‘ The friend of the workmen,’ .then the organized workers of this
country must heartily ejaculate ‘ God save us from our friends.’ No one can
mention a single case where it helped a workman suffering under sweat shop or
other adverse conditions to lift himself from the mire; nor where it proposed or
endorsed legislation for the protection of women and children; nor where it gave
heed to the cry of an oppressed worker. Its whole history is a recital of a purely
selfish desire to safe-guard its own pocket at the expense of the general public.
There has hardly been one measure proposed for the amelioration of the
conditions of the workers since the organization of the C.M.A. to which that
body has not offered the bitterest opposition, nor does it always take time to
learn what it is opposing. Eor instance, when a Bill establishing arbitration and
conciliation in labour disputes in Ontario was proposed a few years ago, the
C.M.A. and its wicked partner, the Employers’ Association of Toronto, con-
demned the Bill before there was any possibility of knowing what its provisions
were.
Advocates as they are of protection to the manufacturer ‘ as high as Haman’s
gallows,’ the only uplift of a workman that would give that organization real
unmitigated joy would be when he goes up by the neck.’
Many of them are members of international trade organizations, and yet
they sought to prevent workmen from belonging to international trade unions.
Protected to the hilt by tariff legislation the members send up a cry to high
Heaven against any protection being afforded to those who create their wealth
for them.
The statement presented by Mr. Murray to your committee contains pro-
testations at various stages of the regard the C.M.A. has for labour, and it states
piously as to the humanitarian reasons in favour of the adoption of the Bill,
‘ God knows the manufacturers of Canada have not turned a deaf ear to this
side of the argument.’ It goes on to say, ‘ Where occupations are carried on
under conditions dangerous to life or limb, where from the nature of the material
handled or the atmosphere created the health of the worker is easily undermined,
or where the imposition of long hours would shatter the nerves or sap the strength
of women and children operatives, the manufacturers of this country will be the
first to hold up both hands in support of regulation.’ It is worth observing that
the statement does not say that the manufacturers of this country have been the
first to hold up both hands in support of regulation. Perhaps the C.M.A. will
point out what legislation it has proposed, encouraged or endorsed for any of
MR, DRAPER,
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
325
APPENDIX No. 4
these things. The truth is, as already stated, that to every measure offered tc
remedy the conditions last referred to, the C.M.A. has been there with its opposi-
tion seeking to defeat every attempt to secure the enactment of such legislation.
When the Act was to reduce the hours during which children could be worked the
crocodile tears of the manufacturers were copiously shed on behalf of the widows
who would be deprived of the assistance of their children. Where it was for the
protection of women, their eyes were again suffused at the thought of independent
women being prevented from working overtime to maintain a sick mother, a de-
crepit father or invalid children, and when, as now, a Bill that, in principle, they
cannot oppose, is presented, all the evils in the calendar are presented to your
committee as being the natural results if the Bill should become law. Before
this tribunal they oppose federal legislation and would support provincial regu-
lations. If a similar Bill were presented to the provinces, they would still be
there opposing, although hypocritically stating that federal legislation would
appeal to them, and so from one jurisdiction to another, so that the organized
worker is prompted to commend the C.M.A. to your committee as easily first in
the list of side-steppers. We state, shortly, with respect to all the expressions
of sympathy contained in the C.M.A. statements that tire working people of this
country do not believe those statements are sincere and we repudiate the C.M.A.
as the mouth-piece of the working people of Canada. We have had no help from
them in the past and we expect none now. They profess that ‘ so far as shorten-
ing the hours of labour will contribute to a state of prosperity and contentment
among his working forces, he (the manufacturer) can be depended upon to do
it just as quickly as the economic conditions will permit.’ Tour committee must
be fully aware of the number of manufacturers who have realized when the eco-
nomic moment was at hand and who have offered their workmen a reduction of
the hours of their labour.
The statement presented by Mr. Murray is made up of fears, fallacies and
foolishness. As usual, instead of being confined to the Bill before the committee,
it has taken up five-sixths of its space on matters not at all pertinent to the ques-
tion under consideration by your committee. In his general diatribe against trade
unions, he sought to prejudice this committee by references to the Winnipeg
Plumbers’ Union and to the Toronto Typographical Union. The members of
the committee will not have forgotten his acknowledgment to Mr. Verville later
that he did not know what he was talking about. If a judgment in a civil action
against the Winnipeg Plumbers’ Union casts a reflection upon that body, what
must be the situation of the associates in business of the manufacturers in
Toronto, who, as the Master Plumbers’ Association, were convicted and heavily
fined for a breach of the criminal law? There is an old adage which might be
commended to the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association about people who live in
glass houses.
If Mr. Murray’s statements generally are as little accurate as his representa-
tions with respect to the number represented by the Trades and Labour Congress
of Canada, then very little reliance can be placed upon them. He stated to this
committee that the secretary of the Congress, at Victoria, in September, 1906,
reported a total membership of 27,067. We do not like to accuse Mr. Murray of
wilful misrepresentation, but it is curious that he overlooked the statement on
the next page of the report that thirty-seven trades and labour councils in Can-
ada are now chartered by the congress. This means that in addition to the 27,067
already referred to, the Congress had, in 1906, through its trade councils, the
affiliation of 100,000 workmen. In 1909 there were 36,071 affiliated through their
own unions, while in addition there are forty-seven trades and labour councils
chartered, extending from Victoria, B.C., to Sydney, C.B., so that the present
representation in the Congress is well over 100,000 wage-earners, and when it is
326
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
remembered that most of those have families depending upon them, the total
number interested in the success of this legislation is very considerable.
On the other hand, Mr. Murray’s organization has 2,500 of a membership.
By referring to the census it will be observed what an exceedingly small propor-
tion of the manufacturers of Canada the' Canadian Manufacturers’ Association
represents, and when you further deduct probably 95 per cent of that membership
who never tender for or are interested in government contracts, it will be seen
how very few of the members of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association will
really be affected by this Bill.
Then with regard to the alleged unanimity of the manufacturers in opposi-
tion to the Bill, it should be noticed that, while those represented in the Trades
Congress endorsed the Bill in annual convention after careful consideration of
its terms, the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association has worked up its opposition
entirely through its secretary, as most of the manufacturers of Canada appear to
be utterly (unconcerned as to the progress of the Bill. While it may be true that
there has not been one dissenting voice in instructing Mr. Murray to appear and
oppose the Bill, at the same time very few of the members of the Canadian
Manufacturers’ Association have seen fit to give him any instructions. Most of
them are long familiarized with the eight-hour day and recognize its place in our
social structure. The boards of trade which have spoken upon the matter have
probably never read the Bill, but have taken for granted that all the evils men-
tioned in the Canadian Manufacturers’ circular are likely to follow upon the
passage of the Bill.
Mr. Murray expressed great concern about the motive underlying the promo-
tion of the Bill. There need be no doubt about the motive. It is to prevent the
government, as employers of labour, from being last in the procession of progress
in industrial and social improvement. The eight-hour day obtains very largely
in Canada to-day in the skilled trades as well as in the civil service and in the
Government Printing Bureau. The printers have it, the bookbinders have it, and
many others can be named. Many members of the Canadian Manufacturers’
Association are working under it. The government, if this Bill becomes law, far
from being in the van of progress, will be making but a tardy addition to the
movement. The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, along with other social
betterments, are endeavouring, and will continue to endeavour, to promote the
adoption of the eight-hour day, not only in government work, but throughout the
length and breadth of Canada.
Sir William Mulock, in introducing the Fair Wage Resolution in the House
some years ago, stated that it was the desire of the government to be a model
employer. A model employer usually leads the way. It is impossible to do so
in this instance, but what we do ask is that it at least keep step with the march
of events.
It was argued by Mr. Murray that a firm cannot work one part of its staff
eight hours on government material and the rest of its staff ten hours on the
material entering into private contracts. It is curious that with his knowledge
of industrial concerns Mr. Murray was not aware that many establishments do
that very thing to-day. It is not beyond the knowledge of this committee that
in the one establishment printers may be working eight hours, bookbinders nine,
and the other trades, nine or more hours a day. It is a common occurrence. The
fear expressed by the C.M.A. that the introduction of an eight-hour day into one
branch of a firm’s business would cause agitation and unrest among other trades
employed by the same firm is dissipated by the experience of firms that have at
the present time the eight, nine and ten-hour day prevalent in their establish-
ments. The agitation for an eight-hour day began, naturally, before there was
MR. DRAPER.
COMMITTEE EE BIEL Ao. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
327
APPENDIX No. 4
an eight-hour day, so that the existence of the shorter day does not make the
agitation any more intense.
While it is not true, as stated by Mr. Murray, that the Trades and Labour
Congress of Canada is affiliated with the American Federation of Labour, the
congress very heartily endorses the sentiments expressed by Mr. Gompers in
addressing the committee on labour of the House of Representatives, Washing-
ton, quoted by Mr. Murray in his statement.
Instead of worrying about the motive of the congress in pressing for the
passage of this Bill if we seek the motive promoting the C.M.A. in its opposition
to it, we will find it is the same motive that prompted opposition to the reduc-
tion of the work day from fourteen hours to twelve and from twelve to ten and
from ten to nine, namely, the desire to exploit the workers for the benefit of the
pockets of a few. The widow, the orphan and the so-called ‘ free and independent,
workman, have been doing work for years in the mouths of the C.M.A. and kin-
dred associations in the endeavour of the latter to hide their real object, namely,
to use the workman twenty-four hours every day, if possible, until his usefulness
is gone, when he is cast out without one regret, one, expression of gratitude, with-
out any concern for his future, to be replaced by another unfortunate workman
with nothing to sell but his labour, and who has the nice sounding ‘ right to work,’
which means after all nothing but the right to look for work. Reading into the
opposition of the C.M.A., the motive that underlies it, this committee will see
how much reliance can be placed upon the expression of sympathy for the work-
ing man coming from that body.
Concern was expressed by the C.M.A. that upon the passage of the Bill some
workmen would object to being forbidden by law to work more than eight hours a
day. There are men who would work twenty-four hours a day, if permitted, as
there are employers who would make them work that long if not prevented from
doing so, but we do know of instances where workmen have chosen to accept the
eight-hour day, notwithstanding that that meant a reduction in wages. The
‘ Winnipeg street railway, men did so. The C.M.A., on .the other hand, while
endorsing the principle of the Bill, and wishing God-speed to the working people
in general, do not show the same high regard for a principle. Their great con-
cern appears to be that their operations will become less profitable. This ‘ free
and independent workman ’ must join the widow and the orphan as another of
the class so cheerfully referred to by the C.M.A. as being jeopardized by the pas-
sage of this Bill. The Archey Road philosopher aptly expresses the position of this
free-born workman as follows: ‘ Suppose wan av these freeborn citizens is
wurkin in an open shop for th’ princely wages of wan large iron dollar a day for
tin hours. Along comes another freeborn son-of-a-gun and he sez to the boss, I
think I could handle the job for ninety cints. Shure, says the boss and the wan
dollar man gets the merry, jingling can, an’ goes out into the crool wurld t’ exer-
cise his inalienable rights as a freeborn citizen and scab on some other poor
divil.’
Since the adoption of the eight-hour day in Canada conditions have adjusted
themselves, namely, along the economic lines so feelingly referred to by Mr.
Murray.
The C.M.A. asks ‘ Is there any reason and justice in allowing three men
out of one hundred to dictate to the other ninety-seven and impose on them a
condition which may work extreme hardship.’ In the first place the C.M.A. has
the figures reversed, as probably only three out of every one hundred workmen in
Canada have anything to do with Government contracts. In the second place,
the C.M.A. itself does not hesitate to impose its views upon a minority of its
membership, or upon the vast majority of employers of labour who do not belong
to that organization at all. And in the third place, the Bill would only
328
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
require the same hours on Government work that practically prevail in the open
market in the trades affected to-day.
As a matter of fact there are employers of labour, members, we believe, of
the C.M.A., who not only voluntarily granted the eight-hour day, but agreed to
it with an increase over the wages being paid for the nine-hour day. That is the
case with the employing printers.
While some attention was given in the C. M. A. statement to the question
of provincial rights, we do not propose to bother you about that phase of the
matter. We take it for granted, that while" the general regulation of hours is a
matter of provincial concern, the Dominion government can impose what re-
strictions it sees fit in contracts it proposes to enter into.
As to the complaint that the Bill would result in added cost on Government
contracts it seems scarcely necessary to refer to the figuring done by Mr. Murray.
He argues that if it takes five men working eight hours each at $2.00 a day to
do as much as four men working ten hours each, the increase would be $2.00 or
25 per cent. Following out this line of argument, a saving might be pointed
out by employing two men twenty hours each, a net gain of $6.00 per day.
The C.M.A., to be consistent, should have carried their case that far. He evi-
dently overlooks the matter of increased efficiency, the provision against accidents,
the larger proportion of which occur in the final hours of a day’s work, and the
greater good-will of employees working a shorter day. But there is something
more; the workman is given a chance to improve his intellect and his physical
powers, to give some attention to his family and the upbringing of his children,
all of which make for better citizenship, and more enduring loyalty to our
national institutions. But of course all these must be brushed aside because
the C.M.A. members may lose a few cents by the change.
But need the tenderer for Government work fear any loss at all? He tenders
upon certain specifications, covering material, workmanship, wages and hours.
If he tenders at a loss to himself it is his own fault. The fair employer should
be glad of the regulation because he is protected from the unfair employer who
would work his men ten, eleven or twelve hours in order to make a profit for
himself. The fair wage clause gives the fair employer the same protection
and there is not a whimper from any fair-minded employer to-day about the
regulation of the wage by the fair wage clause. The same would apply to the
eight-hour day regulation, and if the C.M.A. were possessed of that spirit of
fairness towards, and sympathy for, the working people that it professes to have,
it would be present before your committee heartily endorsing a regulation that
would protect the fairly disposed employer against the scheming of the sweat-
shop artist and the exploiter of the unprotected workers. If the Government can
afford to give one million and a half dollars per year in a bonus to the Dominion
Iron and Steel Company, none of which reaches the employees who have to grub
for a decent wage in the same way that any other workman has to do; if it has
seven million dollars for unproductive military purposes, voted last session; if
it has a half a million dollars a year for the maintenance of an effete Senate; if
it can afford to pay bounties running into hundreds of thousands of dollars every
year for petroleujm, iron, steel, manilla fibre, and for the encouragement of the
brass industry; if it has millions for all these purposes, it surely can afford an
extra twenty-five thousand in the cost of a $100,000 building, as Mr. Murray
asserts would be the case with the passage of this Bill. Of course, it must not
be forgotten that this is his own estimate worked out on the figures already given.
The difference would be that while in the case of bounties, &c., the money goes
into the pockets of a few, the slight extra that might (without admitting that it
would) be caused by the adoption of this Bill would go to the working people,
by far the most numerous section of the community.
MR. DRAPER,
COMMITTEE he BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
329
APPENDIX No. 4
Mr. Murray, in his evidence before the committee, assumes the existence of
a lot of difficulties that need not occur. He takes it that extra inspectors will
be needed by the government on every piece of work that is done for it, and that
the contractor will require inspectors to watch the sub-contractor. We are sur-
prised that such an argument should be used. The members of this committee
know that in enforcing the fair-wage clause in government contracts the Depart-
ment of Labour has only two or three officers, and, as for the private contractor,
he will be protected by his contract with the sub-contractor without the assist-
ance of inspectors at all.
A reference was made. to the Intercolonial Railway and to the difficulty of
working one gang of men eight hours, and another gang ten hours. This so-called
difficulty has already been referred to. Those conditions already exist in many
shops without all the evil results to which the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association
points. If an employer has not the machinery or the workmen to place him in a
position to tender for public contracts, he does not tender. If he cannot comply
with the conditions imposed in the specifications, he has no business applying.
If a contract is awarded to him, after a tender made by him with his eyes open,
he has no business to complain as to the terms on which he accepted the con-
tract.
Ho more difficulty would be experienced in enforcing a provision in a con-
tract for the eight-hour day than is met with in enforcing the fair-wage clause.
Some workmen in a shop may be getting a better rate on a government contract
than other workmen in the same shop on private work. That is the only condition
that can arise with the eight-hour day. The government, up to date, lias been
able to maintain the fair-wage regulations, and there is no reason to assume that
it would not be equally successful in enforcing the provision as to the eight-hour
day. Every condition presented by Mr. Murray as a difficulty in enforcing the
eight-hour day can arise with respect to the enforcement of the fair-wage clause.
He is too much oppressed with these matters, and should remember the assurance
of somebody that most of the troubles that cause us worry never arise. When a
large railway like the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway
makes a reduction in hours for its employees, on an increase in wages, it seems
able to make the adjustment without the chaos feared by Mr. Murray. The task
would be much more difficult for a railway with its vast number of employees.
Even with train despatchers, the railways have been able to reduce their hours,
and yet we hear no wail from other branches of the railway service for a reduc-
tion of hours simply because train despatchers here and other employees elsewhere
have shorter hours. The hours differ, as a matter of fact, for machinists, yard-
men. trainmen, conductors and all branches of the service, and, when a change is
made, the adjustment is managed without any difficulty. We surely must assume
that for the small number of workmen who would be affected by the adoption of
this' Bill, little, if any, difficulty would be encountered in the adjustment of con-
ditions.
Canada surely cannot longer remain behind the forty odd States that have
similar legislation, or behind the large number of employers of labour who are
now carrying on their business on the eight-hour plan. The Act is but a tardy
recognition .of results that have already been achieved in the open market. There
will always be a wail from the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association when legis-
lation is proposed for the amelioration of the conditions of the working people,
and to permit the protest of that organization to prevail now to stop the wheels
of social progress would be to admit that Canada is content to remain a laggard
and a coward in the effort to uplift its people and to make of them citizens worthy
of the country in which they live.”
330
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Mr. Smith. — Does it show here that this law prevails in the United States?
— A. In forty odd States.
Q. By local bodies? — A. In the legislatures. They have the state legislature, the
same as our provincial legislature here, and they have the eight-hour day in forty odd
States.
Q. With regard to State contracts? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have they the eight -hour law in connection with the federal government? —
A. I believe they have. I cannot say for sure that it applies to all work, but my
opinion is that it does. ,
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you know if the State laws go as far as this Bill of Mr. Yeryille? — A. In
the majority of cases, fully.
“ Reference was made before you to the operations of blast furnaces, log driv-
ing and other businesses which have no concern with government, contracts. We
do not propose, therefore, to take up your time in referring to them. Even in
these cases, it was admitted that any difficulty (assuming the Act applied) might
be overcome by arranging for a better supply of labour. It was further stated
that in railroading the eight-hour standard is equally impossible We need hardly
refer to legislation in the United States fixing eight and nine hours for telegra-
phers in the employment of railways, and to other regulations of the kind. The
Lord’s Day Act was hailed as equally impossible, but conditions have rapidly
adjusted themselves to the new regulations.”
By Mr. Smith. — Does it say they have a law in the States regulating telegraph-
ers to eight hours? — A. Yes, some work eight hours.
Q. I have seen regulations regarding nine hours, but I have not seen the eight-
hour law? — A. I am of the opinion they have an eight-hour law. or standard.
Q. Is it a law by the Federal Government in the States? — A. Ho. I refer to
a standard — it is a standard, not a law; it is a standard obtained by the telegraphers.
Lhe telegraphers have been agitating for a reduction of hours, and wherever powerful
enough to obtain it they have been reduced to eight hours.
Q. Through the Trades Unions? — A. Yes. It is a standard also in regard to
railways — I did not intend to infer that there was any law for that — it is a standard
that has been obtained.
“You were asked, ‘How will the farmer be affected ?’ and a learned disquisi-
tion was delivered upon the science of agriculture. We stand second to none in
our respect and admiration for the farming industry, but the simple answer is
that this legislation does not apply to farmers any more than it does to domestic
servants. The reference to the farmers was simply for the purpose of prejudicing
that large, important branch of the communify against this Bill, and common
honesty should have prompted Mr. Murray to point out that the farmers will not
be affected in any way by the operations of this Bill. It is amazing what a sym-
pathetic regard the C.M.A. has for every class of the community except itself.
As Dooley says ‘ they care no more for themselves than they do for their right
eye.’ Considering the way in which the farmers are made to do duty in this
instance, and the evil results that will, it is said, follow the passage of the Bill,
we are only surprised that the Bill is not also blamed for the decrease of the birth
rate, the recent tariff difficulty, the length of the session at Ottawa, and the thou-
sand and one other ills that flesh is heir to.
MR. DRAPER,
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
331
APPENDIX No. 4
The G.M.A. is afraid monopoly might be produced among those tendering
for government contracts by reason of many of them refusing to further tender
for public works. We venture to say that so long as an honest dollar can be
made out of government or other contracts there will be found plenty ready to
tender for them.
We desire to say only a few words with respect to the findings of the Nova
Scotm Commission, referred to by -Mr. Murray. The net result appears to be that,
because the change might affect an employer’s pocket, the claims of the working-
people for better conditions had to be denied. There appears in the report a
greater love than has been for such institutions as the Dominion Iron and Steel
Company an infant industry that required to be fed at the rate of a million and
a half dollars every year until it reached the age of manhood. If the govern-
ment had not taken upon itself to determine when that period had arrived, the
chances are that the industry itself would have been as old as Methusalah before
it was of opinion that the bonus should cease. The report of that commission
indicates short-sightedness and a too great regard for the pocket of the employer
as against the rights of the working people. The committee, no doubt, has before
it the findings of English commissions upon the same subject, which show a better
conception of the rights of all parties concerned than appears to' have been
possible for the Nova Scotia Commission.
Quite a number of questions have been asked of witnesses as to their views
upon the propriety of making provision in the Bill for the wage to be paid. We
have not in the Bill itself asked for any provision of the kind, as we are satisfied
that the conditions in different localities will settle that point. If any amend-
ment to the Bill is to be made in that connection, it should be to provide that
the same wage shall be paid for the eight-hour day as was previously paid for
a longer day. The tenderer cannot complain, because he quotes his price upon
the basis of .an .increase, and is paid accordingly. The only party that could
make an objection is the government, and, for reasons already given, money
expended in this way will be well spent.
With respect to the difficulty in enforcing an eight-hour provision, the men
most competent to speak upon the subject— witnesses like Mr. McNiven, Mr.
Guyon and others say that they think the provision could be worked out accept-
ably, and cases were referred to by those gentlemen where difficulties no less
great in the enforcement of the fair-wage clause were easily adjusted by them.
Government work could surely be labelled and a declaration required from the
contractor with respect to it. In the Winnipeg Street Railway case the state-
ment was emphatically made before a Board of Conciliation under the Lemieux
Act by a representative of the company that an eight-hour schedule for the men
was absolutely impossible, and yet, once the company agreed to enforce the eight-
hour day, an acceptable schedule on an eight-hour basis was put in force in a
very few weeks. All those difficulties have been pointed out time and again in
opposition to every progressive public movement. They were presented in opposi-
tion to the fair-wage resolution, in opposition to the Lord’s Day Act, and so
on through the whole gamut of public legislation, but society soon adjusts itself to
new conditions. Where there s a will there’s a way, and once employers know
that the eight-hour provision in the specifications will be enforced, they will
speedily find means of carrying it into effect. The chairman of this committee
probably heard some objection in connection with the enforcement of regulations
to prevent sweat-shop conditions in the manufacture of postmen’s uniforms, but
a necessary reform was not delayed in that case by reason of these objections,
and we do not believe the reform asked for now will be delayed to any greater
extent.
Why an employer should object on the ground of loss to himself passes our
comprehension. If he has a number of men working nine hours at 40 cents an
332
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
hour and he tenders for public work on an eight-hour basis he will tender at the
rate of 45 cents an hour. If the contract is awarded to him, he loses nothing,
because the government pays the price. A lot of twaddle has been talked before
the committee about the conditions on government work, with this Bill in
force, creating dissatisfaction amongst workmen who are labouring under less
favourable conditions. The difference in conditions exists to-day with men
working eight, nine, ten, twelve and thirteen hours, and it is not at all likely
that a provision in a government contract that will affect such a small portion
of the workmen of this country would add anything to whatever dis-
satisfaction now exists amongst workmen in the comparison of conditions.
Bight in Poison’s, to whose works reference has more than once been made,
it will probably be found that pattern makers, moulders, machinists, labourers
and others work different hours at different rates, thus affording plenty of room
for dissatisfaction, and yet Poison’s works seem to run along from day to day.
But the great advantage in the passage of this law would be that a fair em-
ployer who is working under eight-hour conditions and high wages will be pro-
tected from the competition of employers of cheap labour. The Toronto em-
ployer, for instance, in the building trades should be protected from competitive
tenders of Quebec or other provinces where a longer day prevails. As it is, the
fair employer is prevented from tendering for government work because of the
lower price at which the cheap labour employer tenders. The existing condi-
tions have created a privileged class, that class being employers who are will-
ing to have men work for them twenty-four hours a day for nothing, or, as in
the case of the Hamilton Iron and Steel Company, from eleven to thirteen hours
per day at 15 cents an hour.
The chairman of this committee, at page 182 of the evidence, thought ‘ The
greatest handicap in the way of reform, so far as industrial conditions are con-
cerned, lies in the fact that unless one province keeps pace with every other
province, you give to that province that is behind in labour legislation an unfair
advantage in industrial competition over the one that wants to do what is right,
and I do not see why we should not get this thing under a law of general ap-
plication.’ That is exactly our view, and we say that the adoption of this Bill
will, at all events, to the extent of its applicability, remove that unfair advant-
age and give the fair employer a chance.
Some of the evidence before this committee was tendered for the purpose of
showing that there are men who want to work longer than ten or more hours.
It is not surprising that in such establishments as the Hamilton Iron & Steel
Company, where the wage rate is 15 cents an hour, men should want to work
long enough to make sufficient to buy the necessaries of life. If they were paid
a decent minimum wage, it would speedily be found that the man would be satis-
fied to work not more than eight hours in any one day. It is the unfortunate
conditions under which they work that drive them to clamour for enough work
to provide them with funds for the ordinary necessaries of life.
We should like to refer for a moment to the evidence of Mr. McKune, super-
intendent of the Open Hearth Department of the Hamilton Steel & Iron Com-
pany. He said the employees worked 11 and 12 hours at 15 cents an hour rate,
and that no dissatisfaction existed amongst them. Further on, he stated that
once an eight-hour shift started it would create disturbance and the company
would lose control of the men. This latter statement hardly works in with his
prior statement about the absence of dissatisfaction. If it is a fact that men
working such long hours at such a mean rate per hour are satisfied with their
condition, then men of that character are not of much use to Canada and the
fewer we have of them the better, as they make a mighty poor addition to any
country. The conditions existing in that company look like slave-driving. And
MR. DRAPER.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
333
APPENDIX No. 4
here we must again note that it is Mr. Murray, a representative of the C.M.A.,
who is endeavouring, before the Committee, to obtain from Mr. McKune evidence
to show what a great advantage such conditions are, showing if any evidence of
the kind were wanting, what hypocritical professions have been made by the
C.M.A. in pretending before this Committee, to be the friend of the working
people. Mr. McKune said that the men were given to drink. The great wonder
to us is that the men did not keep themselves paralyzed with drink all of the
time so as to forget the unhappy surroundings under which they were working.
The evidence of Mr. McKune and one of his employees, Mr. Justus Post,
was such as to call forth from your Chairman, the very proper suggestion that
‘ It is about time this agitation should be directed to some other industries. I
don’t think any man should be compelled to work 365 days in the year, twelve
hours a day, whether he wants to or not. .. .If that is the condition prevailing in
an industry which is getting support from the Government, it seems to me it is
a very serious responsibility on the part of everybody who has to do with the
Government in seeing whether that sort of thing is necessary or not. I might
say that either the witness is stating his facts too strongly or there are pretty
serious grounds for an inquiry into this whole question of hours of labour.
The question was proposed by a member of this Committee, ‘ Why a man
who is working his factory on a ten-hour basis if he gets government work,
should have to pay the men working on that government work the same for eight
hours as they would receive for ten hours on other work.’ The simple answer is
that no one is compelling him to tender for government work. If he does not
desire to pay the rate and to give the hours he should refrain from tendering.
If he tenders at the hours and rate he cannot be heard to complain afterwards
that the conditions impose a hardship upon him. The money does not come out
of his pocket in any event. A great deal of discussion has taken place before
this Committee as to the propriety of leaving machinery unemployed for two
hours a day. If the desire of the Committee is to impose conditions that will
make for the welfare of the machine rather than of the men, provision had bet-
ter be made for a twenty-four hour day for the machinery.”
By the Chairman:
Q. Do you agree with that? — A. With what, sir.
Q. With the demand that if the committee is interested in looking after the wel-
fare of the machine that it ought to make arrangements for it to run twenty-four
hours? — A. Yes.
Q. We have some evidence here, and in my view it is much better to give the
machinery a rest occasionally. — A. I am just drawing a comparison — some employers
have more consideration for the machine than they have for the employee or for
brains.
Mr. Knowles. — I take it that Mr. Draper is speaking in an ironical sense in that
regard.
Mr. Draper thinks the machine might be run twenty-four hours, and we have had
evidence here, and I am rather inclined to think likewise, that if you work twenty-
four hours straightaway, it is hard on the machine.
The Witness. — Of course you can repair the machine, but you cannot repair the
man — he would soon fill an early grave.
Q. Speaking of the machines, they would be better preserved with an occasional
rest? — A. I think we can trust to the employer to look after that. He looks
after the machine because when anything goes wrong it costs so much to repair it
but when a man is run down he gets out, not being able to keep up with the pro-
cession.
334
COMMITTEE RE BILL ATo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
By Ma Smith:
Q. Do you suggest we should look after the machine in that way? — A. That is
just my opinion.
Q. Just read that portion over again? — A. I think I qualified that. But of course
there may be some correction necessary, and I am always pleased to correct anything
or make it right. A great deal of discussion has taken place before this committee as
1o the propriety of leaving machinery unemployed for two hours a day, and I say, ‘ if
ihe desire of the committee, is to impose conditions that will make for the welfare of
the machine rather than for the min, provision had better be made for a twenty-four
hour day for the machinery. You see I qualify it by saying, ‘ if it is the desire of
the committee ’ to do that, I say provision should be made for twenty-fours for the
machinery.
By the Chairman :
Q. That is where I say you are wrong. In stead of making a provision that it
should work twenty-four hours we ought to see it gets an occasional rest. — A. You
may be right, I say further. If on the other hand, the welfare of the workmen is
the first consideration, then so much sympathy should not be lavished upon the ma-
chinery and the pocket of the employer as has been wasted before this committee by
some of the witnesses called by the C.M.A. I do not say it is the committee that has
wasted any time, but it is the witnesses representing the C.M.A. who have wasted your
time. Machinery in most establishments to-day is employed for eight hours and the
employers who own machinery are apparently able to hold their own with others. It
is a curious fact that out of the very few witnesses called in opposition to this Bill
the most of them are from institutions like the Hamilton Steel and Iron Company that
are run under conditions as to wages and hours that are a disgrace to any country.
Q. Excuse me, but about the law in the forty states- — have you seen this state-
ment or summary of the United States laws in regard to hours of work? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know how many states are mentioned there as having the eight hours?
— A. I did not count them.
Q. I have counted twenty-two, and I wish you would look over that
list and see if any are omitted there. I thought it would include all the
states having the eight hours, but if you have any additional ones the committee would
be pleased to know it. On page 65 of the proceedings there, there is a summary of
all state laws in force in 1910 in regard to hours of labour, and I make out it includes
twenty-two states altogether, that is omitting any reference to the Federal Govern-
ment, and we understood at the time that that was a complete list, but if you have a
knowledge of any additional states you might communicate with the secretary and let
him know.— A. I will. I understand the importance of having the statement correct,
and I will do it.
Q. The committee will be thanful to you for it. — A. In a report made on ‘Na-
tional Waste’ by the National Conservation Commission, Prof. Irving Fisher, of Yale
University, has this to say on the hours of labour that fully supports the position that
organized labour assumed when it first began the shorter work-day agitation: —
“ The present working day, from a physiological point of view, is too long and
keeps the majority of men and women in a continual state of over-fatigue. It
starts a vicious circle, leading to the craving of means for deadening fatigue,
thus inducing diunkenness and other excesses. Experiments in reducing the work-
ing day show a great improvement in the physical efficiency of labourers, and in
many cases results in even increasing their output sufficiently to compensate the
employer for the shorter day.”
MR. DRAPER.
COMMITTEE RE BILL ATo. 21— HOURS OF LAB OCR
335
APPENDIX No. 4
‘ Several examples of such a result exist, but the real justification of a shorter
work-day is found in the interest of the race, not the employer. One company
which keeps its factory going night and day found in changing from two shifts
of twelve hours each to three shifts of eight hours each, that the efficiency of the
men gradually increased, and the days lost per man by illness fell from seven
and one-half to five and one-half a year.
Public safety requires in order to avoid railway collisions and other ac-
cidents, the prevention of long hours, lack of sleep and undue fatigue in work-
men. A typical succession of events is, first, fatigue, then colds, then tuber-
culosis, then death. The prevention of undue fatigue means the arrest at start
of this accelerating chain of calamities.
The ordinary workingman works two or three hours too much every day,
and he doesn’t have time enough in which to eat his luncheon to produce good
results for himself and his employer.’
The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, representing
the united Protestant churches in the United States, with a membership of 18,-
000,000 and a constituency of 40,000,000, unanimously adopted among other speci-
fic principles for which, it asserts, it must stand: —
“ 1st. Gradual and reasonable reduction of the hours of labour to the lowest
practical point, and for that degree of leisure for all which, is a condition of the
highest human life.
2nd. Release from employment one day in seven.
3rd. A living wage as a minimum in every living industry, and the highest
wage that each industry can afford.”
The Pittsburg survey revealed to all interested in industrial conditions a
state of affairs in many respects surprising. In the steel mills, according to the
report of the survey, 2 per cent of the employees, or about 14,000 men in Al-
leghany county, worked twelve hours a day, seven days in the week, at the rate
of 16£ cents an hour. The investigation of the survey showed that in precisely
the reg'ons where those low-paid work people were housed the drinking was at its
worst and the general morality at its lowest. Saloons found this the most profit-
able region financially. For most men working twelve hours a day, seven days
in the week, little is left except lethargy or stimulants. The council further
says that family life, intelligent social intercourse with one’s fellows, are im-
possible under such conditions, and the labourer not only is not encouraged to
develop upward, but, by the conditions of his labour, is held in an inferior and
degraded condition with no chance of development.
Reference has been made before this committee to the Canadian Rational
Builders’ Association. The impression was conveyed to your committee that
that body was a unity in oposition to this Bill. but. from the reports appearing
in the press it is evident that all members of the Builders’ Exchange were not
opposed to an eight-hour day. Mr. A. S. Denis championed it, stating that work
could be done more effectively by men who were not overworked. Others took
similar ground. Mr. Cannon stated that in Toronto it was no hardship to hold
people on an eight-hour day. All conditions, he said, in this part of the country
at least were in favour of the eight-hour day.’
We summarize our position thus : —
“ 1. The Bill, instead of being a very radical measure, simply follows a lead
already made.
2. The eight-hour day obtains in the Civil Service and in many trades
throughout the country, and similar legislation exists in over forty of the United
States.
3. The number of workmen who will be directly affected is not large and no
cataclysm can result.
333
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
4. Every proper influence prompts its passage, whether we consider efficiency,
morals, right-living, or the qualities and requirements of true citizenship.
5. The same motive or purpose that led to the passage of the Eair Wage
Resolution calls for the passage of this law.
6. It will protect the fair employer, without cost to him or any tenderer for
government work, from the unfair competition of sweatshop artists, and will
destroy the privileged class who profit by the necessities of the worker.’
By Mr. Smith. — Will you go back to the fifth section again.
The Witness (reading) —
‘ The same motive or purpose that led to the passage of the Fair Wage Reso-
lution calls for the passage of this law.’
By. Mr. Smith:
Q. The Fair Wage resolution is an obligation by the government to correspond
with conditions existing locally — the passing of this Bill would be to set a precedent
and establish something that may not exist in local conditions — it seems to me some-
what different to the motive in the Fair Wage resolution — in the Fair Wage resolu-
tion, the government agrees to do what is done in the surrounding district. — A. I
think it went further than that — the Fair Wage Resolution — it demonstrated to em-
ployers of labour, particularly those seeking government work, that the government
was willing to set a standard of wage for a particular class of work paid in the lo-
cality.
Q. Yes, but I was just calling attention to the fact that the two are upon a dif-
ferent basis — the Fair Wage Resolution gives the best rate in any local condition, but
the eight -hour law has a different basis. — A. Exactly, I am of the opinion — in fact I
know since the establishment of that Fair Wage Resolution, it has assisted our people
very materially in getting a better rate of wage while employed on government work.
Q. Yes, you just gave that in your summary as one of your reasons and I just
call your attention to that. — A. Yes. We are endeavouring to establish an eight-hour
day and we recognize that, if the representatives of the people will give their sanction
to this, it will lend a great impetus to the movement, and will assist us very materially.
The Chairman. — I think your view, and that of Mr. Smith can be reconciled
in this way. What you are saying is that the same motive which prompted the gov-
ernment to act in the one case should prompt them to act in this case. — A. Exactly.
Q. The same reasons which justified the fair-wage resolution, in your view would
justify you asking the government to make a reduction from ten to eight hours? — A.
It is the same ‘ motive for purpose,’ which I have substituted in the section instead of
‘ reasons.’
Mr. Macdonell. — Is it not more correct to say that this matter takes up the ques-
tion where the fair-wage resolution leaves it — that is the fair-wage clause applies to
the locality only and this will apply generally to more favourable conditions than at
present. — A. In so far as hours are concerned.
Q. Exactly, this Bill will take the matter up where the fair-wage clause leaves it,
because it means the extension of an eight-hour day to every condition, and the eight-
hour day only exists to-day in certain favoured localities — would you extend it through-
out all government work? — A. Yes, we ask that it be extended to all government work.
Q. That is this Bill would take it up largely where the fair-wage clause leaves it?
— A. I cannot see it in that light — the fair-wage clause just provides for the best
wages in certain localities.
Mr. Smith. — That is it, and it says you must have fair wages notwithstanding
what the hours are. — A. My impression as to the fair-wage clause, and I have had cor-
respondence all over the Dominion, in a great many instances, it has been a very ma-
MR. DRAPER.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
337
APPENDIX No. 4
terial benefit to our people. Contractors have got work from the government and even
after agreeing to pay the rate of wages considered fair in their locality, they have re-
sorted to many devious ways and methods whereby they wanted to avoid the payment of
that, and the Department of Labour being notified by our people, endeavoured to have
the fair-wage clause lived up to. It certainly has gone a great way towards establishing
a fair rate of wages and having them paid, and of course, as I pointed out in connec-
tion with this eight-hour Bill there is an agitation here, although in several trades
we have the eight-hour day, and it is just a question when it becomes a matter of
negotiation between the employer and employees, and if the latter are strong enough
to force it from the employer. In some trades we have not been able to do that, but
the whole object is to ask the government to assist us in making the eight-hour
recognized as a general work-day in the Dominion. We do not go behind that — that
is what we want. We think eight hours is long enough for a man to work. Con-
tinuing we say: —
‘ 7. It will add to the markets of the manufacturers and the farmers by creating
more enlightened citizens, whose new wants will call for increased production by
factory and farm.
8. It is cheap labour more than any other fact that most endangers our in-
stitutions: the mistake of the wealthy is that they consider their direct interest
in the cheap labour they hire, and not their direct interest in the dearer labourer
who buys what they wish to sell-
9. No greater difficulty can arise in enforcing it than in the administration
of the fair-wage clause.
10. The Act is endorsed by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada,
representing at least 100,000 organized workmen and 150,000 of their dependents.
11. The principle of it has the endorsation of the Federal Council of the
Churches of Christ in America.
12. Social reformers and humanitarians are in favour of it.
13. The only ones opposing it are a few disgrunted employers drummed up
by the walking delegate of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association. A brilliant
example of the opposition is the representative of the Hamilton Steel and Iron
Company, who works his men at 15 cents an hour for 11, 12 and 13 hours a day,
some of them every day in the year. He says they drink. Is it any wonder?
And the O. M. A. business agent sought to justify this.
14. It is a flippant libel upon the labouring class, which for more than half
a century has been constantly repeated but never sustained, viz., that the reduc-
tion of the hours of labour tends to lower wages, raise prices, increase idleness,
dissipation and drunkenness The elimination of poverty, ignorance, pauper-
ism, intemperance, crime and their accompanying evils move parallel with and
proportionate to the increase of the social opportunities of the labouring
class.- — Prof. George Gunton’s Economic and Social Importance of the Eight-
Hour Movement, p. 20.
15. The influences that would prevent the passage of this Act are the influ-
ences that would have prevented the introduction of labour-saving machinery—
because of the temporary disturbance of local conditions.
16. More accidents occur in the last two hours of a ten-hour day than in the
preceding eight. Accident claims are expensive.
17. A man who works ten hours a day exhausts his vitality and becomes a
dullard. The eight-hour workman comes to his labour refreshed and willing.
18. Finally, we ask that Mr. Yerville’s Bill be made law, on the ground of
higher citizenship. Give us a chance to improve our minds, to build up our
bodies, to cultivate our intellectual faculties and to call our souls our own once
in a while. We want to get acquainted with our families, our pastors and our
neighbours. Give us opportunity to read, learn and inwardly digest. Let us
4—22
338
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
have time to straighten our backs from toil — to look around at what is trans-
piring in public life. If we are not to be led to the polls like sheep, then give
us time to study the welfare of our country. Our response to the passage of this
Rill will be early demonstrated in a readier interest in, and a higher regard for,
all those things that make for a better Christian civilization.’
By the Chairman:
Q. The Committee will be glad to have this statement. There are
a great many frank admissions in it which will appeal to the members of the com-
mittee. As you say, you have stated your case very plain, and have talked very
frankly about it — just one question — what is the reason of using the expression
‘Churches of Christ’ instead of ‘Christian churches?’ Is there any special reason?
- — A. I understand they are a body known as ‘ Churches of Christ.’
Q. Is that what you mean, or do you mean any particular church or Christian
churches? — A. I understand that is their proper name.
Q. Where you use the expression there, do you mean to exclude Presbyterians
and Methodists and Roman Catholics? — A. No, I understand that is an organization
of members of Christian churches with headquarters in New York.
Q. You speak in one place here, ‘ The principle of it has the endorsation of the
Federal Council of the Church of Christ in America. By that, are those bodies dis-
tinct from the Roman Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian and other sects? — A. I
believe they are a body in themselves; a body politic, and that is their proper name.
Q. That is what I do not understand. That is whether this means a federation of
churches of either Protestant or Catholic churches or whether it was a denomination
by the name of Church of Christ. — A. My understanding of it is this — they have a
federated council there and they style themselves the ‘ Churches of Christ,’ and they
have a very large membership.
Q. Is it an organization, self-styled? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. With eighteen million members? — A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Macdonell. — It cannot be any particular church — it must be a federation of
churches. — A. They style themselves that.
Q. I think there is a sect which call themselves that, and perhaps the witness
is not aware of it?
By the Chairman:
Q. There is an organization known as the Church of Christ, but
I do not think that is it, but it is important to know whether the Christian churches
or this particular organization endorsed it. — A. I have reference to the Christian
churches as I understand it — a federation of Christian churches which has a council
which presumes to speak for them.
Q. In regard to the number of the states which have these laws, there are in the
United States altogether only forty-six states, and in view of that fact, do you think
forty out of the forty-six have the eight -hour day? — A. Are there not more than
forty-six.
Q. I understand not — thirteen original states; twenty-three taken in, and five ter-
ritories, spoken of, but not admitted yet as states. I think in that regard you have
the wrong number.
Mr. Verville. — Is there not a restriction of hours in all those states you men-
tion?— A. As you know, we have been gathering that information as best we can and
that is our deduction from it.
By the Chairman:
Q. Then you will look over Exhibit B-l, and if no states are included there
that have the eight-hour day, you might let the Secretary know — you can let him
know whether it embraces them all or not.- — A. Yes, and that can be corrected. I have
MR. DRAPER.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
339
APPENDIX No. 4
no desire to submit anything erroneous and if there is anything you see which re-
quires explanation I will try to. give it.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. You have read this Bill? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you think it is practicable to carry out a Bill such as this in all kinds of
industries? Take transportation companies and shipping companies with subsidies
from the government carrying mails and every kind of subsidized transportation com-
panies in the country, do you think it possible to carry out the Bill as regards them?
— A. With reference to applying it generally or strictly to transportation companies,
T am not inclined to state that it is applicable to them — I think it would be rather
difficult to work out its provisions particularly at first, but I think that like every
other legislation, that once you would get accustomed to it it would be all right.
Q. But there is no provision made for transportation companies. If you say ‘ in
all contracts entered into with the government,’ let us work eight hours, how can you
stipulate regarding ships running across the Atlantic with government contracts,
could they work it? — that is ships going to Australia and Japan and return? In the
federal government in the United States it is provided in the law to exempt all sys-
tems of transportation where they think it could not be made applicable. I am just
calling your attention to that because we are taking the Bill as it is.
By the Chairman:
Q. In that same connection we might mention the evidence given
at our last sitting, by one of the miners of Nova Scotia, when asked as to the appli-
cability of the Bill for contracts of coal for the Intercolonial — do you think it should
go that far, that it would apply to the conditions of mines where coal is being taken
out for the Intercolonial? — A. I think if there is any body of men who deserve to have
their hours of work restricted it is the miners.
Q. I agree with that, but the point is this: There are two ways of getting at
the restriction of hours in mines; one is by the province having the right, to legislate
and the other is to attempt, so far as this government is concerned, to regulate its con-
tracts so that no contracts shall be carried out except by men working eight hours a
day, and the question is, would it be possible for this government to attempt anything
of the kind, and would it be effective if it were attempted ? — A. Of course that might
be conceded an evasion of provincial rights?
Q. Not necessarily, for the government can put in any stipulation it likes. — A.
That is a clear case and I should say the Bill should apply to contracts for coal.
Q. Do you think it could be made effective if it; were to go to that extent? — At I
believe in that case it could. Now, with reference to the question asked
by Mr. Smith regarding the regulations to cover vessels going to sea, or trans-
portation companies. I admit it would be very difficult to enforce, as I stated first,
and I may express an opinion that we are not here asking legislation that is impossible
of enforcement — we are very reasonable men, we do not want the government to at-
tempt to do anything that it cannot do.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. The point is we are asking the House to pass this legislation
and we have to take it on its face value, and we cannot say we are all convinced of
its importance — all the difficulties I present before you are difficulties that will be pre-
sented in the House, and we want to remove them and have a measure that the House
will endorse — I just ask if it is possible to carry out that Bill with regard to trans-
portation?— A. I would say so.
Q. That is very important. — A. I do not think I could give an intelligent answer
any other way.
4r-22i
340
COMMITTEE RE BILL No . 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Amend the Bill.
Q. Do you think by making an exception in favour of those different companies
the Bill could be arranged on general principles? — A. What I want to ask is this, is
it not possible to amend that Bill?
By the Chairman:
Q. No question about that; that is the point this committee
is considering — we want to be able to report on whether the Bill as at present should
be enacted, or whether certain amendments are desirable. It is for us to recommend
it as it is, or recommend it with amendments, or throw it out altogether, and that is
what we want light on, what from the different points of view it would be desirable
to do. — A. I think I can speak for the Congress when I say we would much prefer an
amended Bill than have it thrown out altogether, and I think Air. V erville will agree
with me in that.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Take the views of some who are affiiliated with your Congress
who have written to the members and they do not seem to recognize these difficulties,
they ask for this Bill, and this Bill only, while when the practicability of this thing
is put before the leaders of the general organizations they are in the same position
as we are. Some say we want this Bill as it is, and now I say to Mr. Draper, one of
the most intelligent men and a leader of the Labour movement, is it possible to carry
out this Bill as it is, and he says, No. — A. What we want to do is what is right.
Mr. Macdonell. — You have read the different laws in the different States?
The Witness. — A few of them, not all.
Q. You will find in every case where this law exists that there are exceptions
more or less numerous and important and even the Bill presented to the
American Congress was introduced eight times and is not yet passed, for there are
a number of very important exceptions, and it is these exceptions that have to be
taken care of in some way, and they have to in this case if it is to be a Bill that the
House will accept. Now, take the case of articles bought in the open market. We
look to men like you, experienced in this matter, to give us some information on what
these exceptions should be and the reasons for them. We would like to know how
you would meet that condition — you say you make no exceptions in your endorsation
of the Bill. It would help the difficulty, I think, to get the witness to limit the thing
and make certain exceptions.
The committee then adjourned until 3.15 p.m.
Pursuant to adjournment the committee met at 3.15.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Chairman, presiding.
Testimony of Mr. Draper continued.
Interpretation re Scope of Bill No. 21.
By the Chairman:
Q. Have you studied the provisions of this very carefully?
The Witness. — Yes, I have read it carefully — the three clauses in it, you mean?
Q. Yes — and according to your interpretation of the first clause, supposing a con-
MR. DRAPER.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS .OF LABOUR
341
APPENDIX No. 4
tract were awarded by the government for the building ox a post office and in connec-
tion with the building of that post office, window sashes and frames were required,
would the men working on the window sashes and frames he obliged to work the eight
hours? — A. According to the interpretation of the Bill itself, yes.
Q. Do you think a measure of that sort, that it; would be advisable for parliament
to enact it when it would go that length? — A. Do you ask if it would be advisable.
Q. Yes. Do you think it would be in the public interest?— A. I am of the opinion
that this parliament is not ripe for such an enactment in all lines.
Q. To go as far as that? — A. To go as far as that.
Q. According to your view of this section, would more than that be required,
do you consider that the Act would require every man working in the factory
where those sashes were being produced to work only eight hours a day whether work-
ing on the sashes required by the government building or not? — A. \rou were speak-
ing of a post office — I will put it this way — in the building of a post office the con-
tractor has a contract to build it, and he has men employed there, and it is my
opinion if he conforms to the eight-hour day and works his men eight hours and pa>s
them for that according to what he is supposed to pay them, that would be about all
he could expect. .
Q. That is the point I want to get at— that is your view as far as it is possible to
2-0? — A. Yes, for instance here — I have read all this matter since printed.
You will see here decisions and opinions on the scope of the Act of 1S92, Professoi
Skelton’s evidence here on page 60 on this Act of 1892. lie says the Act does not
apply in the case of a contract for a building to other things that are brought in for
use on that public building. He holds that to apply it on all materials coming into
use would render it incapable of execution. I hold this view. It would be. impossib e
to execute a law such as that after it had been passed and what organized labour-
wants, that is, I am speaking for that section which I represent, is a law which i&
practicable and workable and can be enforced.
Q. Take the Bill as it stands— would its stipulations make it unworkable ?— A.
The first clause, yes. _
Q. In your memorial you stated, as I understood it, that the Congress would like
to have this Bill made law. Now, I presume what you meant is. they would Jike to
have the principle underlying this Bill adopted as far as practicable. A. Yes, we
would like to have a workable Bill; we want a Bill that will be simple and workable ,
not necessarily this Bill.
Q. That is the point that the committee has to consider carefully.
My understanding of this Bill, as drafted at present, is that in every contract to
wffiich the government is a party which may involve the employment of labour, that
no labourer or workman, or mechanic, under any contractor or subcontractor or other
person undertaking to do such work, shall be permitted or required to work more
than eight hours a day; in other words, if you have a contractor working for the
government, not only shall the men in his employ on the government building
be required to work eight hours a day and no more, but every other man in his em-
ploy is also restricted to eight hours. Would that seem to you to go too far? It says
in the employ of the contractor, not merely in his employ for that particular work,
but other men in his employ ?
Mr. Stanfield. — 'Supposing this contractor has a contract in Ottawa on public
works where he is applying the eight hours, and on another contract in Quebec where
perhaps the hours of labour are nine hours, it is pretty hard to distinguish.
By. the Chairman:
Q. Supposing the government gave a contract to build a summer
house in the park to a contractor and he may have men employed all oyer, having
contracts in other parts of the city for private individuals, now, according to this
Bill as drafted, the contractor could not receive the government contract unless every
342
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
man in his employ was working' eight hours. — A. I do not take that interpretation
from it.
Q. If capable of that interpretation, do you think it should be amended? — A. I
think so, undoubtedly.
Q. That is my view of the wording — it says any workmen or mechanic in the
employment of a contractor — it does not say on any particular work — or other person
contracting for the whole or part, shall not be permitted to, required to work more
than eight hours. A. That is assuming that the contractor is on government work
we do not endeavour to regulate the contractor or people in his employ only so far
as public works are concerned.
Q. The measure is not so drafted now — I am glad to know that you had in mind
that it is limited to the immediate contract. — A. I have read this many times and I
cannot read into it other than what I have stated. It would be stupid in fact for any
body of men to come to this parliament and say for instance, Mr. Stanfield has a large
force of men working for him and he got a government contract, and that simply be-
cause he was working on a government work we should ask him to make all his staff
uoik the eight hours on any other kind of work. You could not enforce that, and in
fact I cannot read that into the Bill myself.
Q. W hat meaning do you give those words, ‘ no labourer, workman or mechanic
m the employ of the contractor or sub-contractor shall be permitted or required to
work more than eight hours ? ’ — A. On government work, on every contract to which
the government is a party. This is how the section starts out — which may involve the
employment of workmen shall contain such a stipulation.
Q. The stipulation does not say anything about limiting it to that particular con-
tract, but it is that no labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of that contractor
shall be permitted to work more than eight hours. — A. It goes without saying that that
contractor would be doing government work and nothing else, because we are not at-
tempting to regulate anything but government work and I do not read anything into
the Bill but that.
Q. And if capable of the wider interpretation, you say the wider interpretation
would render it inapplicable to the men employed, other than those on the govern-
ment contract. A. I would say there would be no tracing it up if it were other-
wise. Bor instance, you are getting stuff already manufactured and brought in, and
j ou would have to inquire as to where that was made and where it came from, and
you could not expect anybody to do that.
Q. That is the view that most of the members have of the wording
of the Bill as drafted now that it would require if enforced that even in regard to
the materials used on the buildings that the persons engaged in preparing that
material would have to be restricted to eight hours, and, therefore, most of the mem-
bers of the committee feel that that section on that interpretation goes further than is
workable. A. I do not think the people that we represent want anything unreason-
able. As I pointed out this morning, if you will give us a general measure, a measure
that will demonstrate that the government of Canada is in favour of the principle of
eight hours a day on all the work done by it, then we will be satisfied.
Q. That is on immediate work of construction ?— A. Yes, because then
it will be left to us to wmrk out the details. No doubt, I may say
there may be an exception — no Bill, when it first becomes law or put
upon the statute-book is perfect, but you may set up a theory and when you come
to practice that you may find out it is unworkable. Now, we do not propose anything
unreasonable or unworkable, and what we want is for the government to say : i We
endorse the principle of eight hours for labourers and mechanics on public works,’
and beyond, that we do not feel we should be justified in asking you to go. And
again, while on this proposition— speaking for the Congress, we would much prefer
that this committee would amend that Bill and give us something more practicable
MB. DBAPER.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
343
APPENDIX No. 4
than just to say it is impossible for us to give you this legislation and to stick
to the Bill itself. If the promoter of the Bill, or the Executive Council of Congress
has seen the light the same as demonstrated to us by this committee, I think they
would sanction some amendment. We are willing that the Bill should be amended
so long as we get a measure that would be workable.
Q. I think the wisdom of having had the Bill referred to a committee has been
amply demonstrated by the evidence here, because the evidence you have just given
would make the committee feel justified in saying that, so far as labour represented
by the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress is concerned, they do not wish to go
the length that some people have intended to go, and if it went the length of hours
of labour on public wTorks, as its title indicates, rather than that section itself, that
would be satisfactory?
Mr. Smith.- — When discussing this on a previous occasion, I used as illus-
tration, if a grocer in the city of Victoria entered .into a contract to supply goods to
a government steamer in Victoria, he would be compelled under this Bill to run his
grocery business on the eight-hour a day principle. That is my interpretation of this
Bill. That is, the moment he enters into a contract with the government he would be
compelled to do the whole of his business on the principle of the eight-hour day. I
stated that in the House as a matter of opinion, and not as criticising the Bill?
Title of Bill.
By the Chairman :
Q. I think I see a point which I did not see before, and^ which
might perhaps explain — this is an Act entitled ‘ Hours of Labour on Public Works
in discussing the Bill it must be presumed that the Bill has something to do with it.
A. It has.
Q. In law it has nothing— the only part of this measure the gov-
ernment or court or anybody in authority is justified in looking to is what is enacted
in the sections. You could call this a Bill for the betterment of mankind and it is
only what is enacted in the sections that is important the title has no bearing what
ever on the Bill; it cannot be so interpreted, and gives a different light altogether
on the discussion. I can see where a great many members would read the Bill and
say, ‘ this is an Act respecting hours on public works, and the rest must be read in
that light,’ but when we come down to the actual law the title is of no concern what-
ever.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. The men should not think of the title in discussing the merits of the Bill.
The Witness.— When this Bill was being drafted we never had in our minds a
caSe_for instance, such as the supplying of groceries for a government steamer. We
are not, as you know, extremists
Q. I know,— I did not mean that.— A. Exactly. But what we had in mind was
eight hours on public works controlled directly by the government.
By the Chairman:
Q. Take the first section, and assuming there is no title, what
would be enacted if this went into force ? That all contracts in which the government
of Canada is a party must contain this stipulation? That is the law which it is pro-
posed to enact— every contract which the government makes and which involves labour
and there is none but will involve some— every one must contain that stipulation—
that is much further than intended? — A. Yes.
344
COMMITTEE RE BILL Xo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Take the title with it, it says every contract of which the government is a
party, that brings it down very materially, and I think that was what was in the
mind of the introducer of the Bill. I think the point you wish to make, Mr. Draper,
is that what labour is concerned about is getting a stipulation into every contract
that has to do with the construction of public buildings? — A. Tes, we want a start
made.
Mr. Broder. — On large public works ? — A. Yes, we do not expect the government
to do anything unreasonable, or to have it apply to such a case as stated by Mr. Smith.
For instance, take a vessel going to sea, it would be impossible for the government
to control the hours upon it, and we are not aiming to endeavour to accomplish the
impossible.
Mr. Verville. — How would this affect a contract for mail going across the ocean
or in cars? — A. I do not see that it would affect it.
By the Chairman:
Q. Supposing you cut the top off altogether, the title, which I say
is really no part of the Act, and you read that ‘every contract to which the govern-
ment is a party ’ — would that not cover any contract affecting mail ? — A. The phrase-
ology in section 1, if you eliminate the heading, will — I admit that. There is no use
arguing that if you understand the English language.
Q. You can take it for granted the title of the Bill is no part of the Bill at all;
that is where the public gets confused; the title might relate to kitchen
gardening and the only part that would have any force at all is what was enacted.
The title has no more effect in regard to what parliament enacts than the voice of a
man on the street crying out that parliament has done a certain thing. It is the enact-
ment, and in drafting a measure that has to be kept in mind. The title is supposed
to be put on as a guide, but it is not part of the legislation.
Mr. Smith. — I take it that the title represents the intention, but of course a Bill
can be construed to go further than the title does. — A. I know that the Bill was dis-
cussed, also when this eight-hour question was discussed. I may say we never dis-
cuss any of the outlandish propositions that have been submitted that the Bill could
aPPly f° ^ it became law. They did not occur to me and I do not suppose they occur-
red to the promoter.
Mr. Verville.— I am not prepared to say that. You cannot make me say things
here that I am not prepared to state, for everything is taken down.
Applicability of Bill.
The C hairman.- I think he had a design in making this as broad as he could in
order to bring out all phases of the eight-hour question.
Mr. Broder. — I do not think it was his intention to get what he asked for.
Mr. Smith. My opinion is that is just where the significance of the Bill
comes in. A lot of men would say it is very unreasonable and many men will be
prejudiced against it. If we can express what we want on reasonable lines it will be
the strongest legislation that can be brought before the House.
The Witness. As stated previously, we want the principle of eight hours adopted
by the government; in fact, we want a workable Bill as a starter. If we cannot get
the whole thing, w'e will take a part. But it would be better to agiend the Bill than
to have all our labour on it spent for nothing. I do not say it is labour wasted,
it is well spent. We would like to have a Bill passed which would demonstrate to
other countries that Canada is a progressive country and in favour of eight hours a
day on public works.
MR, DRAPER,
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
345
APPENDIX No. 4
The Chairman'. Supposing we cut the title off altogether, if you were a
member of this committee would you be prepared to recommend to parliament that
every contract of which the government of Canada is a party and in which the em-
ployment of labour is involved, that no labourer, workman or mechanic in the em-
ploy of a contractor or subcontractor shall be permitted or required to work more
than eight hours in one calendar day? Would you as a member of this committee
he prepared to recommend just that to parliament, assuming that that was all that
parliament had to guide them, and that every contract should have this condition? —
A. No, I think I would feel it should be modified.
Q. Do you think the recommendation is going too far?— A. Yes, if on this com-
mittee and after hearing the objections and after the testimony against it and after
having reasoned it out, listening to the cases pointed out by Mr. Smith and others in
order to get an expression of opinion, I certainly would be agreeable to amend it.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Do you think any Bill that comes before the government passes without
amendment ?
The Witness. — No, most Bills are amended, and I believe they should be where
reason is shown.
By Dr. Turcotte:
Q. In what shape generally would you like the Bill?
The Witness. — I have stated that we would like the Bill to apply first to public
works constructed by the government.
Q. Exclusively without the sub-contractor? — A. I have not discussed the sub-con-
tractor phase of it.
Q. 1 ou would like to have it apply to contracts with the government directly
without interfering with the sub-contractor ? — A. No, what would be the use if a man
got a contract from the government and let it to a sub-contractor who would make his
men work fifteen hours a day? We want some provision for that the same as the
regulation for the sweating business. Here is the point in that: While we are anxious
that the Bill should apply to public works, at the same time if the contractors could
get a contract from the government having this insertion about eight hours in it, and
tendered on that and got his prices on it we would not like him to sublet it to a sub-
contractor who would make the men work twelve or any number of hours he chose.
The Chairman. — I think what Dr. Turcotte has in mind is that in the construc-
tion of public buildings you have to consider the labour that goes into the construc-
tion and the materials used on the construction, and that the one who supplies them
might be regarded as a subcontractor.
Dr. Tcrcotte. — Yes.
The Chairman. — What Mr. Draper has in mind is that a contractor may sublet
his contract to somebody else who will make the men work more than eight hours — •
Mr. Draper is right in his contention, and you are right in regard to the men that
might furnish supplies. If I put it this way, Mr. Draper, as respects supplies, would
you want the eight-hour condition to apply?
The Witness. — As respects supplies?
Q. Yes, the supplies that would have to go into the building, the material.
— A. No, as I said, what I wanted to apply is this: Where a man had
a contract and had men working on a building with the eight-hour day in vogue
from the top to the bottom of the building — if that man got sashes and doors and
locks, or any of the things that go to make up a building — supposing he bought them
outside of Canada, we would have to conduct an investigation to find out whether:
the men working on them worked eight hours. We are not asking that, it would be
impossible and impracticable to work that.
346
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. You are not giving that interpretation to that Bill? — A. No. I do not say that
law could be interpreted that way.
Q. You are familiar with the fair wage schedule as provided now for contracts
in public buildings? — Yes, sir.
Q. What I understand is that you would like wherever the fair-wage schedule is
drawn up as to-day that the schedule should always be made on the basis of eight
hours? — A. Yes.
Q. And the application of any schedule measure should go just as far as the
fair wage schedule goes to-day, only that it would require that in each case the wages
should be on an eight-hour day basis, and no more? — A. And no more.
Q. And I think you said if it meant a reduction of wages in any class that that
would not be welcome — it would have to be for eight or nine or ten hours’ pay than
eight hours, should the time be longer in any locality? — A. Yes, and I qualified that
in the case of street railway men where they accepted a reduction of wages to secure
a reduction of hours; but we prefer that the wages remain as they are, because if you
reduce a man’s hours from nine to eight and take off the pro rata per hour you are
not giving him any benefit — he is just sacrificing that much for an eight-hour prin-
ciple, whereas we are trying to avoid that sacrifice.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. But it has been done in many cases to get the shorter hours.
The Witness.— Yes it has, but that is what we are trying to get over by legislation.
An Eigiit-hour Measure Without a Wage Stipulation.
The Chairman.- — You do not think that a measure to cut down wages and hours
would be welcomed? — A. If you could shorten the hours the wages would adjust them-
selves in time.
Q. Should we advise to make the law leaving that question doubtful, or should
we be decided on it — do you think if this committee were to recommend to
parliament that it was desirable to reduce the hours of labour to eight on all contracts,
and leave it an open question as to whether the wages were also to be reduced or not,
that the committee would be making recommendations acceptable to labour? — A. Just
deal with the hours and leave the wages to adjust themselves, that is what I really
would do ; I am emphatic on that.
Q. Do you think, if the government were to interpret, that it meant to reduce
the hours to eight and to allow the rate per hour equal to the present rate, it would
be acceptable? — A. Yes.
Q. In the province of Quebec they work ten hours — and if this law went into
effect, assuming it was passed on the eight-hour basis, and immediately the govern-
ment framed a schedule on the basis per hour in the locality, cutting off two hours’
pay on each man affected by it, would that give satisfaction to the workers in the
district? — A. Ultimately I think it would. I think that would adjust itself in
time. They ask the government to do that, but some might kick — there are kickers in
every stage, but if they asked for that and got it they would have to put up with it.
Q. I can see where parliament might take a very different attitude on this ques-
tion according as it was understood the wages should be reduced pro rata, or to re-
main for the day equivalent to what they were the day before — do you say the com-
mittee would be justified in recommending to parliament a measure reducing the
hours to eight on the understanding that only the rate current per hour would be
paid under the eight-hour schedule? — A. In the first place, I am not so certain whe-
ther the committee should deal with the current rate per hour. If the committee
confines itself to eight hours, and let the rates afterwards adjust themselves, it would
be more satisfactory.
MR. DRAPER.
COMMITfEE EE BILL Ho. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
347
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. Can you separate the question of labour and hours?— A. It would be a mat-
ter to adjust afterwards.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. Is it not a fact that the labourers are anxious to get the eight hours
and settle the wages later on?
The Witness. — That is practically their position.
Q. Tou do not say for a moment that the wages are the only consideration in the
eight hours? — A. No.
Q. No, because you say the man has more time at. home with his family and an
opportunity to develop his intellect — there is a consideration really higher than that
of wages in the minds of the labouring people. — A. There is.
Hon. Mr. King being obliged to retire, the chair was then taken by Mr. Ralph
Smith.
By the Chairman:
Q. W hat do you think of this portion — every contract for work done on the
erection of public buildings shall contain stipulations, &c? — A. Of course that would
not take into consideration the government employees?
Q. No, that is provided for in the last clause, it does not interfere with that at
all, and of course that is a matter you will have to think about.— A. I was going to
say we would like to have the chance, if you have any amendments to the Bill, to
have an opportunity to consider them in Executive Council here. I might say some-
thing here and would perhaps want to correct it.
Mr. Broder. — Can you suggest any remedy? You might have a talk over this in
an informal way.
Mr. Verville. — That would suit me.
Mr. Knowles. — I think it would be very bad precedent to have any conversation
that would not be reported.
Mr. Macdonell. — I think it 'better not, so it could not be said the proceedings
were secret.
Mr. Stanfield. — I was going to say Professor Skelton will not be here until next
Thursday, and if parliament should prorogue shortly we will not have time to remodel
this Bill to take it before the House.
The Chairman. — Our business is to go on and do all we can.
Mr. Knowles. — And die in harness.
Mr. Broder. — We might get through with this as the race-track people do.
Mr. Macdonell. — It would not be wise to shut off any witnesses.
Mr. Draper. — We are very anxious to get a workable and practical measure from
you.
Extent of Approval of Bill No. 21.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. To what extent has this thing been approved of by the people
you represent? — You said they would have to stand for it because they asked for it?
To what extent did they ask for it?
The Witness.- — Almost unanimously.
Q. Tell us the way in which they expressed that request? — A. Through resolu-
tions.
Q. Where are they? — A. In the proceedings of the various conventions of the
Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. We have had twenty-six sessions now, and I
remember between twelve and fifteen years ago that resolutions along that line were
introduced then and they have been introduced almost annually ever since.
348
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF 'LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. Iiow many approved of this Bill Ho. 21? — A. The constituency that the Con-
gress represents.
Q. They have had this Bill before them? — A. Yes. Forty-three Trades and La-
bour Councils from Victoria to Sydney, Cape Breton, and six hundred and twenty-
eight local unions with a membership of over forty thousand.
Q. They have all approved of this Bill, having had it before them? — A. Yes, it
has been discussed.
Q. Has it been before them within the last six months ? — A. Hot within the last
six months.
Q. When was it placed before them? — A. Some years ago.
Q. I am speaking of this Bill.— A. This Bill was introduced three years ago, and
it has been before them.
Q. Has this Bill ever been before the people who have approved of it?— A. Cer-
tainly.
Q. The Bill is not twelve years old— A. Hot that one in particular— on the eight-
hour proposition.
Q. Yes, I thought you did not understand me. To what extent has this Bill been
placed before those people? — A. As I explained, at several sessions.
Air. Veryille. — We have three hundred and two letters from trade unions
approving of the Bill.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. But I am asking Mr. Draper about the approval that he is aware of?
The Witness. — The Congress as a whole, representing what I said, has approved
of the Bill.
Q. How many people attended that Congress you speak of? — A. There were a
hundred and thirty delegates at Quebec; they represented various organizations.
By the Chairman:
Q. Any adverse opinion expressed?
The Witness. — I never heard any.
Q. Were there any difficulties in the working of the Bill pointed out in the dis-
cussion?-— A. That was largely left to a committee on resolutions, as you know, and
then we had other assistance.
Mr. Knowles. — I do not see how you make out that a hundred and thirty men
approving of the Bill in Quebec would be any justification in saying, if it didn’t suit
a hundred thousand men in Canada the delegate would stand by it when they are not
bound by the views of others ? — A. These men have been delegated to represent certain
organizations. There might be ten and there might be a thousand in each one of
these organizations, and when these men come there they are elected to represent
their organization.
Q. Still you say this Bill has not been before the Local Councils ?— A. The dele-
gates on their return from the convention nu|e a report on what has been accom-
plished.
By Mr. Terville:
Q. Has this Bill been in the report of the Congress proceedings for the last three
years ?
The Witness. — Yes, sir.
Q. Then it has been sent to all Trades Unions and Councils all over the country
every year for the last three years? — A. We distribute about five thousand copies of
the proceedings to the Trades Unions all over Canada. There are 5,500 printed and
the other 500 are for members of parliament and those attending to legislation.
Mr. DRAPER.
COMMITTEE RE BILL X o. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
349
APPENDIX No. 4
Q. As to the 130 men at that Congress; is it about the same as parliament here,
— 221 members representing over seven millions ? And there are millions who are not
really consulted any more than the members of the Trades Unions — do you classify
the Congress as the federal parliament of labour?— A. Yes, I consider it the official
mouthpiece of organized labour in this country.
Q. As the federal parliament of labour? — A. Yes, the Congress is the Dominion
parliament of labour. The Provincial Executive deal with the provinces and the Trade
and Labour Councils usually with the municipalities, so we have a complete organiza-
tion, and when you, sir, were elected to represent the Montreal Trades and Labour
with two other delegates, you represented 3,000 men. You had to make a report, of
what you did, and very often were given instructions what to do, and you have to be
careful not to do anything wrong or they will soon put you out of business.
Necessity of a Workable Measure.
By the Chairman:
Q. In discussing this Bill to-day, I asked you after pointing out cer-
tain difficulties, if you thought it would be possible to operate this Bill if passed, and you
candidly said you did not think it would. Now we are told that this Bill for three
years has been before the Congress, the National Labour Parliament of Canada, for
which I have nothing but respect, and there has never been expressed in any of those
discussions a single adverse opinion on the working of this measure, and yet in your
evidence to-day — and very correctly, as I would do myself, — you declare that the Bill
is impossible of operation.
The Witness. — Yes, according to the interpretation put upon the sections. The
Trades Unions or Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, like many other deliber-
ating bodies in annual session assembled, do not always give attention to the phrase-
ology of resolutions. They rely upon their officers and executive council for that;
and when this Bill was drafted, as I pointed out, we had in our minds the applica-
tion of it mainly to public works constructed by the government of the country, and
then we were anxious to have the government committed to the principle of the
eight-hour day. We never thought, as I have said to you before, that such extreme
cases as you have pointed out would occur. In fact, they never entered our minds.
Now,'you will admit with me, that a large constituency such as ours is, when a motion
comes on to have the hours of work set at so many a day, they have not got the time
to give consideration to the fine points or to think out those things that have been
thought out by you and other representatives here who are keen and who come into
every day life, and when this measure was brought here it was not stated to be per-
fect— we came here as representatives asking and saying we believe the time is op-
portune for eight hours on public works, speaking of public works in its broad sense,
and we are of the opinion it is up to the representatives of the people to assist us
as the representatives of the trades and labour unions of this country in evolving
and drafting a workable and practical measure — we do not want any foolish measure
— a measure that cannot be worked out, not at all. We are opposed to anything of
that kind; what we want is something workable and simple.
Mr. Harvey Hall. — Might I make a recommendation in regard to one part?
The Chairman. — I think so.
Mr. Hall. — It was in reference to one question asked this morning with regard to
transportation. I think that after the second word in paragraph (1) if you were
to add the words ‘ to construct ’ and make it ‘ every contract to construct to which
the government is a party,’ the adding of the words ‘ to construct ’ would eliminate
the transportation phase of the measure, and at the same time make the Bill work-
able so far as the making of mail bags and uniforms and all materials required by
the government, and at the same time, as I said before, eliminate that objection
350
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
that was raised this morning. I would like to hear what Mr. Draper and Mr. Ver-
ville think of that?
Mr. Knowles. — That would not include men working in the mines who are men-
tioned as required to be provided for?
The Chairman. — Mr. Ilall is only dealing with transportation. That is an import-
ant difficulty, of course, and Mr. Hall is making a recommendation in regard to that
point.
Mr. Stanfield. — Did I understand you to say there were no recommendations
considered before bringing the Bill in?
The Witness. — We would like to have an opportunity to consult on any amend-
ments that might be made and see what can be done. As I understand, the com-
mittee is anxious to do something, but it is impossible to pass section (1) in its
present phraseology, and it does seem to me that there ought to be intellect and
ability enough among the whole of us to construct something here that would be
acceptable and give us something we would really like. As I said, we would not
want the government to endeavour to do the impossible for us, such as to try and
control the hours on sea-going vessels or to regulate the hours of men working on
the manufacture of articles made outside our country. We do not want to be put
in the light that we are seeking that.
Mr. Verville. — I believe we are going into details now in so far as the Bill is con-
cerned— on things which have not much to do with the principle of eight hours. The
question has, in so far since we have had it before this committee, is to find out
what objection the people had against the eight-hour legislation— not so much as the
working part of it, and Mr. Draper as representing the Trades and Labour Congress, it
goes without saying is strongly in favour of an eight-hour day, as he has stated
frequently. As we have other witnesses who will prove that the eight hours would
be beneficial to employers and employees, I do not think we should go into the details
now.
By the Chairman:
Q. Our duty is to consider this Bill. We are a committee of men ap-
pointed by the House of Commons to consider this Bill and to report upon the evidence
concerning this Bill.
Mr. Staples. — And any alterations?
Q. Oh, yes. — A. That is a question I asked, and I was glad to get an affirmative
answer.
The Chairman. — And we must discuss all the details that will result from the
operation of it.
Mr. Macdonell.- — I think we have made more headway to-day than in any session,
and we have largely made it on account of the moderation shown by Mr. Draper in
his present attitude. We have had so much extremes on both sides, I must say too,
including Mr. Draper’s paper, because there were things in it a little on the extreme
side, but in his evidence he has admitted very frankly certain lines in which the Bill
could not apply.
The Chairman.- — I think it would be a good idea for the officials of the Congress to
get together and present a scheme of their own. This committee will be glad to re-
ceive their recommendations.
Mr. Knowles. — I do not agree with Mr. Verville in the appreciation of detail.
This legislation is for the labour men and it is advisable to put up to them the diffi-
culties, right up to their face.
Mr. Macdonell. — It has been the essential feature of all similar measures, that
is the exception to a law of general application. I think we all agree that a law of
general application is good and is compromised by some exceptions such as were ad-
mitted this morning. Supposing this government sends its housekeeper down to buy
Mr. DRAPER.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
351
APPENDIX No. 4
a dozen pitchers, you could hardly expect that those goods bought in an open market
should be the subject of an inquiry as to the number of hours a day spent in their
make. If you consider what exceptions would be fair and reasonable to meet the public
need as well as a general law to meet your need — to get a general measure with reason-
able exceptions from it that is working along the line of a general measure satisfactory
to the labourers and public generally, and at the same time prevent the measures being
oppressive or anything that would prove factious or inconvenient to any class of people.
The Chairman. I think you have helped the committee very materially, Mr.
Draper. A. It has occurred to me that it would be a proper move for this com-
mittee to appoint a sub-committee to meet the Executive Council of the Congress,
and we can get our solicitor here and we could re-draft, if you will, the Bill or suggest
an amendment. Of course, it would have to be submitted to the House as an amended
Bill coming from this committee. It occurs to me if you got a sub-committee and the
executive of the Congress together, something would come out of that which would be
practicable and workable.
The Chairman. — I think the proper thing would be that the Executive of your Con-
gress, after hearing all the difficulties of the case, should re-draft their views to this
committee, that is the only thing we could do. We have no authority to appoint a
sub-committee or authority to negotiate with parties of any association.
Mr. Stanfield. — Did not Mr. Draper say he was satisfied to have it only for pub-
lic works.
The Witness.— I did not acquiesce in that— I wanted time to consider that.
The Chairman.— I think it is the understanding of this committee that the offi-
cials of Congress discuss these difficulties, and we would be glad to have a representa-
tion of their views. — A. It would have to be pretty soon, because we would have to
get it before the committee, and I am very much afraid that we would not get any-
thing in the way of legislation this session.
The Chairman. — The committee has to satisfy itself on evidence. I understand
that the president and vice-president and the secretary of the Congress are here now,
and this committee will be very glad to have a representation of their views on the
matters that arose in the discussion. We would be very glad now to hear the vice-
president of the Congress.
Mr. Gustave Francq, being next called upon and sworn, deposed: —
By the Chairman:
Q. Where do you live? — A. In Montreal.
Q. What position do you hold in connection with trades organizations? — A. I am
at present general vice-president of the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress.
Q. What is your business? — A. Printer.
Q. Where do you work now? — A. I am now running the Mercantile Printing in
Montreal.
Q. So you employ men yourself? — A. Exactly.
A Journeyman 24 Years — An Employer of Labour 8 Years.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. How long are you in this country? — A. Pretty nearly a quarter of a century
now — a little over 24 years.
Q. How long did you work as a journeyman? — A. I may say about 24 years.
Q. But you have been an employer of labour for a certain number of years ? — A.
Yes, for the last eight years.
Q. Have you worked in any other country? — A. Yes, in the states and in the old
country.
352
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. What part in the old country?— A. Principally in Belgium and a little in
Germany and France, but mostly in Belgium. After being in this country for some
years I went to the states and secured a position and stayed there some time.
Q. Have you been foreman for establishments in the states . A. Yes.
Q. And in Canada? — A. Yes. ,
Q How many years have you been in labour unions ?— A. I am a member of my
local since January, 1888, and I have taken an interest in labour unions for fifteen
years as an officer of some kind. .
Q. How long have you been an employer of men?— A. About eight years.
Q. IIow many hours, do they work?— A. Eight hours a day since three years ago
next June. .
Q. Have you had anything to do with the settling of the eight-hour question in
your city?— A! Yes, I negotiated the eight-hour agreement between the Master Printers
and the typographical union.
Q. Three years ago? — A. Yes, next June?
By the Chairman:
Q. Have you seen this Bill? — A. Yes, sir.
O. Have you studied it?— A. A little, yes.
Q. Just a little?— A. Well, I may say I went over it a dozen times trying to get
the spirit of it.
Q. You are vice-president of the Congress?— A. Yes.
Q. Was it discussed at the Congress? — A. Certainly, that is the principle of the
Jj l1 Q. What is your opinion of the Bill?— A. I may say that I favour the Bill
entirely because it asks the principle of eight hours, which I have been advocating
many years.
Interpretation of Bill.
Q. Is it possible to carry it out in its full interpretation?— A. Of course that
would depend upon the interpretation a man was giving to it.
Q. What interpretation did you give to it? — A. My interpretation is that it applies
to all government work without specifying in what capacity. I may give an example
supposing your committee gives me a contract for printing, the Bill compels me
to take the typesetting part of it and have it done under the eight-hour day, but if
you say to me that the type which I am going to use in the make-up must be founded
under the eight-hour day, then I do not give it that interpretation. The Bill for me
means exactly the work on the contract.
Q. The Bill will mean what it says? — A. Exactly.
Q. So far as parliament is concerned? — A. Exactly.
Q. It says every contract of which the government is a party and which involves
the employment of labour, that no labourer or mechanic in the enploy of the con-
tractor or sub-contractor or other persons doing a part or the whole of the work *s
required or permitted to work more than eight hours a day — well, you know what it
says_it says a contractor or sub-contractor, or other person working on the contract
will not employ the men more than eight hours a day? — A. On such contract.
Q. It doesn’t say so?— A. Well, I suppose it is understood.
Q. It says every contract — A. I do not think that is the meaning.
Q. I am not talking about the meaning; it is what it says? — A. As I said, it
all depends on the sense you give it.
Q. That is the sense parliament gives it. — A. Well, I gave my opinion as to the
way I look at it. I looked at it that the Bill was drafted t‘o apply to men working
for the government and only on that work. For instance in the case I related, if I
have somebody else to do the book-binding work and he has to work his men) eight
MR. FRANCQ.
uumm ITT juju kju jsUjL, jso. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
353
APPENDIX No. 4
hours, and I think that is the interpretation that nearly every one in Montreal gives
to the Bill. I may say that as a ,lrule the workingmen with whom I came in contact
never studied the (wording of the Bill, but rather the principle of it. They are in
favour of the principle of eight hours and they want the government to make such a
law and they will do the rest. That is the spirit in which we look at the Bill.
Q. I quite understand the principle you want, but you are asking parliament
to do certain things as stipulated in this Bill, and that is wdiat we are considering.
Advantages of the Eight-hour Day.
Mr. Verville. — We would like to ask you from your experience of eight years
in your own shop if you could give us any information as to the production of eight
hours in which you are using machinery in your shop? — A Well, I am in favour
of the Eight-hour Bill for three reasons ; first, because it is beneficial to the men ;
secondly, it is in the interests of the employer himself, and, thirdly, because it is in
the general interest of the country. It is beneficial to the men physically because
the daily work must not be so hard on the workingman as to alter his health and
the source of his energy. Otherwise he will spend too much of that force and be-
come a physical wreck before his time, and he will be placed in a position to be a
burden to humanity in general and with the strain imposed upon men by the modern
mechanism, I consider eight hours a day a sufficient average. I consider it morally
beneficial because my own experience convinces me that when a man finishes his
work early he is anxious to get home and enjoy himself with his family, and it is
the means of keeping him away from bar-rooms and other places. ITe considers
himself then as a free man, as he is placed by a short day’s work on the same footing
as professional men, and in consequence he is satisfied with his lot, has an oppor-
tunity to educate himself and takes an interest in the education of his children.
Ask the wife of any workingman who works a short day wdiat she thinks of it,
and you will see that they are all satisfied and are more happy than when their hus-
bands work longer hours. I will give you an example. In my own trade, the print-
ing line, since we had the eight-hour day, men left the crowded districts of Mon-
treal and proceeded at once to their homes in the suburbs, and were not
loafing any more on St. Lawrence Main street, but at four o’clock in
the afternoon when they quit work they went home, and the moral stand-
point of our men has gained fifty per cent. The proof of it is that
the meetings of our syndic are now peaceful, and we do not see any more men under
the influence of liquor making a noise, advocating trouble and fight, because they are
satisfied with their lot. This can be proved, and as a result there is harmony and
peace between our master-printers and the compositors.
It is in the interests of the employer, because it can be shown by
example and proof that the production of a man working under a short
day (say eight hours) is equal, if not superior, to that when he is work-
ing nine hours and even working ten hours. He has had a good rest, feels
in a better condition to perform his daily duty, and he is in good physical and moral
condition, and can maintain his working capacity to a full extent and produce the
same amount of work ; on the other hand my own experience proved to me
again that the standard of the work performed under such conditions is of a superior
character. I am always speaking, of course, of my own trade. My argument is so
true and correct that when the Typographical Hnion introduced that eight-hour day
in Montreal three years ago, I must say that I negotiated myself the agreement be-
tween the Master-Printers’, Board of Trade and the Typographical Union, although I
was an employee myself, and we cut down the working hours from 54 to 48, but
our scale for piece-work on type-setting machines, and even for piece-work set by hand
was not changed at all, it remained the same, and this was certainly an important
4—23
354
COMMITTEE RE BILL jxo. zi — auui us ur
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
factor that induced the printers to agree to an eight-hour day, because men were pro-
ving by not increasing their wages for piece-work that they were willing and so they did
perform the same amount of work, and every boss printer and every big newspaper
man will admit that the production either on piece-work or on time did not change at
all. More than that, I will say that the agreement is for a period of five years, with
three dollars increase in the course of that period for time-work, and that piece-work
remained on the union scale, and everybody is so satisfied with it, that it is a rule that
on La Patrie and on La Presse the men working on time receive a dollar wages more
for a week than the union scale. It is all very well for employers to say that an eight-
hour day is going to kill business, but let them try it. Put it fairly and
I am convinced that they will have the same results as we had and that they will find
out that a short day is in their own interests, because it is a saving in light and heat
expenses. Let them realize that when their men are working a short
day, their foremen, office men and themselves will come to work at the same time as
their workingmen, and the result will be first a saving of lost time, because there will
be more surveillance on their part, consequently more work done, and secondly men
are men, and so long as workingmen see the book-keepers and office men, and even the
boss himself start work at nine o’clock when they start at seven, there will be dissatis-
faction ; try to place employers and employees on the same level and there you have
sympathy and friendship between capital and labour. I know some of you gentlemen
will think this is radicalism. No, it is my own experience of the labour question that
proves to me that there is always a possibility to have these two elements meet and
agree. I must confess that, while as a member of the Jacques Cartier Typographical
I'nion of Montreal I was negotiating the eight-hour day, at the same time as an em-
ployer I was a little afraid myself of the consequence regarding my own business. I
still confess that I thought for a moment I should have my customers pay for the
extra burden the short day would impose on me ; but, to my surprise, the production at
my place remained exactly the same ; my prices did not change, only in some instances
very slightly and I am making more money than I ever did. Of course, to be honest and
frank with you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I must say that the effect of the
eight-hour day for me iwas first of all to have first-class machinery, to buy an extra
supply of type and labour-saving devices, to enlarge my plant so as to give better con-
ditions to my men, more light and floor space, to establish a more correct system all
over the works, and since then I make it a duty to have either my partner or myself
to open the door, to be the first in and the last out.
Our men start at eight o’clock sharp in the morning, and I might
say they are always in, as a rule, before the time. The old system of
finishing work ten minutes before time to wash their hands is over, and
mind you I never ask them to do it, they changed themselves because they
realize that I treat them well, and that I am a friend to them more than an employer.
As I told you, this may have something to do to some extent with my increase in pro-
duction and better work than before, but I give you things as they are.
As to the production on the typesetting machine, I consider that six hours of straight
work is enough on a typesetting machine, and this is quite a rule now, because the ma-
chine work is very tiresome, both physically and mentally, and adding an hour to clean
the matrix and the machines. I know that when I was operating a monoline at night
work my production came down to pretty nearly 50 per cent when we had to work until
five o’clock on Friday morning for the extra Saturday edition. You have the eight-
hour day in force in the Printing Bureau here, you can make an investigation and
see for yourselves if the figures I give you, and based upon my experience, will not com-
pare with your printing office. I asked the foreman of the press-room in my place
to give me an estimate of the production of his presses, and he has given me figures
on which I could have him take his affidavit if you wished. He gives the production
on Saturday night compared with other days. The revolution of the press is always
MR. FRANCQ.
OOMM1TTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
355
APPENDIX No. 4
the same, but when it is not printing the counter will not tally. The feeder has
got to take a sheet and slip it in the cylinder press, and every time he misses there are
one or two revolutions without a sheet, but those revolutions are not marked on' the
counter. That is why he can give accurate figures, because he looks at his watch
when starting and finishing. As a rule, with a good feeder the pressman is doing
nothing else but watching the press, putting the right quantity of ink on and arrang-
ing the paper so the feeder will not lose time. Here is what the pressman reports : —
Optimus press, runs at a speed of 1,600 per hour, which is a first-class average.
1st hour, 1,800 revolutions, output 1,400 at most; 2nd hour and following,
1,800 revolutions, 1,500 to 1,550; from 11 to 12, 1.800 revolutions, output. 1,400-
afternoon, revolutions 1,800 output, 1,500 to 1,550; last hour, revolutions 1,800,
output 1,400.
If working ten hours about 175 sheets less than 1,400, and so on — marked
by automatic counter.
Gordon press — special press for good job work. 1st hour— 900 copies ca-
pacity— loss, about 20 copies.
Average of other hours, loss about 30 copies.
Last hour of day— extra time, loss about 100 copies.
Folding machine — capacity, 1,800; average last day, loss 75 copies.
On Saturday night, capacity average per hour, 1,400 copies.
This shows you that during the last hours of work the production is smaller.
We introduced the new agreement in our office and in every office in Montreal, and
I do not know of any printer in Montreal who is kicking about it; we are all well
satisfied, and every employer in my line will tell you that from a moral standpoint
the men have improved more than fifty per cent. The printers com-
ing from work now are like gentlemen, whereas when they had to work ten
and eleven hours they used to loaf at the corners and go into the bar-rooms to stimu-
late themselves in their fatigue. My opinion is not the only one — I may refer you
to a few similar opinions which you may find in this book — they are all French:
reports, and I have one here by the British government, which is in French, and
here is one issued by the Labour Bureau of the French Bepublic regarding the eight-
hour day in their industrial establishments. If your committee wants these books
I will be pleased to let you have them to look them over. Here is one evidence
taken in Great Britain — you have that in your library, I think — and it gives the
experience of William Allan on page 120. He says they started the eight-hour day
in their establishment and he was surprised to see that the production was not only
equal to the production of ten hours, but after a time he discovered he had more
production under the -eight-hour day than under the ten-hour day.
Mr. Stanfield. — What business is he in?
The Witness. — Ship-building. Then you have another one of Short Bros., on page
121, ship builders. He says: ‘We have great pleasure in saying our expectations were
realized — we are paying more wages, and we believe it in the interest of all manufac-
turers. And you have the statement of Messrs. Smith & Chamberlain, which will
show you that I am not the only one who is speaking this way. Of course, as to my
shop, we have fourteen men, and what is true for me may be true for others. Of
course, the effect of the eight hours in my place was to induce me to put in first-class
machinery, and to have more confidence in my men. I am there first in the morning,
when the men see the bosses are there they will not delay in starting to work.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. You worked in the old country — how many hours ? — A. WThen I
worked there in 1897 — it was at the last general exhibition in Brussels — and the
place I (started in required the men to work eleven hours a day, but we started at
seven in winter and six in the summer.
4 — 23*
356
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Production and Shorter Hours.
Q. What was the production of the men working eleven hours and
those working less in the United States where you worked? — A. When I came back
from Belgium I worked in Lowell, Mass., and I am going to give you the figures.
We were paid on piecework in both countries!, in Lowell, 23 cents per thousand ems,
and the average was 8,700 ems on a nine-hour day. Although it was nine we never
worked more than 8£. In Belgium, with eleven hours and 24 cents per thousand;
ems, one cent more than in the States, a big day was 5,000 ems — and an em is the
same in both countries. In a few weeks after being there, being called an American,
the manager asked me to take the foremanship, for they were printing a paper half
in English and half in French, and I had an opportunity to take the job. When I
started in my capacity as foreman I thought myself eleven hours was an awful strain.
In the course of a short time I asked the manager to let me try to reduce the hours to
ten, and he was agreeable. The first week they came out with the paper in time,
and then I set to work to cut a little more off, and some of the men went to the syn-
dicate and complained that I was trying to get the men to work too hard. But the
syndicate thought I was right, for I took the stand that when the men were at work
they should work and cut out the lighting of pipes and things like that, and when I
left there the men were not asked to go to work on Monday afternoon as previously.
The men earned exactly the same amount of money, they had exactly the same
amount of work, and when the proprietor saw that it worked so well on piece work
he tried it on time work. When I left they were working nine hours generally and
everybody thought they were doing pretty near the same amount of work.
Q. Have you any experience in other trades in Montreal? — A. Not much with
other trades. I suppose what is true in one trade ought to he true in others with
slight differences, but so far as machines are concerned there is always a certain
amount of hand work connected with them.
What per cent of labour do you suppose is attached to every machine? — A. It is
pretty hard for me to say; it all depends upon the machine; but there is no machine
but requires the help of a man to run it.
Q. Do you suppose that 25 per cent would be too much? — A. That would perhaps
be the right average.
Q. Do you think a printer could set as much hand type in eight hours as he
could in ten? — A. Yes, but if you ask me if a printer is in a position to do as much
hand work in six hours as eight I would doubt it — —
Q. But I ask you as between eight and ten? — A. Yes, I say he will. Of course,,
"we must take everything into consideration. In ten hours there is a loss of time be-
cause he is tired. I know when I was working ten hours the only thing I was watching
was the clock, as I wanted to get away, and' now as a rule when the men are working
eight hours it does not seem to impose any great fatigue upon them. In the after-
noon they seem as fresh as when they started. As we all know, there is a certain limit
to physical strength which we cannot overdo to advantage.
Q. You have not increased your prices? — A. No.
Q. Are you making as much benefit as before? — A. I am making a little more.
It may be accountable to some extent to better machinery, for I was so much afraid
myself that the eight hours would reduce the production that I sought to counter-
balance the effect by having better machinery.
The Chairman. — There has been a general reduction of hours in the printing trade
generally? — A. Yes.
Q. You say you have not increased any of your charges? — A. As I stated before
very slightly — in high grade work.
Mr. Verville. — Do you think the general cost of printing is about the same,
that is, for general printing? — A. It is about the same, but on high grade work we
MR. FRANCQ.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
357
APPENDIX No. 4
charge more. In newspaper work, however, we are working cheaper than we did five
years ago.
The Chairman. — Is the cost of job printing or letter-heads the same to the public
to-day as it was five years ago? — A. Generally I do not think the prices of the Print-
ers’ Board of Trade in Montreal changed for that kind of work — it changed for cat-
alogue work though.
Q. For high grade work? — A. Yes We try to charge as much as possible for
that, because it is not every printer who can do that work.
This concluded the evidence of witness, and the committee adjourned to meet
again on Thursday the 28th of April.
House of Commons, Room 34,
April 28, 1910.
Committee met at 11.30 o’clock a.m., the Chairman, Hon. Mr. King, presiding.
Mr. Stanfield. — I wish to state that Mr. Claude Maedonell was unexpectedly
called away to Toronto, and will not be here this morning.
The Chairman. — I am sorry Mr. Maedonell could not be here. I suppose he will
hardly be back to-morrow.
Mr. Stanfield. — I do not think so.
The Chairman. — The secretary has handed me a letter in reference to Mr.
Draper’s evidence. You will remember that at the last meeting Mr. Draper was a
witness, and he mentioned that there were something like 40 states of the American
Union that had legislation restricting hours of labour. I asked him at the time if he
was quite sure he was correct in that statement, and he thought he was. However, I
requested him to verify his information and inform us of the result. Accordingly, he
has sent us the following, (reads) : —
The following states and territories have legislation on restriction of hours
in some form: Arizona, Arkansas, Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho,
Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New Hampshire,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Porto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah,
Washington, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Nevada, California, Connecticut, District of
Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Michigan,
New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming.
I notice that Mr. Draper says in his note that these states and territories have legisla-
tion restricting the hours of labour in some form. The point that we were more
immediately concerned in was whether they had legislation in the form of restriction
of the hours of labour on public works. Of course ‘ some form ’ would cover factory
legislation which all the states have to do with, I think this accounts for the difference
between the evidence as it appears in our minutes with respect to the states that have
legislation restricting the hours of labour on public works, and Mr. Draper s statement
that the number that had legislation regarding hours of labour was twice as great. I
drew attention to the statement that Mr. Skelton had prepared in the minutes, showing,
I think, something like twenty states, or rather, twenty-three states, that had legislat-
ed respecting hours of labour on public works, and I asked that the secretary should
direct Mr. Skelton’s attention to that point. Professor Skelton has sent the following
letter, (reads) : —
358
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Dear Mr. Clouthier, — I am in receipt of the reports of the last two meetings
of the committee. I appreciate particularly receiving Mr. Draper’s evidence so
promptly.
I have noted the query as to the minor point of detail in the evidence as to
United States experiments. The figures I gave are accurate; the number
of states which have passed legislation similar to that proposed by Mr. Yerville,
stipulating an eight-hour day on government contracts, is twenty-three. Other
states and territories have passed eight-hour legislation of different scope, as for
example, providing for an eight-hour day in coal mines, or declaring that in the
absence of contract eight hours should be held to constitute a full day; par-
ticulars of these and other laws were given in my evidence. The witness in his
evidence evidently mixed up this latter legislation with the eight-hour-in-govern-
ment contract type. The statement made afterwards in the note you inclose that
forty-five states and territories have passed eight-hour legislation of some sort is
an entirely different statement, and is quite correct.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) O. D. Skelton.
That clears up the difference, I think, where there was one. Mow, referring to the
evidence at pages 329-30, the following questions and answers appear (reads) : —
‘ Mr. Ralph Smith.— Does it show here that this law prevails in the United
States?
Mr. Draper. — In forty odd states.
Mr. Ralph Smith. — By local bodies?
Mr. Draper. — In the legislatures. They have the state legislatures, the same
as our provincial legislature here, and they have the eight-hour day in forty odd
states.
Mr. Ralph Smith. — With regard to state contracts
Mr. Draper. — Yes, sir.’
Mr. Draper was evidently mistaken there, because the legislation in the forty states
relates to legislation on eight hours in some form, but not necessarily on government
contracts. We have Professor Skelton again with us this morning. The last time he
was here he was asked if he would prepare a resume of legislation in other countries —
particularly Bugland, Germany, Prance, Australia and Mew Zealand — with a view of
indicating to the committee the extent to which the eight-hour regulation in govern-
ment contracts prevails in those countries.
Q. I think, 1 lofessor Skelton, you have spent some little time in research along
that line? — A. I have gone into it somewhat.
Q. Have you a report to present to the committee in that connection? — A. Yes, I
have followed along the lines indicated by the Chairman. I also have jotted down
some general considerations which I may suggest if the committee have time to take
them up.
Q. Well, I think we would be very glad to get the information you have?— A.
First of all, in the United States, it has been seen, legislation in furtherance of a
shorter working day has been passed by both federal and state legislatures. There, as
in Canada, the direct control of industrial conditions falls to the state rather than to
the national government. The separate states have been chary about using this
power to restrict the working hours of adult males; constitutional limitations °on in-
terference with the right of private contract, the prevalent spirit of individualism
and the prosperity of the great majority of the workers have co-operated to restrain
legislation. Such measures as have been passed take the form, we have seen, of:—
(1) Declaring eight hours the normal working day in the absence of con-
tract.
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE DILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
359
APPENDIX No. 4
(2) Prescribing short hours in certain dangerous or exhausting industries to
safeguard the health and safety of the workmen employed, as in limitation of
hours in mines and bakeshops.
(3) Prescribing short hours in certain industries where the exhaustion pro-
duced by long hours is believed to endanger the public, as in limitation of hours
of railroad telegraphers and others engaged in transportation.
(4) Defining the hours required of statute labourers.
(5) Prescribing the hours of labour of men employed directly by the state
in manual work.
(6) Prescribing the hours of labour of men employed by contractors with
the state, in practice confined almost entirely to contracts for public works.
The federal government with its much narrower range of power has confined its
action to four main classes of legislation:—
(1) Prescribing the conditions and hours in dangerous employments in the
territories under its direct jurisdiction.
(2) Regulating the hours of telegraphers on railroads engaged in interstate
commerce.
(3) Fixing the hours of labour of men employed directly in its own work-
shops, arsenals or navy yards, or in the construction of public works.
(4) Limiting the hours of labour of men employed by contractors in con-
structing public works.
Legislation in Great Britain re Hours and Wages.
Turning from the United States to Europe we may note first the experience 'of
Great Britain, the pioneer in the movement for shorter hours and stj.ll foremost etx-
cept for the Australian colonies. Legislation is there much simpler than in the
United States or Canada, since the whole power of government is concentrated in
a single parliament, not as in Canada, divided between ten different authorities, nor
as in the United States between 47 state and federal governments. There has, how-
ever, been no uniformity in the way in which this concentrated and unfettered
powior has been used. Three centuries ago it was freely used, as in the Statute of
Apprenticeship, fixing the hours of labour at 12 in summer and during daylight in
winter, to regulate the conditions of labour, usually in the employers interest; then
the pendulum swung to the extreme of laissez-faire, reluctance to intervene in in-
dustrial affairs, lasting well into the last century. The pendulum has been swinging
the other way since, but as yet it has not carried the government to the length of legis-
lating directly and generally on the hours of men’s laDOur. The great reductions
secured in the hours of labour during the century past were due in the main to the
efficiency of trade union action, British trade unions in their solidarity, their finan-
cial strength, their able leadership and their persistent self-reliant activity being un-
surpassed anywhere. It was not until the SO’s that serious doubts as to the efficacy
of this weapon began to be entertained and demands for legal intervention voiced.
The rise of the new unionism and the preaching of John Burns and Tom klann and
others led to an agitation for an eight-hour law, which reached its climax in the
early nineties. As vet, however, the aspirations for a universal eight-hour day by Act
of Parliament have been disappointing. The results actually secured by public legis-
lation may be briefly summarized.
1. The hours of adult male workers in factories have indirectly been low-
ered by laws restricting the hours of labour of the women and children whose
services in the same factory weret indispensable. Ostensibly the laws passed in
1847-1850 providing for a ten-hour day applied only to the women and children,
but it was generally recognized that this involved a ten-hour day for the men
as well as in most instances. As they used to say fifty or sixty years ago when
360
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
tlie ten-hour law was brought in, the men fought for shorter hours behind the
women’s petticoats.
2. Various local authorities, county and borough councils, school boards,
boards of guardians, &c., have adopted what may be called a fair hours clause.
Of the 4,215 such authorities in the United Kingdom, some 444 embody fair wage
provisions in contracts; about one-fifth of these insert requirements that the
hours shall be those current in the district or shall be the trade union rate, e.g.,
Leicester borough council.
The rates of wages to be paid and the hours of labour, as well as the rules and
conditions regulating the employment of workmen and others engaged or employed
in carrying, out the contract shall be such as are recognized by the employers and
the respective trade unions in the town or district where such contract is to be
executed; and where no such organization or organizations exists or exist such rates
of wages, hours of labour and conditions of employment as are, for similar work to
that specified in the contract, generally paid or observed in the organized trades in
the town or district next to the place in which the contract is to be executed. £10
liquidated damages for each breach.
Durham.— All building contracts contain the following: The contractor shall
pay such rates of wages and observe such hours of labour as are generally accepted
as fair in the various trades in the county.
Ihese stipulations, it will be observed, merely aim to keep the local authorities
abreast of the times; they do not seek to enforce conditions in advance of those pre-
valent in the various trades.
Ni ne oi the national government contracts contain any stipulation as to hours.
Hie War Office, Admiralty, Office of Works, Post Office and Stationery Department
merely require that wages shall be those generally accepted as current in each trade
for competent workmen in the district where the work is carried on. The fair wages
committee appointed by the Treasury in 1907, was so far from wishing to take any
step in advance of private industry that it recommended that the proposal to sub-
stitute the phrase ‘ trade union rate of wages ’ for ‘ current rate of wages of the dis-
trict ’ should not be adopted, because it was either superfluous or inequitable.
Where in a given district the trade union has succeeded in establishing a
rate which is so far accepted by the employer that the majority of the work
people in that district do in fact obtain the rate, the trade union rate is, of
course, the ‘ current rate ’ of the district, and is the rate which the contractor is,
under the present form of contract, already compelled to pay on government work
carried out in the district. It is only in those cases in which the trade union rate
is not the current rate that any change would be effected by the proposed amend-
ment ; but these are cases in which it is at least open to doubt whether the gov-
ernment would be justified in enforcing the payment of the trade union rate by
its contractors. A rate demanded by a union, but not in practice obtained, or
a rate which has been agreed upon only by a minority of employers and work
people, or which any changes of process have made obsolete, can scarcely be the
curient rate intended in the fair wages resolution. If the government is to
have its work executed at the ordinary market price it cannot require the con-
tractor to pay more than the market rate of wages.
In this connection reference may be made to a brief discussion of this same
committee on another point at issue in the Bill before us :
The president of the lorkshire Textile Workers’ Union suggested that the
princple of the fair wages clause should apply to the manufacture of the material
used by the contractor, so that^ for example, an employer holding a contract to
PROP. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
361
APPENDIX No. 4
make cloth for the government should be held responsible for the conditions under
which the yarn he uses was made, safeguarding himself by a warranty from the
spinner.
It is obvious that it would be quite impracticable to enforce generally any
rule of this character. Under such a provision, a builder, for instance, would have
to satisfy himself that the current rate of wages had been paid to the men en-
gaged in quarrying the stone and slate, making the bricks, nails, locks, screws,
glass, girders, paint, and numberless other things which were to be used in the
execution of the contract. As the materials used by the contractor would generally
be indistinguishable at the place of manufacture from those supplied for other
purposes, any inquiry as to the conditions under which they were made could not
be confined to those articles destined to be used in the contract work, and the
ultimate result would be practically to make the government contractors respon-
sible for the payment of current rates of wages on all work in every industry
throughout the country.”
Hours of Work in Coal Mines and Dockyards.
After a twenty-year agitation the government last year agreed to limit by law
the hours of men working in coal mines. While the prescription of short hours in
coal mines is by no means unique, being in fact the rule in Western America, the cir-
cumstance that legislative action has finally been resorted to in order to supplement
trade union action is of some interest. Sixty years ago fifteen hours a day was com-
mon in Scotland and Cumberland; fourteen hours in Yorkshire and twelve hours in
the rest of England. Trade union action, supplemented to some extent by legislation
limiting the labour of boys to a 54 hour-week, has so reduced this excessive day that
in 1908 the average time spent underground by all classes of workers in coal mines
was 9 hours 3 minutes, the miner’s day varying from one of 6 hours and 49 minutes
for hewers in Durham and Northumberland to an average of 9 hours 57 minutes for
all workers in Monmouthshire. The average days worked in that year were 5J a week,
and the average week was 49^ hours.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. What was the date of the reduction to 54 hours? — A. I am not quite sure
whether it was 1870 or 1871. The great reduction in hours came it may be noted
with the increase in the price of coal in the early 70’s; the wages, adjusted on a slid-
ing scale basis rose so much that the men preferred to take some of the gain in shorter
hours rather than in higher wages. It may be noted also that the average output per
man per day was greatest in the shortest hour districts.
The new Act which affects about 700,000 workers, is nominally an eight-hour law,
but as a matter of fact is at least an 8J hours Act, as both winding up and down are
specifically excluded from the eight-hour period by an amendment made in the House
of Lords. The reduction of time that would have been effected had the windings been
included in the eight-hour period was calculated at 10 -27 per cent the actual reduction
is therefore about 5 per cent, rather small compared with the reductions previously
secured by trade union action, but possibly more stable and more widespread.
The most important experiment made by the British government is the reduction
of hours of its own employees effected some 16 years ago. The eight-hour agitation in
the United Kingdom reached its climax in the early 90’s : in the 1892 election, the
great majority of members declared themselves in sympathy with the movement. When
parliament met it was urged that as a tangible evidence of sympathy the hours of
labour of public employees should be lessened. After much deliberation and experi-
menting the government decided in 1894 to reduce the hours in the dockyards, ord-
nance factories and army clothing establishments to 48 a week. The number of men
362
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
affected was over 43,000; of these 24,263 employees of the Admiralty received a re-
duction of 2J hours a week or 25 minutes a day, and the 1‘8, 977 employees of the War
Office, 5J hours a week, or practically an hour a day.
By the Chairman:
Q. What did they do with the wages ?— A. They kept them the same, that is so
far as the pieceworkers were concerned. It should be noted that it was not decided to
establish a uniform eight-hour day, nor even a uniform 48-hour week ; in the dockyards
the working day established varied from 7J hours in winter to 9 hours in summer with
a 5-hour Saturday all through the year. Comparatively recently, in 1905, the instal-
lation of electric light in the dockyards made it possible to establish a uniform 48-
hour week throughout the year. The revised table of hours is as follows :
Monday to Thursday, 7—12, 1.30—5; Friday, 7—12, 12.45—4.45; Saturday,
7—12.
The War Office.
The results of this reduction are wholly favourable to the advocates of shorter
hours. After eleven years trial, reports were sought from the two government depart-
ments chiefly concerned, and were published by the Board of Trade in 1905. The War
Office, the employees of which had been granted a reduction of 5f hours per week,
stated that when the 48-hour week was first adopted it was anticipated that there
would be a saving of time in stopping and restraining work at the breakfast hour,
work not beginning till after breakfast under the new system, and also a saving of
light and fuel.
It was also expected that a later hour of starting work would ensure greater
regularity of attendance, that there would be an improvement in the physical con-
dition of the men and an increase in their power of production. The fact that the
reduction in the hours of work had not reduced the output, or increased the cost of
it, in private factories in which the experiment had been tried, also led the War
Office to assume that the cost of production would not be increased in their work-
shops. It is stated that these anticipations have been justified, and that it is clear
that no extra cost has been incurred by the public on account of the reduction of
hours, nor has the output of the work been diminished.
» By Mt. Smith:
Q. Are these production works owned by the government? — A. Tes. That is,
the shops in which the government makes its own gun-carriages, for example, and
carries out its repairs.
Q. Do you know whether the labour is contract labour or day labour? — A. As 1
was just going to say, it is largely piece work. The majority of the workmen being on
piece work, the average weekly earnings per man have not been sensibly altered, al-
though piece-work prices have not been increased. The day workers received an in-
creased hourly rate of pay to make their earnings per week of 48 hours equal to those
per week of 54 hours. It was not found necessary to increase the number of day
workers.
The* admiralty reported to the same effect, though in this case the change was
less important.
In the case of the dock yards, where the great bulk of the work people affected
were employed, the number of hours had previously been 50J per week. Of the re-
duction of 2J hours per week, nearly li hours was affected on the Saturday by mak-
ing the hours on that day equivalent to a half day instead of as formerly working
till 2 p.m., with a half hour stoppage for mid-day meal.
A recent communication from the admiralty states that the effect on the out-
put of the work was to some extent minimized by the withdrawal of certain privi-
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
363
APPENDIX No. 4
leges,, viz. . allowances of three minutes to workmen for getting to their work after
bell-rmging m the morning and afternoon, and certain half holidays and time off
previous y granted without loss of pay. These privileges amounted in the aggregate
to a time value of about one hour per week. This communication further states
that it would not appear that the cost of production at the dock yards since the in-
troduction of the forty-eight hours system compares unfavourably with that pre-
viously obtained, but to what extent the cost has been influenced by the reduction of
hours cannot be definitely determined. Among the other factors of which account
would have to be taken m making a comparison between the cost of production before
and alter the introduction of the forty-eight hours’ week, are improvements in ma-
chinery and means of conveying stores within the dock yards and other labour-sav-
ing methods, and also increases of pay in certain trades. No increases, however,
were made m piece-work rates.
It should be noted particularly, in view of the less successful expedients of the
rench government to be discussed later, that the greater part of the work in the Bri-
tish establishments was on a piecework basis. So far as the time workers are con-
cerned, the admiralty authorities some five years ago adopted the premium system of
payment to enable expert workmen to increase their pay by completing their work in
less than the time allowed for it. The premium or bonus paid is in proportion to
the time saved, t.e., if a workman saves 25 per cent of the time allowed, he is paid
at the rate of 25 per cent in excess of his ordinary hourly rate for the number of
hours actually. taken, while if he takes longer than the time allowed he is still paid
his ordinary time wages. In practice the premiums earned were found to average
■about 20 per cent over the ordinary wages, showing that there was still some slack
to take up.
So far . as. I have been able to ascertain, no provision has ever been made
m Great Britain for inserting eight-hour stipulations in government contracts in the
manner proposed in the Bill before this committee. I shall note later the reason why
it has not been necessary to approach the problem by this means.
By the Chairman:
Q. Just there. You say, ‘ in the manner proposed by this Bill.’ Do you mean
that there has never been any eight-hour regulation or stipulation in any public
works contract?— A. None whatever; no stipulation whatever as to hours in govern-
ment contracts.
Q. Not m any contracts by the government ?— A. Not in any contracts by the
government. Some of the local bodies, as I stated, have provided that the hours
shall not be longer than in any private industries; but the national government has
not even gone to that length.
Q. The national government has adopted a fair wages stipulation ?— A. Yes,
but not a fair hours stipulation.
Q. They have a stipulation providing for payment of the current rate of iwao-es?
—A. Yes.
Q. Does that not have reference also to the hours that are current in the dis-
trict?—A. Not so expressly stipulated as it is in the wording of the clause in the con-
tracts of a good many of the local bodies which have both fair wages and fair hours
provisions.
Q. There is no express stipulation on the question of hours? — A. No. But in
practice it might work out that way.
Legislation in France — Decree of ISIS.
By Mr. Smith:
• Q. Has there been any agitation in favour of an eight-hour day on government
contracts ?— A. In the early nineties some proposals were made in that direction, but
they do not seem to have been very seriously pressed.
364
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ho. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
To go on to France. (1) Over sixty years ago, in the revolution of 1848, France
decreed what even yet no other nation has attempted — a universal limit to the work-
ing day. As first formulated in March, 1848, the hours of labour for all workers
were fixed at ten per day in Paris and eleven in the provinces; a few months later,
twelve hours per day was established as the maximum throughout all France. This
hasty and sweeping legislation, however, overshot the mark ; numerous exceptions and
lack of inspectors made the law a dead letter for nearly forty years, and to-day the
legislation in force is far from being radical on this point.
By the Chairman:
Q. Is that still the existing law? — A. It is still the existing law hut practically
every trade is exempted from it.
The Law of 1899.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. Custom has over-ridden that law?— A. Yes, the law is nearly all exceptions.
A Fair Hours’ provision, similar to that noted in Great Britain, prevails in France,
but on a national rather than a local basis. A law enacted in 1899 provides that all
contracts for public work shall contain a clause limiting the length of the day’s work
to the hours usual in the locality. Overtime is permitted but must be paid extra.
This enactment, it will he seen, imposes on the government the standard generally
adopted in private industry, but does not impose that standard with absolute rigidity.
By Mr. Smith.
Q. That applies to hours, just as the Fair Wages provision here applies to wages?
—A. Exactly, in all government contracts.
Specific Legislation re Specific Trades.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. You spoke about the law in France, enacted at the time of the Eevolution of
1848, being practically a dead letter. — A. That law governing the hours of workmen
in factories and in general occupations has been virtually a dead letter. Special legis-
lation has been passed since dealing with specific trades.
Q. The government do not deal with it themselves then.
Mr. Smith. — Not with regard to their own employees? — A. Not with regard to
their own employers. Although the government by various specific Acts, such as I
am going to make reference to in a moment, have reduced the hours of labour beyond
that standard in the case of many of their own employees.
During the past ten years the French government has been carrying on extensive
experiments with the eight-hour day in various state establishments, particularly in
the naval arsenals and dockyards, the post office and telegraph workshops, and for a
time in some factories under the War Department. In all about 35,000 employees
were concerned. The reduction of hours effected, averaged about 14 per cent. Careful
investigations have been made into the working of the shorter day and the results
published at length in 1906 by the French Bureau of Labour. I have supplemented
this authority by later issues of the French Labour Gazette and private engineering
journals. The showing is much less favourable for the eight-hour day than in the
British experiment: the reduction of time of course was much greater.
In some of the post office establishments — where they manufacture postage stamps,
and carry on the construction and repair of postal apparatus— the eight-hour day was
introduced experimentally in 1899, and made permanent in 1901. Two years later
the Under Secretary of State for Postal and Telegraph Services, reported that at first
exceptional efforts were put forth by the workmen, but were soon relaxed. The de-
• PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
365
APPENDIX No. 4
crease does not seem to have been material, however, as only 2-4 per cent increase in
wages had to be given to secure the extra labour needed. Two years later, referring
to further experiments, the statement is made that the production has fallen off by
from one-tenth to one-fifth.
In Naval Establishments.
By the Chairman:
Q. Do they pay them by the piece in France?— A. No. That is the trouble. I
am going to take that up in a moment.
In the naval establishments where the most extensive reductions were made, the
results differ to some extent in the different localities.
In L’Orient it was reported that while at first after the adoption of the eight-hour
day the hourly output was maintained at nearly the same level, or even above it, it
soon showed a tendency to diminish; while admitting the difficulty of isolating the
effects of the eight-hour day, the Director of Engineering estimated the eventual
increase in the cost of production at 15 per cent. At Cherbourg, where the reduction
of time averaged from 13 to 14 per cent, the reduction of output was at least
12 per cent for the workmen who had to do with machine tools, forges, &c., and ten
per cent for other classes. At first, it is stated, there was a real effort on the part
of a minority of the workers to compensate for the reduction in the hours of work
by increased zeal and activity, but this did not last once the eight-hour day had be-
come in all eyes a fait accompli. In Toulon the decrease in production was more
than proportional to the decrease in hours. At Guerigny the results were more
satisfactory. In Rochefort and Ruelle the output in eight hours was found to be
practically equivalent to that produced previously in 9£ hours, ascribed in the former
case to increased energy on the part of the workmen and more efficient superintend-
ence and in the latter to the maintenance of piece work and the installation of im-
proved machinery. At Indret the hourly output remained practically stationary.
In estimating these results, however, there are other considerations to be borne
in mind. The claim that the quality of the work was improved, made by the work-
men in the postal establishment, may or may not be tenable.
More valid is the contention that the abolition of piece work, simultaneously in
most cases with the introduction of the eight-hour day, brought about a slackening of
effort and to that extent counteracted the increase in hourly output to be expected
from the shortened day. In the case of Toulon, however, where the cost of produc-
tion increased by from 24 to 33 per cent, piece-work had already been reduced to a
minimum when the short hours were introduced, so that the responsibility for the
decreased output cannot be shifted. It is pointed out, further, by the Trade Unions
interested, that during the years in question the amount of work given to the various
yards was less than normal, so that the organization of work could not be made as
effective as before. The disorganization in the whole French naval service, made
apparent by the recent investigation, should also be borne in mind in weighing the
effects of the reduction.
The War Office experimented in 1903-4 with a reduction from a nominal ten to
a nominal eight -hour day in the shops at Tarbes, but decided in consequence of its ex-
perience to compromise on a nine-hour day. Actually, in the artillery workshops the ten-
hour day had comprised only 9 hours effective work; the new nine-hour day Sf hours;
practically no reduction in output resulted from this slight decrease. In the engin-
eering experimental establishments the reduction resulted in practically no decrease
in output. In the power works, the decrease was in proportion to the shortening of
the day, but not quite so great in the clothing and medical departments.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Was that piece work or day work? — A. The greater part of it was day work
after the introduction of the reduced hours. In connection with the experiments in
366
COMMITTEE RE BILL jvo. zi—uuuius ur
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
the naval establishments it is interesting to note that frequent and loud complaint is
made by trades unions in private industry of the unfair competition waged against
them by the government employees after the end of their short day’s work. The
carpenters and joiners’ union of Cherbourg complain that the employees of the
arsenal are eating the bread of their comrades in private industry, taking advantage
of the time, the leisure so-called, granted them by benevolent authority. The machin-
ists make the same plaint, and even the gardeners find it necessary to petition that
the Government employees be ‘ forbidden to undertake any work after their day in
the arsenal where they undergo scarcely any fatigue.’ The Government professed
themselves unable to interfere in the matter. It will probably be adjusted through
the medium of the trade unions as the Government trade unions have been confeder-
ated with the private unions. I do not think it necessary to go into the different
experiments carried on elsewhere on the continent, because so far as Europe is con-
cerned Great Britain and France have been the most active. Italy has done a little
in introducing the eight-hour day and in some cases the nine-hour day in its Govern-
ment dockyard, and the seven-hour day in its Government tobacco establishments.
France, by the way, has a nine-hour day in its tobacco factories.
In Germany.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Can you give us any information on Germany? — A. As to Germany, practi-
cally nothing has been done by the government with the exception of the state rail-
ways. Provision has been made there very elaborately and in great detail for secur-
ing so many hours of rest per day or per week for all employees, and the maximum
limit of hours is fixed which cannot be exceeded on the average. For example, it is
the rule that eight hours a day shall be the maximum for station masters, assistant
station masters, telegraphers and switchmen when the work is uninterrupted and in-
tense; elsewhere the limit is up to 12 hours.
Q. What about the engineers? — A. The engineers are, I think, limited to a
maximum of 11 hours a day, which is supposed to be observed as far as possible, and
they are to be guaranteed at least eight hours a day consecutive rest.
Q. Outside of that there are no state laws? — A. Outside of that no state laws.
Q. Regulating the hours? — A. No, these are virtually laws regulating their own
employees, because practically all the railways in Prussia are state railways; outside
of this and similar regulations in the other states, Germany has no mode of regulation
regarding the hours of adult labour.
In Australia and New Zealand.
I should also except hours of labour in coal mines, which are regulated in some in-
stances. Australia and New Zealand are the countries in which the eight-hour day has
been most widely won. They are also the countries which are regarded as most radi-
cal and advanced in passing legislation in the interests of labour. Putting these
facts together, most people seem to have the impression that the eight-hour day in
Australasia is the result of legislative action. This is not the case. There is pro-
bably a cause and effect relation between the two conditions, but it would be more
correct to say that the advanced legislation is the result of the leisure and political
strength resulting from the eight-hour day, or that both are the results of the same
economic conditions. The eight-hour day was won in Victoria over 50 years ago by
the building and iron trades as the result of union action; their success was largely
due to the premium (which the rush to the gold fields put on labour of all descrip-
tions. The unions were able to dictate terms, to fix a standard of eight hours to which
later on industries were obliged to conform. It gradually spread to other trades
until by the end of the ’80’s three-fourths of the workmen of Victoria had the eight-
PROF. SKELTON.
' BUMM1TTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 367
APPENDIX No. 4
hour day, or rather the forty-eight hour week, and it is now practically uniform except
in the agricultural districts, ana is largely prevalent even there, especially in the case
of sheep shearing.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. I would like to have you explain how far that would affect the agri-
cultural interests, that is, so far as labour is concerned ?— A. Australia, of course, has
always been urban rather than rural, and the agricultural industry as a result has
been confined to two or three great branches; it is more grazing than agriculture,
there has been no attempt to regulate the ordinary farm work by legislative action,
but the work of such men as the sheep shearers is restricted to eight hours a day by
union action.
Q. Will the eight-hour day in every other trades affect the possibility of getting
labour for agricultural purposes?— A. Undoubtedly it has, and it has reduced
the hours of labour in farming, at any rate, it has been impossible to get men to go
on the land unless they get a reasonable equivalent of hours.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. But that has not been brought about by law?— A. No, it has been the inevitable
result, they could not get the men.
Q. And that is the case in Victoria? — A. Yes, it is the pioneer in the movement.
The eight-hour day was not maintained without severe struggles, but in their efforts
the men depended almost entirely upon themselves. There has been little legislation on
the subject; in what action the government has taken it has for the most part followed
rather than led the public. In 1874 a 48-hour week was prescribed for women and
children in factories, but the operatives themselves petitioned against its enforce-
ment and it was a dead letter for twenty years. So with the other states of the Com-
monwealth. At present of course with the adoption in Victoria of the Wage Board
system of determining conditions of labour and in other states the adoption of the New
Zealand compulsory arbitration method, hours as well as wages are a matter for state
decision, but the basis adopted is the eight-hour day won by the unions.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. There is no specific law ? — A. No specific law in any state in Australia, other
than for factory employees. In New Zealand, as in Australia, the short
day has been in the main won by self-help; legislation has sought mere-
ly to clinch the advantages won and to extend them to the weaker
trades. As early as 1873 the hours for women and children employed
m factories were fixed at 4S a week; in the last important revision of the Factories
Act in 1901 these hours were shortened to 45, except in woollen factories, and the
hours for men definitely fixed at the maximum of 48. In New Zealand, as is well
known, the compulsory arbitration machinery at first intended for the settlement of
specific industrial disputes has developed into means for state fixation of wages and
hours in practically the whole industry of the country, so that the need either of
legislation or of union action on the ordinary lines has passed — pro/iding the system
does not break down. The nearest approach in New Zealand to the legislation con-
templated by the Bill before us is the Public Contracts Act of 1900, which provides
that in all contracts above 20 pounds in value, for the construction or repair of
public works or for any public service in which manual labour is needed, current
fair wages shall be paid and an eight -hour day observed. The discussion in the House
when this Act was passed showed that it was designed to force on all contractors,
particularly in outlying districts, where roads, bridges and culverts were being built,
the hours customary in better organized districts. The eight-hour specified was, in
view of the prevalence of the eight-hour standard, practically a fair hours provision.
Overtime, moreover is allowed.
368
COMMITTEE RE BILL J\o. HI — 11UUKH ur jjavvujx
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
In this connection there is an interesting development which may be noted,
namely, the new protection, as it is called, now being adopted in Australia. It vir-
tually provides for a fair wages’ and fair hours’ clause not in contracts but in the
tariff. The ingenious attempt is being made to make everybody happy by the tariff;
in connection with agricultural implements for example, a duty was put on to please
the manufacturer; then, to please the consumer, prices are specified in a schedule,
and if the domestic producer exceeds these the duty is removed. Next, for the work-
man’s sake, an excise amounting to 50 per cent of the tariff is put on all domestic
manufacturers, to be remitted only if the rates of wages and hours held fair and
reasonable by parliament or arbitration court are paid the workmen. The Excise
Tariff Act of 1906 even imposed on distillers regulations as to proportion of boys to
men to be employed. This legislation has been declared unconstitutional but it is
part of the program of the Labour Party recently victorious, to amend the consti-
tion to permit it. I commend this idea to Mr. Verville as another N.P.
Social and Cultural Effects of Shorter Hours.
By the Chairman :
Q. One of the Acts to which you are alluding is the Industries Preservation
Act? — A. Yes, practically that same Act.
In the light of the experience of other countries in eight-hour legislation it may
he possible to summarize briefly a few conclusions.
And first, as to the end proposed? Men will answer this question differently, as
they lay the chief stress on the making of men, or the making of goods, or the mak-
ing of money. Erom the viewpoint of the social and cultural effects of shorter hours,
there is little disagreement from the conclusion that a lessening of the average hours
now spent would make for good, in giving men more opportunity for making the ac-
quaintance of their families, more opportunity for self development and recreation,
more opportunity for taking an intelligent interest in civic affairs. Undoubtedly
with the minority the larger freedom will be abused, and the shorter day in the work-
shop means a larger evening in the saloon; yet few who question the iwisdom of
greater leisure on this ground would go the logical length of saying that the working
day should be lengthened to cut off entirely the leisure that may be abused, especially
in face of the undoubted fact that it is precisely long hours and exhausting toil which
are the surest inducements to dissipation.
Q. You say, that with a few that may be the case? — A. With a few it may bepos-
s'bly, but that is no argument why the majority should not be given the opportunity
which they would improve.
Q. With the many it would be otherwise? — A. Yes.
Q. Would it be possible, do you think? — A. Certainly it would be, in my opinion.
It is largely a question of degree; if you got down to a two-hour day most of us would
find it pretty hard to keep out of mischief, but there is no pressing danger of that.
Q. The prospects are that while a few would abuse the privilege, to the many it
would be a decided advantage? — A. I should think so from that standpoint.
Q. Excuse my interrupting you again. Speaking of the abuse of shorter hours,
do you think the same thing would hold in regard to any other class in the community
to the same extent, or to a lesser or greater extent, as in the case of the working
classes generally? I mean to say, take the so-called privileged class to-day, the weal-
thy class. A certain number of them — in fact many of them — are employed in busi-
ness. Do you think their leisure hours are spent for their advantage or disadvantage ?
— A. It is pretty hard to make a sweeping generalization on the statement, but I do
not think that with the majority the leisure time is abused.
Q. But you are making a sweeping statement with regard to the working classes.
You say that you think if the hours for the working classes are reduced from say ten
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
369
APPENDIX No. 4
to eight, that with the minority it will be to their disadvantage, but with the majority
it will be to their advantage. Now, take the wealthy classes so-called — I do not say the
aristocracy of any kind one way or the other — but the wealthy classes, the sons of rich
men who aie doing a certain amount of work during the day. Supposing they are
now working- six hours, do you think if they had to work eight instead of six they
wrould be improved? A. They might work better if the hours were extended rather
than reduced in that case. But I think human nature is pretty much the same in all
ranks of society, and in my opinion a reduction from ten to eight hours for every
man poor or rich would work out about the same.
Q. Do you think that the sons of rich men, and rich men themselves spend their
leisure time to their own advantage and the advantage of their families or otherwise?
Could you say as to that? — A. My experience of rich men is rather limited, but I
would say that probably in the case of the rich men themselves their leisure is spent
to more advantage than in the case of rich men’s sons.
Q. It is because the rich men have learned the advantage of work.
Mr. Broder. — I think you could hardly compare the rich man’s conduct with that
of the poor fellow who is working when the former is in bed.
By the Chairman:
Q. What I was trying to get at is this; in this whole question, Professor Skelton,
you have put the matter very well. You have put it as to whether the chief stress
is laid on the making of men, or the making of goods, or the making of money. Now,
in the case of caring for men in the first instance, I want to find out whether from
your observation of human society you think the working classes are more likely to
improve the opportunity for leisure than any other class, or whether they are more
likely to use it to their disadvantage. My own feeling is that the working classes are
more likely to improve themselves if given leisure time? — A. I think I would agree
with that for the reason that the conditions which are sought to be removed in the
case of the workingman are more conducive to dissipation as they are at present. A
change will be for the better in that respect because the less exhausting toil is made,
the less tendency there will be to seek recreation in some strenuous or more or less
brutal form.
By Mr. Yerville:
Q. Do you not think the nature of the work has something also to do with it ? —
A. Undoubtedly, Mr. Yerville; I do not think there is any great difference between one
class of society and another in that respecet. Certainly the workmen do not show up
to' disadvantage if given more leisure.
Shorter Hours re Effect on Production.
From the standpoint of the effect on production there is less unanimity. It is
usually difficult in reductions of hours to isolate the effects of this change and disre-
gard the changes in process or machinery or superintendence. So far, however, as
may be judged from the century-long experience, of gradual reduction of hours and
from the specific eight-hour experiments made in the past twenty years, the advocates
of shorter hours may be said to have made good part of their contention. Without
referring in detail to the mass of evidence available, it may be noted, as generally
agreed, that there is no uniformity in the result of a shortening of hours. The longer
the hours to begin with or the more exhaustive the work, the more likely it is that
shorter hours and greater leisure for recuperation will bring out fresh energy and a
greater hourly output ; the more the day is reduced the less slack there is to be taken
up by further reduction; less increase in hourly production would be expected in a
change from eight to six hours than in a change from 16 to 12 hours per day.
4—24
370
COMMITTEE RE BILL Xo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
The more, again, the output of the worker is regulated by automatically speeded
machinery or depends upon time processes on which he merely waits, the less the
room for increase per hour; the greater the importance of personal strength or alert-
ness in an industry the greater the possibility of this increase. The more antiquated
the processes, the more slack the supervision and organization, the greater the lati-
tude allowed the tardy, the more extensive the custom of beginning work before
breakfasting — the greater is the probability that necessity will be the mother of
invention and economy. Taking these and other considerations into account it is
obvious that in some cases production will fall off little or nothing with the re-,
duction in time and that in other cases it will decrease almost in proportion to that
reduction. It is difficult to make any more general statement, I think, you will have
to take each industry by itself.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. On that point the difference between the piece-work and the day work systems
will probably account for it? — A. I think so.
Q. The production is not so notably affected when the piece-work system is
operating as it is when the day-work system is operating, that is my experience. —
A. I think that is correct. There are two considerations which should be borne in
mind in discussing the possibility of a greater output per hour with a short day. In
the first place, can men do more, if they want to per hour in a short day? I think
there is probably no doubt they can in many industries. The second question is, will
they do more? And, as you say, if they are paid on the piece-work basis it is more
likely they will than if they were paid by the day.
Q. Yes, and the nature of the industry itself exercises an influence; in one trade
there is a greater possibility of that than there is in another.
The Chairman. — In some trades you can introduce the piece-work system, while
in others, you cannot.
Mr. Smith. — Yes, and some conditions lend themselves to an increase in the
output, to increased energy on the part of the workmen, more than others. — A. In
the event of a general shortening of hours, the effect on wages will ultimately de-
pend on whether or not production is maintained. So far as it is mentioned, there
seems no reason why wages, money wages and real wages alike, should not also be
maintained at the previous level per day. So far, however, as production falls off,
so far is the national dividend reduced out of which wages as well as the other
shares in distribution must be met. The fallacy is widespread that it would be
advantageous to reduce the output per man so that room might be found for more
workers in each occupation and the unemployed be absorbed, to their advantage, and
the advantage of those whose jobs they had threatened. This, however, is to assume
that the amount of work in the world is limited, and should be carefully husbanded
and parcelled out if there is to be enough to go around. In fact the work to be done
in the world is as infinite as man’s wants; till every want is satisfied, there can be
no question of work running short. It would be as logical for the men now em-
ployed to work with one hand tied behind their backs in order to reduce the world’s
production and necessitate adding new workmen. It would obviously be more to
the point if those now employed could maintain their present output
and the unemployed could be put to other employment, adding their
quota to increase the total production of consumable commodities on the extent of
which the reward of all the sharers in production depends. This of course requires
the investment of further capital, but so, equally, of course, does the employment of
more men, to do the same amount of work as before. A general reduction of hours
offers no solution whatever for the problem of unemployment. So far as a single
trade is concerned it may succeed in maintaining its rate of wages even though the
PKOF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ro. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
371
APPENDIX No. 4
output is reduced, at the expense of the rest of the community, fellow workmen in-
cluded, provided the increase m prices does not materially reduce the demand for
its products But evidently this is a game at which everybody cannot play; if the
total wealth to be shared is to be maintained at its old level.
1 “I aSSUmiIJF *he. advisability of shortening hours, the question presents itself
whether the same limit is advisable in all occupations. The number ‘ Eight ’ has been
a magic number m the eyes of working men for half a century. The contention.
™.nm/ back to good King Alfred, that the day should be divided into three equal
crTfor W°rk’ f°r Sle6P and f°r medltation’ and voiced in the modern Englishman’s
Eight hours’ work, eight hours’ play,
Eight hours’ sleep and eight bob a day
has a plausible and taking air of mathematical certainty and fairness about it even
some promise of finality, though it is probable "that when the eighlw
day is won someone will start up a plea for:
Six hours’ work, six hours’ play.
Six hours to sleep, six hours to pray.
Equally mathematical and plausible. For the purposes of agitation a definite and
rtPferom“h ast1Sa V* ^ Standard provides 'tfis^.S*
fettled stnlv The ^ ^on> not °f the matter cannot be
Seatlv differin g + f ^ C‘Ieai'ly great differermes in industries, requiring
n th" treatnient. One occupation involves exhausting, continuous effort
cesst mSJTe aSit i n th6 COmpletion of certain chemical or mechanical pro-
tail nnwh 1 b awaited- °ne occupation may involve intense nervous strain or en-
ta l unwholesome surroundings, such as chemically or dust vitiated air, while another
y be carried on in equable and wholesome surroundings. The mental application
required will vary greatly Some industries will be much more exposed than others
w0r,.rneign competition. Some will lend themselves better to organization on piece-
work or premium basis. In some there will be no difficulty in closing work on the
stroke of the clock; in others there will be continuous operations necessitating frequent
ime. any industries may be carried on evenly throughout the year- in others
muitic conditions or fluctuations in demand necessitate concentrating the work at
Z Znlr- f m, “me trades lhis is d<mbtl« <I„e more to cusl
» neceSS,ty. The difficulty in these circumstances of i,o-
P sing a rigid and uniform standard of hours, eight or other, is apparent
/g£“n’ the advisability of shorter hours, uniform throughout the
to ho serangde °wndll X the next question is as t0 the means by which this end is
ention that L!" arguments and experiments put forward in proof of the con-
tention that an eight-hour day would not lessen the production entirely convincing
we should expect voluntary concessions on the part of employers. Voluntary cohes-
ions there have been, but they still form the exception. Doubtless much of the
Hesitation to adopt a shorter work day may be attributed to the influence of custom
and routine, but doubtless, too, much is due to the sincere belief that the case for the
maintenance of production under the eight-hour system has not yet been demon-
strated.
Trade Unions — Legislative Intervention.
Where, then, the inertia of custom or the conviction of loss prevents voluntary
shortening by the employers, the most adequate recourse is to the organized pressure
o t e tiade union to enforce it. It is in the main to this instrument that the work-
ing classes of the English-speaking countries owe their superior conditions of hours
and wage. It is in the countries where trade unions are strongest that hours are
4 — 24§
372
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
shortest and even where, as in Australasia, legislative action is invoked, it is only to
supplement and clinch gains won by the union pressure. Trade union action not
only brings the moral gain of discipline, fostering the spirit of self help, but it lends
itself better than legislation to the varying problems set by different occupations.
The hours in each trade may be adjusted to the peculiar needs of the trade, not to a
uniform and external legislative standard, and within each trade again the wide
autonomy exercised by the locals makes it possible to recognize for the time being
the differences between Alberta and Quebec conditions, or Toronto and Belleville con-
ditions. At the same time the national scope of the trade union makes concerted, if
not uniform advance, possible; it is one of the strong arguments in favour of inter-
national unionism that the advance may be concerted not only throughout the coun-
try but over all the continent, thus leading gradually and tentatively to the equaliz-
ing of conditions necessary for fair competition. Yet trade union action is not with-
out its drawbacks. It is urged by advocates of legislative action like Sidney Webb
that trade unionists form so small a percentage of the general body of iwage earners
that they could deal with only a fraction of the problem. This is an argument that
cuts both ways; if the majority of workmen are too sceptical or careless of the benefits
of a shorter day to join the unions which make this demand one of their main planks,
the case for forcing this boom upon them is weakened. A large enrolment of
workers in trade union ranks is as necessary to convince legislators of the widespread
character of the demand for shorter hours as to force employers to grant concessions.
More valid is the contention that some of the workers who need the shorter day most
are those least able to organize to secure it ; where the weakness is extreme, as in some
of the sweated trades, the case for legislative intervention, as in the new Wages
Board provisions in Great Britain, is a strong one. Again, it is urged that the
means by which the trade union wins its battles are costly and frequently
unsocial. For instance reference is made by some to the $4,000,000 spent by
the Typographical Union to win their eight-hour day. Thought in this
connection it is well to bear in mind John Mitchell’s remark when some
one worked out the statistics as to the hundreds and millions of dollars and days
lost every year to the workers by strikes; that it looked pretty large in the aggregate,
but if you figured it out you would find that it only amounted to loss of time and
money equivalent to that attendant on a single holiday — that is, that the amount of
time and money lost by all the workmen of the jmuntry in a single holiday equals the
total amount lost in a year in time and money by strikes. Such a consideration as this
should be borne in mind in estimating the weight of even a four million dollar argu-
ment. The cost to the public is in some vital and pivotal industries an even more
serious matter, but it is a loss which legislation like the Industrial Disputes Investi-
gation Act is reducing to the minimum. Nor would many defenders of union
methods and policies admit that the strike is the only weapon of the union, or at
least that it is a weapon which needs to be actually unsheathed on every occasion.
If then, we conclude that on the whole the trade union is the best agency for securing
the shorter day, we may look to the legislature merely to see that the trade union is
given a fair field, that for example it be not crippled by one-sided legislation aiming
at the suppression of international organization, and thus be left strong to wage the
campaign for gradual betterment.
If, convinced of the desirability of say, an eight hour day, and yet hopeless of
its attainment by organized sef-help, we turn to parliament for a legal compul-
sory limitation, we are met on the threshold by the difficulties consequent on the divis-
ion of power between the federal and the provincial governments. As in nearly all
modern federations, it is to the local governments that the important field of direct
control of labour and industrial conditions is in the main confided in Canada. This
localizing of power from one point of view is beneficial in that it permits variety of
experiment and adaptation to local needs. Yet it has its drawbacks; it is more tedi-
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
373
APPENDIX No. 4
ous and difficult to persuade ten sets of law makers than to persuade one, and the
local legislature, even when persuaded, is apt to hesitate to take a step which may put it
at a disadvantage compared with the other provinces. Advantageous or the contrary,
this is the division of power which exists and must be faced.
The Bill before the committee is an ingenious attempt fashioned to meet the exi-
gencies of the case in the United States, where the constitutional situation is to some
extent similar to the Canadian and in other respects more complicated. United States
advocates of legislation limiting the hours of adult male labour could not secure it from
the federal government because the federal government has no direct jurisdiction, and
further they could, not secure it from the states, which have direct jurisdiction, be-
cause of the constitutional restrictions upon any legislation violating the freedom of
contract Acts restricting the hours of labour of adults, except in dangerous industries
where the police power might be evoked, being declared unconstitutional because de-
priving the individual of the sacred right to contract to work as long hours or for as
small pay as he pleases. Neither the federal nor the state government then, is in a
position, so long as. the courts continue to take their present attitude, to bring about
short hours by their legislative control over private acts. The only recourse is to
utilize their powers as employers of labour and purchasers of supplies or services.
Accordingly, measures similar to that before the committee are devised to meet the
situation. They are closely adapted to the United States position ; they are not so
well adapted to the Canadian situation. For here no constitutional restrictions ham-
per in the slightest the power of the provincial legislature to enact what measures
it pleases regarding the hours of labour to be observed in the provinces ; no Canadian
court would presume to question such measures on the ground of undue interference
with that freedom of contract which is made such a fetish in the United States.
The Bill before us, then, is shaped and conditioned not by industrial but by con-
stitutional consideratfons and constitutional considerations which apply rather to
the American than to the Canadian situation. One drawback in this method of
approach is that the industries to which the eight-hour day is applied are picked out
by chance; the mere fact that the government uses products of a certain industry is
uot enough to stamp it as one of the occupations in which the eight-hour day should
be first introduced. It is clear, further, that in most cases the proportion which the
government orders from the output of an establishment is not great enough to
lead it to put the whole force on an eight-hour basis. Government contracts in such
cases could not be fulfilled or would have to be handed over to a few, usually small
establishments confining themselves to government work. If, on the other hand, the
contractor attempted to operate part of his force on an eight-hour and part on a ten-
hour basis the complications resulting from the unequal advantages given the two
sections are obvious and perhaps have been sufficiently dwelt upon; as for example
if the pay is the same per hour the men on government work will be dissatisfied at
being forced to go with two hours less wages. If the same per day, the men on pri-
vate work would be dissatisfied at being forced to work two hours longer for the same
amount — obvious too is the difficulty, in some cases the impossibility of keeping the.
public and the private materials separate at all stages of the process.
If it is felt desirable that the Dominion should use the means at its disposal, how-
ever limited, to set the pace, the path of least resistance, it is generally recognized,
lies along the adoption of the eight-hour day in government employment, and the
insertion of an eight-hour clause in contracts for public works. Possibly the adoption
of a fair hours’ supplement to the fair wages clause might be discussed in that con-
nection. ,
Fair Hours Where Applicable.
The Chairman. — I might say in regard to that that the interpretation the
Department of Labour has always put on the fair-wages clause was that it should
include fair hours also. It has been so interpreted from the start ; in a locality where
374
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
it appears that the current hours of labour generally obtain, these hours are fixed;
and if some contractors are working their men longer hours, the longest hours are
not taken but the ones generally applicable.
Professor Skelton. — In administration it does work out that way. Is a provi-
sion for overtime included in that schedule, too?
The Chairman. — They do not allow overtime on public buildings.
Mr. Veryille. — Oh, yes, they do.
The Chairman. — There might be a case of emergency, and there, of course, the
extra pay is required.
Professor Skeleton. — I believe the possibilities of the extension of the eight-hour
day to men in direct government employment is much more limited in Canada than
it is in Great Britain or France. We have not as yet the government naval establish-
ments or ordnance factories which have been the chief theatre of these measures in
Great Britain and France. As for this suggestion, so far as our Printing Bureau is
concerned, the eight-hour a day already obtains. I believe there would be some scope,
if you thought it advisable, for its application in connection with the car shops of
the Intercolonial Railway or similar establishments, but the scope is comparatively
limited in that way.
Q. In connection with the car shops of the Intercolonial, would you have to con-
sider the competition of these shops with other existing establishments ?— A. So far
as they are turning out fresh work, so far as they are working on minor repairs, that
would not be so necessary; but in the turning out of new work competitive conditions
would of course be an element. The hours of work of railway telegraphers would be
considered of course in this case. So far as I am aware they average about twelve on
the Intercolonial, except the dispatchers and relay men in special offices who have
eight hours.
Coming to the second suggestion, which seems to have met with widespread
favour, the application of the eight-hour day to government contracts for public
works, it is clear here that the friction would here be least, at any rate the friction
would be between men employed on different jobs, and mot between men working in
the same establishments. It is clear too that there are industries in which the ques-
tion of competition does not come in materially. At the same time it appears to me
that while this is the line in which it is easiest to apply such legislation it is the
one in which there is least need for it, partly because the eight -hour day is extensively
won already in the building trade, and partly because the long winter vacation which
our climate enforces on most of the building trades lessens the force of the argument
that leisure is needed for cultural development. I am not sure whether under the
term ‘ public works ’ railways would be included. It obviously would be comparatively
easy to enforce an eight-hour day on railway construction, but it is clear too that
this is one of the branches in which there is perhaps at present less need for it, in
view of the short season which can be given to the construction of works in the newer
parts of the country; and in view of the fact that the men are away from their fam-
ilies; the argument on social grounds is weaker. In view of these considerations the
case for applying the eight-hour day to railway construction is not perhaps so strong.
If the committee decide to make the application of this Bill
The Chairman. — The committee hasn’t any decision to make on that point.
A. You mean as to the interpretation of the term ‘public works?’
The Chairman.— The committee of course is simply concerned with this Bill of
Mr. Verville’s, we have nothing to do with the framing of the law itself, but if you
are dealing with anything other than what is included in that hill
A. Well, would it be
The Chairman. — I beg your pardon, I interrupted you, perhaps I may have mis-
understood what you were going to say.
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
375
APPENDIX No. 4
A. I was going to make some suggestion in the event of the Bill applying to pub-
lic works, but perhaps that is not needed at this stage.
The C hairman. That is quite proper ; if your observations have led you to be-
lieve there aie certain features which should be considered in connection with our
public works, certainly should give them.
A. Well, quite aside from the question whether it is feasible to adopt an eight-
hour day even on public works, I would like to say, if it were adopted there are some
considerations which a study particularly of the American conditions have suggested.
So that without prejudice to the question of the advisability of any such law at all I
think it is clear that it would be better in framing such a measure to make
a positive enumeration of the trades to which it should apply rather than to make
a sweeping statement and then to insert exception after exception as to the trades to
which it should not apply. Again, if it were applied to public buildings I think some
such provision should be inserted as that embodied in the Wisconsin law which pro-
vides that the provisions of the Act should be confined to work done on the spot,
not to the preparation of materials necessary. It would have to be considered, too,
whether an eight-hour day meant a 48 hour week or a 44 hour week, that is the ques-
tion of the short hours on Saturday might come in. The question of overtime is also
a difficult matter. It might be possible to penalize overtime' by requiring higher pay
for extra hours, but the danger of this, of course, is that with such a provision in the
Bill, it becomes not an Act to enforce shorter hours, but an Act to enforce higher
wages by beginning the overtime sooner. Possibly the prohibition of overtime except
in emergencies would meet the necessity of the case from the viewpoint of its advo-
cates. However, I am taking a very hypothetical case at present, and perhaps there
is iio need of going further into what might be done if the committee took certain
action.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Who should determine whether overtime was necessary? — A. That has been
a very difficult problem to settle in the United States, and a great deal of complaint
was made in the early years of the United States experiments. Of late
years is has been a matter to be determined by the courts, and the courts have been
pretty rigid in their interpretation, holding that emergency must be proved strictly;
the mere difficulty of getting the work finished in time or the great difficulty in
getting materials has been held not to be an emergency, it has to be something sud-
den, unforeseen, and not preventable.
The Chairman. — Is that all the statement you wish to make?
A. That concludes all the statement that I want to make unless the committee
wish to ask any further questions.
The Chairman. — Gentlemen, Mr. Robb has come from Montreal, he has not been
subpoen?ed to appear before the committee, but he is anxious to get away this after-
noon. Tie is here to represent the shipping interests and desires to make a short
statement in reference to the Bill and if it is agreeable to the other members of the
committee we might hear him now before adjournment, and have Professor Skelton
come here again this afternoon for the purpose of replying to any questions that may
occur to members of the committee.
Mr. Smith. — I move that Mr. Robb be heard now.
Motion adopted.
Mr. Thomas Robb, called, sworn and examined: —
By the Chairman:
Q. Mr. Robl), you lio’d some office in connection with the shipping federation? —
A. I am secretary of the Shipping Federation.
376
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Q. You might just give the committee a list of the steamship companies that
are in the Shipping Federation. — A. The Allan Line, the Donaldson Line —
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Is the Federation incorporated ?— A. The Shipping Federation of Canada is
incorporated by Dominion Statute and embraces the principal steamship lines. I
will read a list of the lines it embraces : — The Allan Line, the Donaldson Line, the
Thomson Line, the White Star Dominion Line, the Leyland Line, the Canada Line,
the Manchester Liners Limited, the South African Line, the Mexican Line, the
Black Diamond Line, and the Head Line.
Applicability of Bill to Navigation Companies.
By the Chairman:
Q. How long has the Federation been in existence? — A. Since 1903, we have a
Dominion charter, we are incorporated under a private Act.
Q. And it is the wish of the Federation that you should present their views to
this committee. — A. Yes, so far as the Bill relates to the navigation companies, I
will confine myself to that. I might say that the steamship companies have practically
all, at one time or other, government contracts, either carrying goods, or they have
special contracts for carrying the mails, and this Bill as it stands would seriously
affect their interests, and they ask that the navigation companies be exempted from
its application.
Q. Is the Federation you represent the one that has recently had negotiations
with the Longshoremen of Montreal? — A. It is.
Q. I understand you have made a contract covering the conditions of employ-
ment for a number of years?— A. It is under way just now, it is for five years, yes.
Q. That is to say the Shipping Federation have met the Longshoremen, and
you are each considering the signing of a five year contract ? — A. A five year contract.
Q. Regulating the conditions as to hours of labour and wages, that is as between
the Federation and the men? — A. Yes.
Q. That is a voluntary arrangement? — A. Yes, both sides are putting up a bond
for good conduct.
Q. That is under the Industrial Disputes Act, is it? — A. Yes, it seems to have
given general satisfaction, I might say, to both sides.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Are all these companies united ? — A. Yes.
Q. What is the object of that Federation? — A. To deal with all matters of
general interest.
By the Chairman:
Q. I may say it strikes me as one of the best arrangements that has ever been
made. — A. And we make representations to the government with regard to the
improvement of aids to navigation.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Does the Federation regulate freight and passenger charges? — A. No, there
is no regulation of freight charges from this side. Freight charges are regulated from
the other side.
Q. Are the passenger rates regulated on this side? — A. Yes. It is entirely a
Canadian organization and Mr. Allan is President.
Q. Can you come together and fix the rates for freight and passengers ?— A.
Well, we have not done so. The east bound Atlantic- passenger rates are fixed
locally. The west bound rates are fixed at the general conference held in England.
MR. ROBB.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
377 '
APPENDIX No. 4
By Mr. Verville:
. lm®s that you have just mentioned are the only ones that you control?—
A. Yes. lhat is the companies that are controlled by the Shipping Federation of
Canada.
,. P\T^ere are aIso °ther large companies ?— A. We have one outside of that
which is the Canadian Pacific. They as a rule act in conjunction with us but being
a railway company they decide to hold aloof in certain matters; yet in labour mat-
ters such as Mr. King has referred to they are standing with us. They are parties
to this contract.
Q. All the other companies, or vessels, that come to the port have they also
agreed to that . A. We might have a little difficulty in the case of tramp steamers
or transient steamers, but we think if there were a general rule they would be hound
to recognize it.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Does this affect the shipping trade on the Pacific Coast at all?— A. When we
have had questions of interest to navigation to advocate before the government on
several occasions we have had representations from the Pacific Coast people.
, . -^-ow many labour men are affected in Canada? — A. In connection with this
thing? I should say there would be about 20,000. In Montreal we claim there would
e 2,000 longshoremen. That is one branch. Then we would have the carpenters —
t iat . is the ship liners we would call them — and there are the ship repairers. A
provision of this sort would seriously interfere with the proper carrying out of the
work required to be undertaken on steamships, which have contracts with the govern-
ment of Canada. I will give you the reasons: (Reads) —
1. Because the longshoremen employed on these steamships would be re-
stricted to eight hours per day, while men on the other steamers would
have no such time limit. For instance, take the Allan line, which runs three
services from Canada, namely, to Liverpool, to Havre and London, and to Glas-
gow. The effect of this Bill, if passed, would be that the men working on the
first two lines, which have government contracts would be restricted to eight
hours work per day, while the men on the other line would not.
2. Because boiler-makers, engineers, shipbuilders, coppersmiths, carpenters,
steelworkers, painters and others would be prevented from working the usual
hours of the port on these vessels. Work has often to be undertaken on vessels
by these tradesmen at very short notice, and any restriction of the hours of
labour would mean detention, and as these ships carry the mail, considerable in-
convenience would result.
3. Because merchants, shippers, manufacturers, and others would be put to
great inconvenience, by only being able to receive or deliver their goods at the
wharfs during the eight hours allowed by the Act.
4. Because in shipping, the weather and the seasons are the cause of con-
tinual fluctuation in employment. Wet or snowy weather greatly affects work
carried on in the open, and when vessels are late in arriving, through bad
weather, advantage has to be taken of every hour in discharging and loading
them, so that they may sail at their advertised time if possible. In such cases
the men may be required to work fifteen hours per day, to do otherwise, would
mean the detention of the ship, with the succeeding vessel possibly arriving with
no berth to discharge at.
5. Because reduced hours would mean diminished output, as steamship work
is different from land work, and only a limited number of men can be employed
on ships at one time, and reduced hours in this case might cause discontent
amongst the workmen, who were restricted in their earnings.
378
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
6. Appended is a table showing the earnings of several gangs of workmen
during the season of 1909, and what their earnings would amount to under this
Bill.
Table showing earnings of some men for a week during season of 1909, and what their
earnings would be under Eight Hours per Day Act.
Present System.
8 Hour
System.
Date.
Name.
Hours
worked
day.
Hours
worked
night.
Earnings .
Day
wi >rk.
Night
work.
$ cts.
$ cts.
$ cts.
1909.
46
14
17.20
13.20
15.60
„ 22
43
23£
19.30
13.20
15.60
„ 29. ...
44
21J
19.25
13.2)
15.60
Nov. 5
Johnson’s gang
43
20^
18.56
13.20
15.60
I have appended a short table to the statement I have presented, giving the earn-
ings of several gangs at present and what their earnings would be if this Bill went
into effect. The effect of the Bill if it were passed would be to reduce their elarnings.
Q. Are they working by the piece as a rule? — A. Ho. Just by the hour. It is
purely casual work. Take for instance on Friday or Saturday when the boats arrive,
the men are busy up to Monday. On Tuesday and Wednesday they are doing noth-
ing. Then the cars commence to come down and Thursday and Friday they are
practically working continuously.
By the Chairman:
Q. If this Bill were to become law would it affect the agreement you have just
referred to as being entered into between the longshoremen and your federation? — A.
I should say it would.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Would not the effect be the same way on both sides? — A. Yes, it would
diminish the whole thing. 'We would have two classes of men at work. Those en-
gaged on a ship having a government cargo could only work eight hours, and those
not engaged on government cargoes could work as long as they liked. The Bill is
very severe, but I do not think the intention was to apply it to casual labour. In
shipping, you : all know, labour is casual. I have here a statement of the earnings
of some of the! gangs; I have taken four of the principle gangs of the Allan Line.
Joyce’s gang! during a week in October, 1909, worked 46 hours by day and 14 hours
at night. They received $17.20. Under the eight-hour system their earnings would
be reduced to $13.20 for day work and $15.60 for night work.
By Mr. Verville:
Q. Would loading a ship be deemed a case of emergency? — A. Well you would
need to define it.
By the Chairman :
Q. Is it an occurrence rather than an emergency? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. In the American laws regulating contracts on public works is there any ex-
MR. ROBB.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR 379
APPENDIX No. 4
emption provided for transportation ?— A. None of the American laws in force have
such a wide scope as that they oould possibly apply to transportation. In some of
the bills introduced into the American congress of a special character there were pro-
visions especially exempting transportation companies. Transportation was always
included m the exemptions. I have noticed in a report by Mr. Victor Clarke when
he was out in Australia that in South Australia and Victoria where they have an
eight-hour day, porters and other men are allowed to work nine and nine and a half
hours, showing' that the eight-hour day is not universal there.
By the Chairman:
Q. At what page is that? A. Page 228. Have you a copy of this?
Q. Yes, we have that. A. Here is a book that may be useful for the members
of the committee (handing in volume).
Q. It is the report of the Koyal Commission on Labour to both Houses of Parlia-
ment dated June, 1894.— A. It gives some interesting information on the eight-hour
day question.
Q. You have marked pages 64, 65, 68, 70, 71, 72, and 73?— A. Yes, it may be of
some use to the committee.
By Mr. Broder:
Q. If the hours of labour were shortened it would keep a vessel longer in port and
would be restricted in the number of men employed? — A. Yes, we are restricted. We
can only work so many in a gang.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Suppose the law were to apply to transportation companies how would you
regulate the crews of the steamers ? — A. I do not think it would be hardly practical
to apply it to the crews.
Q. Well, I would just like to have your view on the matter as to the effect if such
a law were enforced ? A. I do not see that it would be possible because it would inter-
fere with the discipline of your crew. In a ship there are always certain emergencies
arising.
Q. If it applied to the crew you would have to have three crews ? — A. Just now I
might mention to you that the crews are divided into watches, for instance, the fire-
men work four hours on and eight hours off, and the sailor has four hours on and four
off, — that is the hours they work now.
Witness discharged.
The committee rose.
The committee resumed at 3.15 p.m., Hon. Mr. King, Chairman, presiding.
The examination of Professor Skelton resumed.
The Chairman. — I do not know whether the members of the committee have any
other questions to ask Professor Skelton.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. I would just like to ask the Professor if he has made any calculation of the
moral effect on workmen where the hours have been materially reduced. It is com-
monly asserted that the tendency of such a change is to demoralize workmen. Have you
380
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
any statistics of that kind ? — A. It is rather a difficult thing of course to get statistics
on such a point, but in Australia and New Zealand where the eight-hour law is in
operation, I think the consensus of opinion is that it has worked for good so far as
the moral and social effects are concerned. It is a difficult matter to express with ac-
curacy, but that seems to be the general opinion of the best qualified observers in
Australasia.
Q. You do not think the moral fibre of the workman has degenerated in conse-
quence of the shortening of hours of labour? — A. Not at all. For instance, if you
compare Lancashire in 1802 with Lancashire in 1902, there is no doubt whatever of
the tremendous improvement of the condition of the operations physically as well as
morally with the shorter day.
Mr. Smith. — I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, that the splendid address which
Professor Skelton has given us this morning has been of the utmost assistance to the
committee.
The Chairman. — Yes, indeed.
Mr. Smith. — His address to-day was simply splendid, and I know from experi-
ence that his conclusions about England are absolutely correct. We can rely upon his
address, and it will assist the committee very materially.
The Chairman. — Professor Skelton, I think that the members of the committee
are very much indebted to you for the thorough and systematic way in which you
have investigated the legislation of the different countries on the subject of hours of
labour, and given us the benefit of your researches.
Professor Skelton. — It is very good of you to say so. I have enjoyed my brief
experience of parliamentary life behind the scenes. It has been indeed a great plea-
sure for me to assist in the committee’s investigations.
By Mr. Vervtlle :
Q. I would like to ask if yOu know anything about the law which has been
adopted in Massachusetts on the eight-hour day? — A. So far as I recall, in Massa-
chusetts they have had for some years two laws on the subject of hours. There is a
compulsory law fixing nine hours as the maximum day that can be spent on public
works contracted for by the state or by local authorities. Then there was an optional
law providing that any municipality which pleased might make eight hours the
maximum limit. Within the past few weeks they have made that optional eight
hours compulsory, so that the compulsory hours of labour have been reduced from nine
to eight. I think that has been the effect of the recent action in the Massachusetts
legislature.
By Mr. Knowles:
Q. From the study you have made of this question, do you think that the carry-
ing into effect of this proposed legislation would result in the reducing of the hours
with regard to all contract labour; would it set the pace? — A. Of course, the first
question you would have to consider would be its practicability, whether it could
be enforced; then what the efEect would be.
Q. If it were enacted, would it set such an example as to bring about a reduction
of hours in other contracts over which this parliament has -no control? — A. It would
have some effect in that way, at least in other political jurisdictions its advocates
would point to this example and say : ‘ Go thou and do likewise,’ but I don’t know
that it would have much moral effect on the individual employer.
The Chairman. — We have subjected Professor Skelton to a pretty thorough ex-
amination. I think I am only voicing the opinion of every member of the committee
when I say to you, Professor Skelton, that we are very much indebted to you for the
trouble you have taken in the reports you have prepared, and for the very thorough
way in which you have given evidence here.
PROF. SKELTON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR 381
APPENDIX No. 4
Mr. Veriille.— I must say that I consider Professor Skelton’s report to be one
of the best of the kind I ever heard in my life.
The Chairman.— I think you will see. Professor Skelton, that the members of the
committee are unanimous in their appreciation of your work.
Witness retired.
The committee adjourned.
^ ^ _ Hamilton. June 2, 1910.
Y. Clouthier, Esq.,
The House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Clouthier, — Replying to your favour of the 1st inst., the change that
I wish made is the following one : Question of the Chairman : ‘Are you a Canadian
yourself, Mr. McKune ? ’—Answer : ‘ Have made application for papers and no doubt
will be a Canadian shortly.’
And also the the question of the Chairman : ‘ And you became a naturalized Can-
adian afterwards ? And the answer should be as answered to previous question.
Thanking you for giving this matter such prompt attention, I beg to remain.
Yours truly,
_T F. B. McKUTSTE.
Note. — See evidence, pp. 181 and 134.
9-10 EDWARD VII.
APPENDIX No. -1
A. 1910
APPENDIX
CONTAINING
EXHIBITS A. B. C. D. E, F, G, AND H.
383
9-10 EDWARD VII.
APPENDIX No. 4
A. 1910
EXHIBIT ‘A’ (1).— UNITED STATES FEDERAL LAWS re HOURS OF LABOUR
ON PUBLIC WORK.
1. Law of 1868 (never strictly enforced: now superseded by Act of 1892 below).
Eight hours shall constitute a day’s work for all labourers, workmen and mechanics
who may be empbyed by or on behalf of the government of the United States.
. . . 400 . This section is in the nature of a direction by the government to
its agent ; it is not a contract between the government and its labourers that eight
hours shall constitute a day’s work. It does not prevent the making of agreements by
w ich a greater or less number of hours of labour may be required, and any allowance
oi a claim for the excess of time over eight hours per day, is, when accepted by the
labourer, a bar to any further proceedings.
( Atty. Gen., 459 : This Act, without question, was general, applying to all
labourers, workmen and mechanics ’ in the direct employment of the United States.
In practical administration, however, this section has been held to be merely directory
and has not been enforced No penalties were imposed for its disregard.
A (2). Act of August 1, 1892: the main legislation now in force.
An Act relating to the limitation of the hours of daily service of labourers and
mechanics employed upon the public works of the United States and of the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That the service and employment of all labourers
and mechanics who are now or may hereafter be employed by the government of the
United States by the District of Columbia, or by any contractor or subcontractor
upon any of the public works of the United States or of the said District of Colum-
TV! hereby hmited and restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day; and it
shall be unlawful for any officer of the United States government, or of the District
ot Columbia, or any such contractor or subcontractor, whose duty it shall be to
emp oy, diiect, or control the services of such labourers or mechanics, to require or
permit any such labourer or mechanic to work more than eight hours in any calendar
day, except in case of extraordinary emergency.
, tv -2‘ ‘r^at anj °!Bcer or agent of the government of the United States or of
the District of Columbia, or any contractor or subcontractor, whose duty it shall be
to employ, direct, or control any labourer or mechanic employed upon any of the
public works of the United States or of the District of Columbia, who shall inten-
tionally violate any provision of this Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour,
and tor each and every such offence shall, upon conviction, be punished by fine not
to exceed one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or
by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court having jurisdiction
thereof.
Sec. 3. The provisions of this Act shall not be so construed as to in any manner
apply to or affect contractors or subcontracts, or to limit the hours of daily service
of labourers or mechanics engaged upon the public works of the United States or of
the District of Columbia for which contracts have been entered into prior to the
passage of this Act.
‘A’ (3). Supplementary Legislation.
Letter carriers may be required to work as nearly as practicable only eight hours
on each working day, but not in any event exceeding 48 hours during the six working
4—25 385
386
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOC RE OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
days of each week; and such number of hours on Sunday, not exceeding eight, as
may be required by the needs of the service; and if a legal holiday shall occur on any
working day, the service performed on said day, if less than eight hours, shall be
counted as eight hours without regard to the time actually employed. (1900-01, c.
C13, p. 257.)
Eight hours shall constitute a day’s work on all irrigation work undertaken by
the Secretary of the Interior. (1901-2, c. 1093, p. 4.)
The Public Printer shall rigidly enforce the provisions of the eight-hour law in
the department under his charge. (Comp. St., 1901, Title 45, p. 2588.)
Canal Zone. The provisions of the Act of 1892 relating to the limitations of
hours of daily service of labourers and mechanics employed upon the public works
of the United States and of the District of Columbia shall not apply to unskilled alien
labourers and to the foremen and superintendents of such labourers employed in the
construction of the Isthmian canal within the canal zone. (1905-06, c. 3912, p. 4.)
‘A’ (4). Decisions and opinions as to scope of Act of 1892.
20 Op. Atty.-Gen., 454: The Act does not apply to the case of a contract for
furnishing certain materials to the government for use in the construction and equip-
ment of public buildings. ‘ To hold that such materials shall only have been manu-
factured by persons working eight hours a day would render this law impossible of
execution.’
20 Op. Atty.-Gen., 454: The question is as to whether, as regards labourers and
mechanics employed directly by the government or the District of Columbia, the law
is general and applicable to all cases, or whether it applies only to labour performed
on public works In view, therefore of the previous legislation on the subject of
the alleged evils sought to be corrected (the laws of 1868 above), and in deference to
the legislative understanding and purpose apparent in debate and reports of com-
mittees while the Act was under consideration, the Act itself, without violence to its
language, being susceptible to either construction, I am constrained to hold that the
law as to labourers and mechanics in the direct employment of the government and
of the District of Columbia is general, and that the limitation to public works applies
only to such persons as are in the employ of contractors or subcontractors.
Op. Atty.-Gen., August, 1906. Without attempting authoritatively to delimit this
subject and say what things are embraced in the term ‘ public works,’ I am very cer-
tain that vessels under construction for the navy establishment are not, either in com-
mon acceptation or within legal intendments.
206 U. S. 246. The law is constitutional.
88 Fed. Rep. 891. The United States has the power to control in regard to the
subject-matter of this law although the State in which a building is being erected
retains political jurisdiction over the land occupied.
55 Fed. Rep. 959. To render one amenable to this law he must be an officer or
agent of the United States, or a contractor or subcontractor whose duty it is to
employ, direct or control labourers or mechanics upon some of the public works of
the United States, and he must have intentionally required or permitted such labourers
or mechanics to work more than eight hours in any calendar day. The law does not
apply where one builds barges at his own risk and cost, though under government
inspection and under government agreement for their sale to the government if, on
completion, they are found to conform to certain prescribed specifications.
Cf. Clarkson v. Stevens (106 U. S., 505).
206 U. S. 246. Dredging a channel in an ocean harbour is not one of the public
works of the United States within the meaning of this Act.
49 Fed. Rep. 809. The term ' extraordinary emergency ’ means an uncommon,
6udden, unexpected happening, which presents a sudden and unexpected occasion for
action. To speak of a continuing extraordinary emergency is to use language that
is itself contradictory.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
387
APPENDIX No. 4
EXHIBIT ‘B’ (1).— U. S. STATE LAWS re HOURS OF LABOUR ON PUBLIC
WORK.
1. Summary of all state laws in force, 1910.
State.
Hours.
Scope.
Wage
Provisions.
Exceptions.
Penalty.
California
8
All labourers or mechanics
Extraordinary em-
ergenoy caused
by fire, flood or
danger to life or
property.
Military or naval
work in war
time.
•
employed on any public
works of state or munici-
pality whether done by
contract or otherwise.
Colorado
8
Mechanics, workingmen or
labourers employed ‘ ‘ in
all work undertaken in
behalf of the state” or
municipality, directly or
by contract.
Same as New York
Emergency cases,
but,
1. Excess over 8
hours to count
on next day.
2. No week to
exceed 48 hrs.
(See below).
Misdemeanour; of-
ficial or contrac-
tor subject to fine
of $100 to $600 ;
imprisonment to
100 days, or both.
Delaware (city of
W i 1 m i n gtou
only), 1903.
8
Hawaii, 1907 . . .
8
Mechanics, clerks, labour-
ers or other employees on
public work done direct-
ly or by contract, or in
public office.
Misdemeanour ;fi ne
$10 to $100 per
day per employee.
Contract void.
5 on
Saturday.
Idaho
8
Manual labour employed
by day on all state and
municipal buildings and
other public works, di-
rectly or by contract, or
on material to be directly
used for or in the con-
struction of such build-
ings or public works.
Indiana
8
Mechanics, workingmen
and labourers employed
by state or municipal
corporation, or employed
by contractor on public
works.
Does not apply to
agricultural or
domestic work.
ficial or contrac-
tor liable to fine
to $600 and offi-
cial d i s m i s s al.
Contract may be
forfeited.
Kansas
8
Mechanics, workingmen
and labourers employed
by state or municipality,
or employed by contrac-
tors “for the perform-
ance of any work or the
furnishing of any mat-
erial manufactured in
Kansas.”
Not less than
Extraordinary em-
ergencies (a) war.
(b) protection of
life or property
in which case
over time to _be
paid.
per diem
rate of
wages cur-
rent in lo-
cality to be
paid.
tor subject to $50
to $1,000 fine or
imprisonment up
to 6 months or
both.
Maryland (Balti-
more only),
1908.
8
Mechanics, workmen, lab-
ourers (1) employed by
city ; (2) employed by
contractors or subcon-
tractors on any public
work within the city.
M • .
n and employers
of fire asylum
and jail de-
partments.
Official or contrac-
tor liable to $10
to $50 fine, one-
half to go to in-
former.
4 — 25J
338
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
‘ B ’ (1) 1. Summary of all state laws in force, 191C — Continued.
State.
Hours.
Mas s achusetts,
1907, as amend-
ed.
8 or 48 a
week if
half holi-
day given
Minnesota 8
Montana. . . .
8
Nebraska, 1903.
(Cities from
25,000 to 40,000
only).
8
Nevada, 1903-5. .
8
New York, 1906. 8
Scope.
Wage
Provisions.
Mechanics, workmen or
labourers (1) employed by
state or by county (with
local option). (2) By con-
tractor or subcontractor
on every contract, ex-
cluding contracts for pur-
chase of material or sup-
plies, to which state or
municipality is a party :
applies only to work done
within the state.
Persons employed in man
ual labour upon any work
for the state, whether
done by contract or other-
wise.
All works or undertakings
carried on or aided by the
state or municipality, and
all contracts let by them.
Irrigation works specified
later.
Work performed (1) upon
the streets, sewers, boule-
vards or in parks, &c.
or by virtue of any con-
tract (apparently for
similar work) ; only union
labour to be employed.
Public works, all works
carried on or aided by
state or municipal gov-
ernment.
$2 a day for
unskilled ;
cu rre n t
union scale
for 'skilled.
(1) Mechanics, workingmen
or labourers employed
by the state.
(2) Each contract to which
the state or a municipal
corporation is a party
which may involve the
employment of labourers,
workmen or mechanics,
shall contain a stipula-
tion that no labourer,
workman or mechanic in
the employ of the con-
tractor, subcontractor or
other person contracting
to do the whole or a part
of the work contemplated
by the contract.
All classes of such labour-
ers, workmen or mechan-
ics upon all such public
works or upon any ma-
terial to be used upon or
in connection therewith.
(1909) applies to public
works carried on by a
commission.
Rate of da;ly
wage pre-
vailing in
local ity
where pub-
lic work in
final form
is to be
situated,
erected or
used.
Exceptions.
(1) Extraordinary 1
emergency, i.e.,\
danger to pro-
perty, life, public
safety or health.
(2) P er s o n s em-
ployed in state or
municipal insti-
tutions in farm or
in care of grounds
or in stable, or
domestic service
or storerooms and
offices.
(1) Extraordinary
emergency from
fire, flood, danger
to life and pro-
perty or in war.
(2) A g r i c u 1 tural
work.
Preserva tion or
pr o t e c tion of
property in emer-
gency.
(1) Extraordinary
emergency caus-
ed by fire, flood,
danger to life
and property.
(2) Persons regular-
ly employed i n
state institu-
tions, engineers,
electricians and
elevator men in
department o f
public buildings
during session of
legislature.
(3) Work on high-
ways outside
cities and vil-
lages.
Penalty.
Official or contrac-
tor liable to $50
fine for each of-
fence.
$10 fine for each
offence.
Misdemeanour;fine
official $10-$50 ;
employee $10-$50
contractor $50
per man and for-
feit contract.
Contract void and
no payment to
be made.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
389
APPENDIX No. 4
' E’ (1) 1. Summary of all state laws in force, 1910 —Continued.
State.
Hours.
Scope.
Wage
Provisions
Exceptions.
Penalty.
Oklahoma,
1907-9.
8
All labourers, workmen
Fine, $50-$500, im-
prisonment from
3 to 6 months.
mechanics employed by
state or municipality
prison guards, janitors o
public institutions.
Oregon, 1907. . .
8
Mechanics, workingmen oi
Extraordinary em
ergency for the
protection of lift
and property ; tr
be allowed over
time at the rate
li pay.
Fine of $100 to
$1,000 or i m -
prisonment to 6
months or both.
Official to be dis-
| missed, contract-
or fined not over
$1,000.
Pennsylvania . . .
8
labourers employed by
state or county (loca
option): penitentiary em
ployees.
Mechanics, workingmen oi
labourers employed by
state or municipality, or
by contractor for public
works.
Porto Rico, 1904.
8
Any work, direct or con-
Danger to lives
and property ;
police, inter n a 1
revenue force,
telegraph opera-
tors, government
clerks at option
of departmental
chief.
Misdemeanor
tract, paid out of funds
of municipaliti es or school
boards.
Utah
8
All works and undertak-
Emergency, i.e.,
imminent danger
to life or pro-
property.
Guilty of a mis-
demeanour.
ings carried on by state,
county or municipal
governments, and all
penal institutions. (Im-
plied also to contracts
for such works).
Washington,
1903 (also 1899
in force).
8
All work “by contract or
Extraordinary em-
ergency, which
exists only when
no other men can
be found to take
place of labour
which has a 1-
ready been em-
' ployed eight
hours.
Contract to be can-
celled.
day labour done” for the
state or municipality.
West Virginia. .
8
Labourers, workmen and
Extraordinary em-
ergency
Official guilty o f
misdeme a n o ur,
fine to $1,000,
imprisonment to
6 month s, or
both.
Fine to $200 or im-
prisonment to 6
months, or both .
Wisconsin, 1909.
8
mechanics (1) employed
by contractor or subcon-
tractor on public works
of state.
Workmen on any public
building or works ; ap-
plies only to work done
on premises on which
construction is taking
place.
Wyoming (Con-
8
On all state and municipal
works.
stitution.
♦
390
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
‘ B ’ (1) Comparison of United States, New York, Massachusetts and Wisconsin Laws.
Scope.
United States Federal
Law, 1892.
New York, re-enacted,
1906.
Massachusetts, as
amended, 1907.
Wisconsin,
1909.
1. Government Employ-
ees:— All labourers and
mechanics in the employ
of the government,
whether or not engaged
on public works.
1. Government Employ-
ees : — Mechanics, working-
men or labourers in the
employ of the government.
1. Government Employees:
— All labourers, workmen
or mechanics employed by
or on behalf of the Com-
monwealth, &c., upon any
works which are or are in-
tended to be the property
of the Commonwealth, &c.
2. Contracts : — All la-
bourers and mechanics in
employ of contractors or
subcontractors on public
works, strictly so inter-
preted, and working on
construction premises.
2. Contracts : — Mechan-
ics, workmen or labourers
in employ of contractor or
subcontractor, contract-
ing with state or munici-
pality under any “con-
tract which may involve
the employment of labour-
ers, workmen or me-
chanics.”
2. Contracts : — L abour-
ers, workmen or mechanics
working in the state in the
employ of contractor or sub-
contractor, engaged upon
any works which are or are
intended to be the property
of the Commonwealth, &c.
2. Contracts : — Labour-
ers, workmen or mechan-
ics employed by contrac-
tor or subcontractor in
constructing or repairing
any public buildings or
works.
Exceptions.
1 and 2 : — “ Except in
cases of extraordinary
emergency.”
1. Government Employ-
ees: — Farm and domestic
service, persons employed
in state institutions, par-
liamentary house force,
workers on country high-
ways.
1. Government Employees:
—Persons employed in state
or county institutions, in
care of grounds, domestic
service, &c.
2. Contracts : — “ Except
in cases of extraordinary
emergency, caused by fire,
flood or danger to life or
property. ”
2. Contracts : — E x c e p t
contracts for the purchase
of material and supplies.
1 and 2 : — Except in ex-
traordinary emergency, i.e.,
danger to property, to life,
to public safety or public
health.
2. Contracts: — (a) Ex-
traordinary emergency,
(b) Work done off the
premises where buildings
or works are being con-
structed.
Wage Provision.
Not less than prevailing
rate for day’s work in trade
and in section within the
state where work is to be
constructed and used.
Penalty.
Government official or
contractor intentionally
violating law liable to fine
not exceeding $1,000, oi
imprisonment for not
more than six months, or
both.
Contract void : — N O' Any contractor, sub-
payment to be made con- contractor or agent, or any
tractor for work done if 'official of state liable to $50
provisions violated.
fine for each offence.
Any contractor or sub-
contractor or agent, and
any official of state liable
to fine not exceeding
$200, or imprisonment for
not more than six months,
or both.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
391
APPENDIX No. 4
‘B ’ (2). Kansas, 1391.
An Act constituting eight hours a day’s work for all labourers, workmen, mechanics
and other persons employed by or on behalf of the State of Kansas, or by or on
behalf of any country, city, township or other municipality in said State, or by
contractors or others doing work or furnishing material for the State of Kansas,
or any county, city, township or other municipality thereof, and providing
penalties for violation of the provisions of this Act.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:
Section 1. That eight hours shall constitute a day’s work for all labourers,
workmen, mechanics or other persons now employed or who may hereafter be employed
by or on behalf of the State of Kansas, or by or on behalf of any county, city, town-
ship or other municipality of said State, except in cases of extraordinary emergency
which may arise in time of war or in cases where it may be necessary to work more
than eight hours per calendar day for the protection of property or human life; pro-
vided, that in all such cases the labourers, workmen, mechanics or other persons so
employed and working to exceed eight hours per calendar day shall be paid on the basis
of eight hours constituting a day’s work; provided further, that not less than the cur-
rent rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work is performed shall be paid
to labourers, workmen, mechanics and other persons so employed by or on behalf of
the State of Kansas, or any county, city, township or other municipality of said
State; and labourers, workmen, mechanics and other persons employed by contractors
or subcontractors in the execution of any contract or contracts or within the State
of Kansas, or within any county, city, township or other municipality thereof, shall
be deemed to be employed by or on behalf of the State of Kansas or of such county,
city, township, or other municipality thereof.
Section 2. That all contracts hereafter made by or on behalf of the State of
Kansas, or by or on behalf of any county, city, township' or other municipality of said
State, with any corporation, person or persons, for the performance of any work or
the furnishing of any material manufactured within the State of Kansas, shall be
deemed and considered as made upon the basis of eight hours constituting a day’s
work; and it shall be unlawful for any such corporation, person or persons to require
or permit any labourer, workman, mechanic or other person to work more than eight
hours per calendar day in doing such work or in furnishing or manufacturing such
material, except in the cases and upon the conditions provided in section 1 of this Act.
Section 3. That any officer of the State of Kansas, or of any county, city, town-
ship or municipality of said State, or any person acting under or for such officer, or
any contractor with the State of Kansas, or any county, city, township or other
municipality thereof, or other person violating any of the provisions of this Act, shall
for each offence be punished by a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $1,000, or
by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both fine and imprisonment, in
the discretion of the court.
Section 4. This Act shall not apply to existing contracts.
Section 5. This Act shall take effect and be in force from and after its publica-
tion in the statute-book.
(Laws 1891, ch. 114.)
‘B’ (3). Oklahoma, 1907.
An Act prescribing the condition upon which Public Work shall be done in behalf of
the State or its Municipalities; Prescribing Penalties for Violation thereof, and
Declaring an Emergency:
Be it enacted by the people of the State of Oklahoma :
Section 1. Eight hours shall constitute a day’s work for all labourers, workmen,
mechanics, prison guards, janitors of public institutions, or other persons now em-
392
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
ployed or who may hereafter be employed by or on behalf of the State of Oklahoma,
or by or on behalf of any county, city, township or other municipality of this state,
except in cases of extraordinary emergency which may arise in time of war, or in
cases where it may be necessary to work more than eight hours per calendar day for
the protection of property or human life; provided, that in all such cases the labourers,
workmen, mechanics or other persons so employed and working to exceed eight hours
per calendar day shall be paid on the basis of eight hours constituting a day’s work;
provided, further that not less than the current rate of per diem wages in the locality
where the work is performed shall be paid to labourers, workmen, mechanics, prison
guards, janitors in public institutions, or other persons so employed by or on behalf
of the State of Oklahoma, or any county, city, township, or other municipality of
said state; and labourers, workmen, mechanics, or other persons employed by con-
tractors or subcontractors in the execution of any contract or contracts within the
State of Oklahoma, or within any county, city, township, or other municipality there-
of, shall be deemed to be employed by or on behalf of the State of Oklahoma, or of
such county, city, township, or other municipality thereof.
Section 2. All contracts hereafter made by or on behalf of the State of Oklahoma,
or by or on behalf of any county, city, township, or other municipality of said state!
with any corporation, person or persons, for the performance of any public work, by
or on behalf of the State of Oklahoma, or any county, city, township, or other muni-
cipality, shall be deemed and considered as made upon the basis of eight hours con-
stituting a day’s work; and it shall be unlawful for such corporation, person or per-
sons, to require, aid, abet, assist, connive at, or permit any labourer, workman,
mechanic, prison guards, janitors in public institutions, or other person to work more
than eight hours per calendar day in doing such work, except in cases and upon the
conditions provided in section one of this Act.
Section 3. Any officer of the State of Oklahoma, or of any county, city, township,
or municipality of said state, or any person acting under or for such officer, or any
contractor with the State of Oklahoma, or any county, city, township, or other muni-
cipality thereof, or other person violating any of the provisions of this Act, shall for
each offense be fined in any sum not less than fifty ($50) dollars nor more than five
hundred ($500) dollars, or punished by imprisonment of not less than three months
nor more than six months. Each day such violation continues shall constitute a
separate offence.
Section 4. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are hereby repealed.
Section 5. For the preservation of the public peace and safety, an emergency is
hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this Act shall take effect and be in force
from and after its passage and approval.
‘B’ (4). Minnesota, 1901.
1799. Hours of labour on state work. — Ho person employed in manual labour
upon any woik for the state, whether such work be done by contract or otherwise,
shall be lequired or permitted to labour more than eight hours in any calendar day
except in cases of extraordinary emergency caused by fire, flood, and danger to life
and property, military or naval employment in time of war, and agricultural work
(’01 e. 310 s. 1.)
1S00. Same — Stipulation in contracts. — Every contract made by or in behalf of
the state which may involve the employment of labour shall provide in terms for com-
pliance with section 1,799, and for the forfeiture by the contractor to the state of ten
dollars for each and every violation thereof. Every inspector or other person whose duty
it is to see that such contract is duly performed shall report all such violations to the
proper disbursing officer, who shall withhold the amounts so forfeited from the con-
tract price. Ho sum so withheld shall ever be paid unless the disturbing officer shall
first certify to the governor, in writing, that the forfeiture was imposed through an
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
393
APPENDIX No. 4
error as to the facts. _ Every state officer, and every person acting for or in behalf of
the state, who shall violate any provision of this section or section 1,799, shall be
guilty of a gross misdemeanour. (’01 c. 310 ss. 2, 3.)
‘B (5). New York. Passed in 1897-9; Declared Unconstitutional, 1901; Con-
stitution Amended, 1905; Law Re-enacted, 1906.
Section 2. ....The term employee when used in this chapter, means mechanic,
workingman or labourer who works for another for hire
Section 3. ...Eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s work for all classes
of employees m this state except those engaged in farm and domestic service unless
otherwise provided by law. This section does not prevent an agreement for overwork
at an increased compensation except upon work by or for the state or a municipal
corporation, or by contractors or subcontractors therewith. Each contract to which the
state or municipal corporation is a party which may involve the employment of
labourers, workmen or mechanics shall contain a stipulation that no labourer, workman
r mechanic m the employ of the contractor, subcontractor or other person doing or
contracting to do the whole or a part of the work contemplated by the contract shall
be permitted or required to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day
except m cases of extraordinary emergency caused by fire, flood or danger to life or
property The wages to be paid for a legal day’s work as hereinbefore defined to all
classes of such labourers, workmen or mechanics upon all such public works, or upon
any material to be used upon or in connection therewith shall not be less than the
prevailing rate for a day’s work in the same trade or occupation in the locality within
tUe state where such public work on, about or in connection with which such labour
is performed in its final or complete form is to be situated, erected or used. Each
such contract hereafter made shall contain a stipulation that each labourer, workman
or mechanic, employed by such contractor, subcontractor or other person on, about
or upon such public work, shall receive such wages herein provided for. Each con-
tract for such public work hereafter made shall contain a provision that the same
shall be void and of no effect unless the person or corporation making or performing
the same shall comply with the provisions of this section ; and no such person or cor-
poration shall be entitled to receive any sum nor shall any officer, agent or employee
of the state or of a municipal corporation pay the same or authorize its payments
from the funds under his charge or control to any such person or corporation for work
aone upon any contract, which in its form or manner of performance violates the
provisions of this section, but nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to
persons regularly employed in state institutions, or to engineers, electricians and
elevator men in the department of public buildings during the annual session of the
legislature, nor to the construction, maintenance and repair of highways outside of the
limits of cities and villages.
Sec. 4. Any officer, agent or employee of this state or of a municipal corporation
therein having a duty to act in the premises who violates, evades or knowingly permits
the violation or evasion of any of the provisions of this Act shall be guilty of mal-
feasance in office and shall be suspended or removed by the authority having power
to appoint or remove such officer, agent or employee, otherwise by the governor. Any
citizen of the state may maintain proceedings for the suspension or removal of
such officer, agent or employee or may maintain an action for the purpose of securing
the cancellation or avoidance of any contract which by its terms or manner of per-
formance violates this Act or for the purpose of preventing any officer, agent or
employee of such municipal corporation from paying or authorizing the payment of
any public money for work done thereupon.
394 COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
‘B’ (6). Massachusetts (1) as Amended, 1907.
Eight hours shall constitute a day’s work for all labourers, workmen and
mechanics now or hereafter employed by or on behalf of the commonwealth, or of any
county therein, or of any city or town, which, prior to the 28tli day of . Junn .m the
year 1907, had accepted the provisions of section 20 of chapter 106 of the Revised
Laws. No labourer, workman or mechanic so employed shall be requested or required
to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day or more than forty-eight in
any one week except in cases of extraordinary emergency. Only a case of danger
to property, life, to public safety or to public health shall be considered a case of
extraordinary emergency within the meaning of this section. Threat of loss of
employment or threat to obstruct or prevent the obtaining of employment, or threat
to refrain from employing in the future shall be considered requiring, within the
meaning of this section. Engineers shall be considered mechanics within the mean-
ing of this section. But in cases where a weekly half-holiday is given, the hours of
labour upon the other working days of the week may be increased sufficiently to make
a total of forty-eight hours for the week’s work.
Section 38. — Every contract, except contracts for the purchase of materials or
supplies, to which the commonwealth, or any county therein, or any city or town
which has accepted the provisions of section 20 of chapter 106 of the Revised. Laws,
or may accept the provisions of section 42 of this Act, is a party, which may. involve
the employment of labourers, workmen or mechanics shall contain a stipulation that
no labourer, workman or mechanic working within this commonwealth in the employ
of the contractor, subcontractor or other person doing or contracting to do the whole
or a part of the work contemplated by the contract shall be requested or required to
work more than eight hours in any one calendar day, and every contract which does
not contain this stipulation shall be null and void.
Section 39. The two preceding sections shall apply to all labourers, workmen or
mechanics engaged upon any works which are or are intended to be the property of
the commonwealth, or of any county therein, or of any city or town which has accepted
the provisions of section 20 of chapter 106 of the Revised Laws, or may accept the
provisions of section 42 of this Act whether such labourers, workmen or mechanics
are employed by public authority or by a contractor or other private person.. They
shall not apply to persons employed in any state, county or municipal institution, on
the farm, or in the care of the grounds, in the stable, in the domestic or kitchen and
dining-room service, or in storerooms and offices.
Section 40. Any person or contractor or subcontractor, or any agent or person
acting on behalf of any contractor or subcontractor, or official of the commonwealth
or of any county, city or town who violates any provision of the three preceding
sections shall be subject to a penalty of fifty dollars for each offence.
Section 41. The provisions of the four preceding sections shall not apply to or
affect contractors or subcontractors for work, contracts for which were entered m o
prior to the 22nd day of June, in the year 1906.
Section 42. In a city or town which, by a vote taken by ballot at an annual
election, accepts the provisions of this section, or subsequently to the 28th ay o
June, in the vear 1907, accepted the provisions of section 20 of chapter 10b of
Revised Laws* eight hours shall constitute a day’s work for all labourers, workmen
and mechanics who are employed by such city or town. If a petition for such vote,
signed by one hundred or more registerd voters of a city, or twenty-five or more
registered voters of a town, is filed with the city or town clerk, respectively, thirty
da'ys or more before an annual election such vote shall be taken at such election.
Section 43. In a city or town, which has not accepted the provisions of sections
37 or 42 nine hours shall constitute a day’s work for all labourers, workmen an
mechanics who are employed by or on behalf of such city or town.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
395
APPENDIX No. 4
‘B' (7). Wisconsin. Approved June 14, 1909.
An Act to create sections 1729m and 1729n of the statutes, relating to hours of labour
on public buildings or works of the state.
The people of the State of Wisconsin, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact
as follows:
Section 1. There are added to the statutes two sections to read: Section 1729m.
Each and every contract hereafter made for the erection, construction, remodelling or
repairing of any public building or works, to which the state or any officer or ammt
thereof is a party, which may involve the employment of labourers, workmen or
mechanics, shall contain a stipulation that no labourer, workman or mechanic in the
employ of the contractor, subcontractor, agent or other person, doing or contracting
to do all or a part of the work contemplated by the contract, shall be permitted to
work more than eight hours in any one calendar day, except in cases of extraordinary
emergencies provided, however, that this section shall apply only to such work as is
actually performed on the premises on which such buildings or works are being
erected, constructed, remodelled or repaired.
Section 1729n. Any officer or agent of the State of Wisconsin or any contractor,
subcontractor or agent thereof, who violates any of the provisions of this Act shall
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by
a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six
months or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Section 2. This Act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage
and publication.
396
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
EXHIBIT ‘C’ ( 1 ) . — REPRESENTATIVE BILLS INTRODUCED IN UNITED
STATES CONGRESS, 1898-1910.
1. 1898: Bill introduced in House of Representatives by Mr. Gardner.
H. R. 7389, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session.
An Act limiting the hours of daily services of labourers, workmen, and mechanics
employed upon the public works of, or work done for the United States, or any
Territory, cr the District of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That the time of service of all labourers, workmen,
and mechanics employed upon any public works of, or work done for the United
States, or any Territory, or the District of Columbia, whether said work is done by
contract or otherwise, is hereby limited and restricted to eight hours in any one calen-
dar day; and it shall be unlawful for any officer of the United States, or of any Terri-
tory, or the District of Columbia, or any person acting for or on behalf of the United
States, or any Territory, or said District, or any contractor or subcontractor for any
part of any public works of, or work done for the United States, or any Territory, or
said District, or any person whose duty it shall be to employ or to direct and control
the services of such labourers, workmen, or mechanics, or who has in fact the direc-
tion or control of the services of such labourers, workmen, or mechanics, to require
or permit them, or any of them, to labour more than eight hours in any one calendar
day, except in cases of extraordinary emergency caused by fire, flood, or danger to life
or property, nor to work upon public, military or naval works or defences in time of
war.
Section 2. That each and every contract to which the United States, any Terri-
tory, or the District of Columbia is a party, and every contract made for or on behalf
of the United States, or any Territory, or said District, which contract may involve
the employment of labourers, workmen, or mechanics, shall contain a stipulation that
no labourer, workman, or mechanic in the employ of the contractor or any subcon-
tractor doing or contracting to do any part of the work contemplated by the contract,
shall be required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar
day; and each and every such contract shall stipulate a penalty for each violation of
the stipulation directed by this Act of ten dollars for each labourer, workman, or
mechanic, for each and every calendar day in which he shall labour more than eight
hours; and the inspector or other officer or person whose duty it shall be to see that
the provisions of any such contract are complied with, shall report to the proper
officer of the United States, or any Territory, or the District of Columbia, all viola-
tions of the stipulation in this Act provided for in each and every such contract, and
the amount of the penalties stipulated in any such contract shall be withheld by the
officer or person whose duty it shall be to pay the moneys due under such contract,
whether the violations for which said penalties were imposed were by the contractor,
his agents, or employees, or any subcontractor, his agents, or employees. No person
on behalf of the United States, or any Territory, or the District of Columbia, shall
rebate or remit any penalty imposed under any stipulation herein provided for, unless
upon a finding which he shall make up and certify that such penalty was imposed by
reason of an error of fact.
Section 3. That any officer of the United States, or any territory, or the District
of Columbia, or any person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any Terri-
tory or the District of Columbia, who shall violate the provisions of this Act, shall
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOLR
397
APPENDIX No. 4
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour and be subject to a fine or imprisonment, or both,
at. the discretion of the court, the fine not to exceed five hundred dollars, nor the im-
prisonment one year.
Section 4. That all Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent with this Act, in so far as
they are inconsistent, be, and the same are hereby, repealed. But nothing in this Act
shall apply to any existing contract, or to soldiers and sailors enlisted, respectively, in
the army or navy of the United States, or to seamen on sea-going vessels.
‘C’ (2). 1901-2. Bill introduced in House of Representatives by Mr. Gardner.
H. R. 3076, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.
An Act limiting the hours of daily service of labourers and mechanics employed upon
worn done, for the United States, or any Territory, or the District of Columbia
thereby securing better products, and for other purposes.
of At:l:Tterd ^ ^ 8ena[ei Td H°USe °f ReP™entatives of the United States
whUh T tt *♦ aT.T aSSemhrled’ That ea<* and every contract hereafter made to
which the United States, any Territory, or the District of Columbia is a party, and
every such contract made for. or on behalf of the United States, or any Territory, or
shall1 !! I'® ’ WhlCh rTlre 0T™olve the employment of labourers or mechanics,
shall contain a provision that no labourer or mechanic doing any part of the work
contemplated by the contract,, in the employ of the contractor or any subcontractor
contracting for any part of said work contemplated, shall be required or permitted to
“°"e t}?an eight hours in any one calendar day; and each and every such con-
tract shaH stipulate a penalty for each violation of the provision directed by this Act
ot for each labourer or mechanic, for each and every calendar day in ‘which he
shall labour more than eight hours; and any officer or person designated as inspector
oi the work to be performed under any such contract, or to aid in enforcing the ful-
h ment. thereof, shall upon observation or investigation report to the proper officer of
the United. States, or any Territory, or the District of Columbia, all violations of the
provisions in this Act directed to be made in each and every such contract, and the
amount of the penalties stipulated in any such contract shall be withheld by the officer
or person whose duty it shall be to pay the moneys due under such contract, whether
the violation of the provisions of such contract is by the contractor, his agents or
employees, or any subcontractor, his agents or employees. No person on behalf of the
United States or any Territory, or the District of Columbia, shall rebate or remit any
penalty imposed under any provision or stipulation herein provided for, unless upon
a finding which he shall make up and certify that such penalty was imposed by reason
of an error in fact.
Nothing in this Act shall apply to contracts for transportation by land or water,
nor shall the provisions and stipulations in this Act provided for affect so much of
any contract as is to be performed by way of transportation, or for such materials as
may. usually be bought in open market, whether made to conform to particular speci-
fications or not. The proper officer on behalf of the United States, any Territory or
the District of Columbia, may waive the provisions and stipulations in this Act pro-
vided for as to contracts for military or naval works or supplies during time of war
or a time when war is imminent. No penalties shall be exacted for violations of such
provisions due to extraordinary emergency caused by fire or flood, or due to danger
to life or loss to property. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to repeal or modify
chapter 352 of the laws of the Fifty-second Congress, approved August 1, 1892. or as
an attempt to abridge the pardoning power of the executive.
398
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
‘ C ’ (3). 1909. Bill introduced in House of Representatives by Mr. Gardner. This
Bill, which embodies the amendments made by the Senate Committee in
1902, is substantially the measure which has been introduced every session
since 1902.
A Bill limiting the hours of daily service of labourers and mechanics employed upon
work done for the United States or for any Territory, or for the District of
Columbia, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepesentatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That every contract hereafter made to which the
United States, any Territory, or the District of Columbia is a party, and every such
contract made for or on behalf of the United States, or any Territory, or said
district, which may require or involve the employment of labourers or mechanics
shall contain a provision that no labourer or mechanic doing any part of the
work contemplated by the contract, in the employ of the contractor or
any sub-contractor contracting for any part of said work contemplated,
shall be required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day
upon such work; and every such contract shall stipulate a penalty for each violation
of such provision in such contract of five dollars for each labourer or mechanic for
every calendar day in which he shall be required or permitted to labour more than
eight hours upon such work; and any officer or person designated as inspector of the
work to be performed under any such contract, or to aid in enforcing the fulfilment
thereof shall, upon observation or investigation, forthwith report to the proper officer
of the United States, or of any Territory, or of the District of Columbia, all viola-
tions of the provisions in this Act directed to be made in every such contract, together
with the names of each labourer or mechanic violating such stipulation and the day
of such violation, and the amount of the penalties imposed according to the stipula-
tion in any such contract shall be directed to be withheld by the officer or person
whose duty it shall be to approve the payment of the moneys due under such con-
tract, whether the violation of the provisions of such contract is by the contractor or
any ’subcontractor. Any contractor or subcontractor aggrieved by the with-
holding of any penalty as hereinbefore provided shall have the right to
appeal to the head of the department making the contract, or in the case of
a contract made by the District of Columbia to the commissioners thereof, who shall
have power to review the action imposing the penalty, and from such final order
whereby a contractor or subcontractor may be aggrieved by the imposition of the
penalty hereinbefore provided such contractor or subcontractor may appeal to the
Court of Claims, which shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter in like
manner as in other cases before said court.
Section 2. That nothing in this Act shall apply to contracts for transportation
by land or water, or for the transmission of intelligence, or for such materials or
articles as may usually be bought in open market, whether made to conform to par-
ticular specifications or not, or for the purchase of supplies by the government,
whether manufactured to conform to particular specifications or not. The proper
officer on behalf of the United States, any Territory, or the District of Columbia,
may waive the provisions and stimulations in this Act during time of war or a time
when war is imminent. No penalties shall be imposed for any violation of such pro-
vision in such contract due to any emergency caused by fire, famine or flood, by
danger to life or to property, or by other extraordinary event or condition. Nothing
in this Act shall be construed to repeal or modify chapter 352 of the laws of the Fifty-
second Congress, approved August 1, 1892.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
399
APPENDIX No. 4
‘C’ (4). 1910. An Alternative Measure.
i\ Bill providing that all contracts made by, or in behalf of, the government of the
United States of America, shall contain a clause making said contract invalid and
not binding upon the government of the United States of America should the
person, firm, or corporation, or other body, corporate or otherwise, in the manu-
facture or furnishing of any article or matter or thing whatsoever by contract
selling the same to the government of the United States of America employ in
the manufacture, making, or handling of any such article, matter, or thing what-
soever, any workmen, mechanics, or labouring men for a longer period than eight
hours in any one day, whether such work, or labour, or materials is done or
furnished by the original person, firm, or corporation contracting for the same,
or by any contractor or subcontractors under them.
Whereas it is the universal demand of all men who work for their daily living
that an eight -hour day should be established ; and
Whereas it is unfair and unjust to ask individual persons or corporations to enter
into such contracts when those individuals or corporations must enter into competition
with other persons or corporations in the same line of business, and whose hours of
labour are considerably more than eight hours per day; and
Whereas the only just and equitable method is for the government of the United
States to establish this rule, which rule, when established, will be speedily followed
by the labour-using manufacturers of the country; Therefore
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That no contract shall be made by, or in behalf of,
the government of the United States of America which shall not contain a clause
making said contract invalid and not binding upon the government of the United
States of America, should the person, firm, or corporation, or other body, corporate
or otherwise, in the manufacture of any article, or matter, or thing whatsoever, by
contract selling the same to the government of the United States of America, employ
any workmen, mechanics, or labourers for a longer period than eight hours in any one N
day, whether such work, or labour, or materials is done or furnished by the original
person, firm, or corporation making said contract with the government, or by any
contractor or subcontractors under them.
Sec. 2. That the Treasurer of the United States of America shall honour no check,
draft, or voucher for any work done or materials or articles furnished under any
contract not containing said above-mentioned clause, nor where the provisions of said
clause are not carried strictly into effect.
400
COMMITTEE RE DILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
EXHIBIT ‘ D.’
(Statement submitted by the Fair Wages Officers of the Department of Labour, Ottawa.)
Rates of Wages and Hours of Labour for certain Localities in Canada, having
Particular Reference to the 8, 9 or 10 Hour Work Day.
NOVA SCOTIA.
Halifax.
Sidney.
Inverness.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
$ cts.
$ cts.
$ cts.
Stonecutters
3 50
0
4 05
9
3 25
1C
Bricklayers
3 GO
8
4 05
9
3 00
10
Masons
3 GO
8
3 GO
9
3 00
10
Carpenters..
2 25
9
2 47^
9
1 75
10
Joiners
2 50
9
2 474
9
1 75
10
Stairbuilders
2 50
9
2 47 1
9
2 00
10
Plasterers
3 GO
9
3 GO
9
2 50
10
Painters
2 25
9
2 25
9
1 75
10
Plumbers
2 25
9
2 25
9
2 25
10
Steamfitters
2 25
9
2 25
9
2 25
10
Sheet metal workers
2 00
9
2 474
9
2 25
10
Electrical workers
2 00
9
2 25
9
2 00
10
Builders’ labourers
1 53
9
2 024
9
1 50
10
Common labourers
1 50
10
1 534
9
1 50
10
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21—HOURS OF LABOUR
APPENDIX No. 4
Exhibit I) (2).— Rates of Wages and Hours of Labour— Continued.
NEW BRUNSWICK.
St. John.
Moncton.
Campbellton.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
$ cts.
$ cts.
$ cts.
Stonecutters
3 50
!)
3 00
10
3 00
10
Bricklayers
3 60
9
3 00
10
3 00
10
Masons
3 60
9
3 00
10
2 50
10
Carpenters
2 50
9
1 75
10
1 50
10
Joiners
2 50
9
2 00
10
1 75
10
Stairbuilders
2 50
9
2 25
10
2 00
10
Plasterers
3 60
9
2 50
10
2 50
10
Painters
2 50
9
2 00
10
1 75
10
Plumbers
2 25
9
2 00
10
2 00
10
Steamfitters
2 25
9
2 00
10
2 00
10
Sheet metal workers
2 00
9
2 00
10
1 75
10
Electrical workers
2 00
9
1 75
10
1 50
10
Builders’ labourers
1 80
9
1 50
10
1 50
10
Common labourers
1 50
9
1 35
10
1 25
10
4—26
402
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Exhibit D (3).— Rates of Wages and Hours of Labour — Continued.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
Stonecutters
Bricklayers
Masons
Carpenters
Joiners
Stairbuilders
Plasterers
Painters
Plumbers
Steamfitters
Sheet metal workers
Electrical workers .
Builders’ labourers. .
Common labourers . .
All Localities.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
S cts .
3 00
10
3 00
10
2 50
10
1 75
10
2 00
10
2 00
10
2 50
10
1 75
10
2 00
9
2 00
9
2 00
to
2 00
10
1 50
10
1 25
10
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
403'
APPENDIX No. 4
Exhibit D (4).— Rates of Wages and Hours of Labour— Continued.
QUEBEC.
—
Montreal.
Quebec.
Rimouski.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per ’day.
$ ets.
$ cts.
$ cts.
Stonecutters . . . .
3 20
8
3 20
8
3 00
10
Bricklayers
4 05
9
4 05
9
3 00
10
Masons
3 00
9
3 15
9
2 50
10
Carpenters
2 471
3
2 25
10
1 75
10
Joiners
2 70
2 25
10
2 00
10
Stairbuilders
2 70
9
2 50
10
2 00
10
Plasterers
3 00
9
3 60
9
2 50
10
Painters
2 25
9
2 25
9
1 75
10
Plumbers
2 92*
9
2 00
9
2 00
10
Steamfitters
2 92J
9
2 00
9
2 00
10
Sheet metal workers . . .
2 47i
9
2 00
9
1 75
10
Electrical workers. . .
2 25
9
2 25
9
1 75
10
Builders’ labourers . .
2 02*
9
1 98
9
1 50
10
Common labourers
1 574
9
1 75
10
1 50
10
4-aci
404
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Exhibit D (5). — Rates of Wages and Hours of Labour — Continued.
ONTARIO.
Toronto.
Ottawa.
Goderich.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
$ cts.
$ cts.
$ cts.
Stonecutters '. . ....
4 00
8
3 52
8
3 00
10
Bricklayers
4 00
8
4 50
9
3 00
10
Masons
4 00
8
4 50
9
3 00
10
Carpenters
2 64
8
2 25
9
2 00
10
Joiners
2 64
8
2 70
9
2 00
10
Stairbuilders
2 64
S
2 70
9
2 25
1(5
Plasterers
4 00
8
3 60-
9
2 75
10
Painters
2 40
8
2 47
9
2 00
10
Plumbers
3 20
8
3 24
9
2 50
10
Steamfitters
3 20
8
3 24
9
2 50
10
Sheet metal workers
2 92*
9
2 70
9
2 00
10
Electrical workers
2 7Q*
8
2 25
9
2 25
10
Builders’ labourers
2 00
8
2 25
9
1 75
10
Common labourers
1 80
9
1 62
9
1 50
10
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
405
APPENDIX No. 4
Exhibit D (5). Eates of Wages and Honrs of Labour — Continued.
ONTARIO.
—
Kingston.
Brockville.
Cornwall.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
$ cts.
•$ cts.
fj> cts.
Stonecutters
3 60
8
3 25
9
3 00
10
Bricklayers
3 60
8
3 25
9
3 00
10
Masons
3 60
8
3 25
9
3 00
10
Carpenters
2 50
8
2 50
9
2 00
10
J oiners
2 50
8
2 50
9
2 25
10
Stairbuilders
2,50
8
2 50
9
2 25
10
Plasterers
3 60
8
3 00
9
3 00
10
Painters
2 25
9
2 2
9
2 00
10
Plumbers
2 40
9
2 50
9
2 50
10
Steamfitters
2 40
9
2 50
9
2 50
10
Sheet metal workers
2 25
9
2 00
9
2 25
10
Electrical workers
2 50
9
2 50
9
2 00
10
Builders’ labourers
2 00
8
1 75
9
1 50
10
Common labourers
1 50
9
1 50
9
1 50
10
406
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Exhibit D (6). — Rates of Wages and Hours of Labour Continued.
MANITOBA.
Winnipeg.
Brandon.
VlRDEN.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
Wages
per day.
Hour
per day.
$ cts.
$ cts.
$ cts.
Stonecutters
4 80
8
5 00
10
5 00
10
Bricklayers.
5 40
9
4 95
9
5 00
10
Masons
5 40
9
4 95
9
5 00
1
Carpenters
4 05
9
3 50
10
3 00
10
J oiners
4 05
9
3 50
10
3 25
10
Stairbuilders
4 05
9
3 50
10
3 25
10
Plasterers
4 50
9
5 00
10
5 00
10
Painters
2 70
9
50
10
2 50
1
Plumbers
4 50
9
4 50
10
4 00
10
Steamfitters
4 50
9
4 50
10
4 00
10
Sheet metal workers
3 69
9
4 00
10
3 50
10
Electrical workers ...
3 60
9
3 15
9
3 50
10
Builders’ labourers
2 25
9
2 25
10
2 25
10
Common labourers
2 00
10
2 00
10
2 00
10
COMMITTEE ltE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
407
APPENDIX No. 4
Exhibit D (7). — Rates of Wages and Hours of Labour — Continued.
SASKATCHEWAN.
Regina.
Saskatoon.
Prince
Albert.
Wages,
per day.’
Hours
per day.
Wages-
per day.
Hours
per day.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
$ cts.
$ cts.
$ cts.
Stonecutters
4 80
8
5 50
10
5 00
10
Bricklayers
4 95
9
5 40
9
5 40
9
Masons
4 95
9
5 40
9
5 50
10
Carpenters
3 50
10
3 50
10
3 50
10
J oinei s . . .
3 50
10
3 50
10
3 50
10
Stairbuilders
3 50
10
3 50
10
3 50
10
Plasterers
4 95
9
5 40
9
5 50
10
Painters
3 00
10
3 00
10
3 00
10
Plumbers
4 50
9
4 50
10
4 00
10
Steamfitters
4 50
9
4 50
10
4 00
10
Sheet metal workers
3 00
10
3 50
10
3 50
10
Electrical workers
3 15
9
3 50
10
3 50
10
Builders' labourers
2 50
10
2 50
10
2 50
10
Common labourers
2 00
10
2 00
1
10
2 00
10
408
COMMITTEE RE DILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Exhibit D (8). — Rates of Wages and Honrs of Labour — Continued.
ALBERTA.
*
Edmonton.
Lethbkidge.
Maclkod.
•
Wages
Hours
Wages
Hours
Wages
Hours
per day.
per day.
per day.
per day.
per day.
per day.
$ cts.
$ cts.
$ cts.
Ston cutters ....
5 60
8
4 80
8
4 80
8
Bricklayers
•1 80
8
5 33-1
8
6 00
10
Masons
4 80
8
5 33^
8
C 00
10
Carpenters
3 36
8
4 05
9
3 50
10
J oiners
3 36
8
4 05
9
3 50
10
Stairbuilders
3 36
8
4 05
9
3 50
10
Plasterers . .
4 80
8
5 33J
8
6 00
10
Painters
3 60
8
3 60
9
3 50
10
Plumbers ,
4 50
8
4 72J
9
4 00
10
Steamfitters
4 50
8
4 724
9
4 00
10
Sheet metel workers
3 50
8
4 05
9
3 50
10
Electrical workers
2 20
8
3 33
9
3 50
10
Builders’ labourers
2 25
8
2 474
9
2 50
10
Common labourers
2 25
9
2 25
9
2 50
10
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
409
APPENDIX No. 4
Exhibit D (9).— Rates of Wages and Hours of Labour — Continued.
BRITISH COLUMBIA.
VANCOUVER.
Chilliwack.
Nelson.
V El i NON.
W ages
per day.
Hours
per day.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day.
Wages
per day.
Hours
per day
$
cts.
$
cts.
$
cts.
$
cts.
Stonecutters
5
00
8
5
00
9
5
00
8
5
00
9
Bricklayers
5
00
8
5
00
9
5
00
8
5
00
9
Masons
5
00
8
5
00
9
5
60
8
5
00
9
Carpenters
4
00
8
3
50
9
4
00
8
3
60
9
Joiners
4
00
8
3
50
9
4
00
8
3
60
9
Stairbuilders . .
4
00
8
4
00
9
4
00
8
3
60
9
Plasterers
6
00
8
5
00
9
6
00
8
5
00
9
Painters
4
00
8
3
00
9
4
00
S
3
50
9
Plumbers
4
00
8
4
00
9
4
00
8
4
00
9
Steamfitters
4
00
8
4
00
9
4
00
8
4
00
9
Sheet metal workers
4
00
8
4
00
8
4
00
9
4
00
9
Electrical workers
4
00
8
3
50
9
3
50
9
3
50
9
Builders’ labourers
/ 2
14
80
00
} 8
2
50
9
r 3
1 3
00
50
} 8
3
00
9
Common labourers
2
50
8
2
25
9
3
00
9
2
50
10
410
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Ex ii tbit D (10). — Yukon.
The minimum rate of wages paid to mechanics in the far north is $1 per hour,
and if more than ordinary skill is required or demanded a higher rate is paid. The
prevailing rates in Dawson and surrounding districts for masons, carpenters, plas-
terers, painters, plumbers, tinsmiths, electricians, &c., is $1 per hour.
Common labourers get 75 cents per hour for short terms of employment, but
mining companies employing large numbers of men permanently pay $4 per day with
board and lodging.
In all cases the established hours of labour are 10 hours per day.
EXHIBIT ‘ E.’
Professor Magill of Halifax, N.S., on the ‘Eight-hour Day.’— Address Delivered
Before the Canadian Club of Ottawa, Saturday, February 19, 1910.
Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Canadian Club , — I would ask you to recall
the fact that the movement for an eight-hour day law is a wide movement to-day
among the industrial communities of the world. You have it in Great Britain, in
the United States, in Germany, in France, in Holland, in Austria, in Australia. It
is practically a world-wide movement; that is to say, it is co-extensive with modern
industrial conditions, this movement for the shortening of the working day by legisla-
tion, the movement called ‘ The Eight-hour Day Movement.’ I want to speak about
an eight-nour law because we distinguish the shortening of the day by legislation from
the shortening of the day by trades union movements. It ii sometimes said, indeed,
that were the day to be shortened by law or by negotiation between masters and men
it would matter very little, that the results must be identical. That is not true. If
the day is shortened by negotiation between masters and men, the shortening will be
carried by the condition of the industry. If it involves a tax upon profits, the short-
ening, of course, is limited by the amount of the profits. But if governments and legis-
latures take to shortening the hours of the working day it may sometimes happen,
indeed it is very probable, that it will happen that they will shorten the days in
industries and in firms where the shortening will put those industries and firms under
a great disadvantage. I think it can be proven very easily that if the government of
Nova Scotia were to pass an eight-hour law upon some of our industries down there,
some firms would simply be put out of business, a number of men would be thrown
out of employment and there would be a considerable economic waste. If the day
were shortened as the result of negotiations between masters and men things like that
would not likely happen. I am only going to speak of the shortening of the day by
law, of the eight-hour day law movement. I want to say, to begin, that when men
consider this business of reducing the working hours by law, it would be advisable
for them to distinguish the purely philanthropic or humanitarian side from the econo-
mic side, the dollars and cents side. It appears to me, so far as I can judge, that
the arguments most prominently in the minds of the workingmen are humanitarian
arguments, whereas the arguments most prominently before the minds of the employers
are the economic arguments. Let me illustrate. The working day is a long day in
many industries and many countries, and if you take the case of a man working for
10 or 12 hours a day at the bottom of a coal mine, as many are, or a man tending a
blast furnace, an open hearth furnace or a coke oven for 12 hours a day — and re-
member that that man works 10 or 12 hours a day 6 days in the week, 52 weeks in the
year— -you may ask yourself this question : What is the effect upon that man’s health.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
411
APPENDIX No. 4
what is the effect upon that man s intelligence, what is the effect upon that man’s
family life, what is the effect upon that man’s morals, what is the effect upon that
man as a citizen, a citizen with a franchise, a citizen who is repeatedly asked to de-
cide on great questions of the province, of the Dominion, of the empire, of the world?
I say if you take a man who is tied to a furnace 12 hours a day, 6 days in the week, 52
weeks in the year, and if you can leave aside for the moment the merely cash side of
the situation and consider it from the point of view of humanitarianism, you cannot
but recognize that a change in hours is desirable. Think, for example, of the effect
on that man’s family life, a man working 12 hours a day, 6 days in the week. He is
married, he has a family and he never sees his children from one Sunday to another
except when they are in bed, never. It is good neither for him nor for his family.
Consider the effect upon that man’s morals. I should not speak on moral questions,
because here is Dr. Shearer sitting opposite me with a frown on him, but I take the
liberty of saying that if either Dr. Shearer or myself had to work for a living at the
bottom of a coal mine for 10 hours a day, or tending a coke oven for 12 hours a day,
the probabilities are that we should seek such pleasures as we should enjoy and the
pleasure that would most probably appeal to Dr. Shearer and myself would be the
pleasure of having a good drunk wherever we could get it. I hope he will not tell the
authorities of the church. I am more or less of a heretic on the matter, I suppose,
but the result of my own observation is that a considerable amount of the drinking
and the unsavory features of certain sections of our working classes is just due to
the fact that they have to work these very long hours and they lose all inclination
for more refined pleasures and take the pleasures that are handiest and the pleasures
that appear to give them the promise of the greatest change.
Or take again the other question of their citizenship. We think the working-
men lend an ear very readily to agitators, socialists and others. We say that their
judgment upon important industrial matters is one that often leads them astray.
We say they lend themselves to these revolutionary movements in our time all too
quickly. They strike, for example, when the conditions of the industry are not in
favour of a strike or do something else for a similar reason, and we want the working-
men of this country to understand all about strikes, all about capital, all about profit
and less, all about the tariff, all about the international markets, all about the militia,
all about the navy — a hundred and fifty thousand questions, and all the while iwe for-
get that they never have one hour to devote to any question except the question of
earning $1.50 to $2 a day.
I say that if we should consider the question of the shortening of hours by legis-
lation, merely, purely and solely from a humanitarian point of view, from a philan-
thropic point of view, we should, I think, probably all agree that the hours cannot
be shortened too soon, and that there would be full justification for shortening them
by law. The pity of it is that the philanthropic or the humanitarian and economic
do not always harmonize and the employers of labour and the managers of our great
industries in the modem industrial world arc much more concerned about the econo-
mical aspect of any legislation like this than about its humanitarian aspect.
The economic aspect of the eight-hour day, as I suppose Mr. Shortt will tell you,
is itself a great puzzle.
I wish to speak now for a little about the cash side of eight-hour legislation. I
mav say that the eight-hour law is supported by three different schools of writers,
and that the three schools of writers give different accounts of the economic conse-
quences of an eight-hour law. First of all, we have the American Federation of
Labour. Some years ago the American Federation of Labour began a strong agita-
tion for an eight-hour law, and issued a number of pamphlets defending this proposed
leg's’ation. The ten-hour day is almost universal in the United States. These
writers argue that if the day were shortened to eight hours by legislation throughout
the whole of the United States the result would be such a lessened supply of labour,
through the reduction of two hours a day for every worker, that there would be a
412
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
demand for additional labourers, the result of that demand being to absorb all the
unemployed of the United States plus all the unemploj’ed of Great Britain and Ire-
land, plus all the unemployed of France, plus all the unemployed of Germany. It
was calculated that an eight-hour law made universal throughout the I nited States
would reduce the working days of every worker practically in the United States1 by
two hours. To take the place of labour thus withdrawn, there would be required addi-
tional labourers so large in number that they would be practically equivalent to ail
the unemployed of the United States, Great Britain and those other countries. So,
according to the writings and judgments of the American Federation of Labour, the
first economic consequence of . an eight-hour lawT would be the entire removal of the
question of the unemployed. Well, if any eight-hour law would not only improve the
citizenship, but help the morals and general conditions of the working classes, and if
any eight-hour law would at the same time remove and solve this whole question of
unemployment, surely such a law would be welcomed by every one. But 1 want you
to observe that according to these writings not only would an eight-hour law bring in all
the unemployed of the modern world, but it would also raise the wages; there would
be no reserve army of labour, there would be no unemployed men going around the
streets looking for jobs and accepting smaller wages. The trades unions would grow,
they would get a monopoly of all labour, there would be an increased demand for
labour, and so wages would rise. Not merely, then, would unemployment be removed,
but the wages of all labourers all over the United States would be increased. But,
further, the writers of the American Federation of Labour argue that this would pay
the employers, because profits would be increased. Uow, they distinguish between
the rate of profits and the total amount of profits, and they say that a manager or
an investor of money does not mind whether his rate of profit falls from 5 per cent
to 4 per cent, provided the total amount of profit at the end of the year is doubled or
quadrupled. So they say all the unemployed would get work, there would be a
demand for more food, more clothing, more houses, the market would be larger, and
the demand being larger the supply would be larger, the manufacturers would be busy,
every producer of wealth would have a larger market, and although the rate of profit
might decline per cent, the total amount of profit would be increased. So the result
of an eight-hour law would be also to enrich the employer and the labourer, and lastly,
according to these writers, an eight-hour law would not increase prices so that it
would be good for the general consumers as well, because there being this larger
demand, more capital would go into production, there would be a larger production,
there would be a faster production of wealth, and of course that would protect the
consumer. So, by passing an eight-hour law it is a simple matter; by passing a
universal eight-hour law we should elevate the whole working classes and set them
upon a plane on which they have never been in the history of the world. In addition
to that, we should remove the whole matter of unemployment, we should raise wages
per hour, per day, and per week. In addition to that we should increase the profits
of every employer of labour, and we should increase, the total profits of every investor
of money. In addition to that, we should protect the general consumer because prices
would not rise, even rents would not increase.
“MV. Chairman and Gentlemen, — I would ask you for a moment to just think of
all these claims. I am not going to criticise them at any length, but if all these
results could be secured by one hundred Bills, if all these results could be secured
by five hundred Bills, it would be well worth the time of any modern parliament to
begin passing these five hundred Bills should it take them ten years to do it. But it
seems on the face of it, a tremendous thing to claim, that a simple piece of legisla-
tion like the shortening of the working day should work out such tremendous econo-
mic consequences.
And so we turn now for a moment to the other champions of the eight-hour day
who are to be found in England. There is one school of them over there which in-
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
413
APPENDIX No. 4
elude8 a number of employers of labour and a number of writers on industrial matters
That school is perhaps best represented by a writer called Ray, by an employer called
Madders of the Saltford IronWorks and Hadfield and Gibbons, a recent writer on in-
dustrial matters m England. These writers are more or less conservative in their spirit
just l^e the writers of the American Federation of Labour. I mean that seriously
because the American Federation^ are not Socialists and regard themselves as anti-
revolutionary. These Englishmen, including many large employers of labour, have
exercised a very considerable influence on this matter on the other side Now the
curious thing is that when we ask Madders or Hadfield who have tried the eight-hour
law in their works, or consult Ray and Gibbons about the economic consequence of
such a aw, they tell us that its consequences are practically nil so far as dollars and
cents go,^ The whole object of Ray’s book is to show that in the vast majority of in-
dustries in any country, apart from the transportation industries, a man will, on the
whole and on the average, do as much work in eight hours as in nine or ten. That being
the case the shortening of the day has practically no economic consequence ; as much
wealth will be produced on the average under the shorter day as under the longer,
wages will remain on the average as they were; profits will remain, on the average as
they were; prices will remain upon the average as they were; international trade will
remain as it was, and the one result of the law will be a very desirable result, that is
to say the workers will have an hour’s leisure to themselves per day.
Now, it is very curious to find that these, perhaps the most influential champions
of the eight-hour law in England, contradict expressly the very first proposition of
the champions of the eight-hour law in the United States. The contradiction is radi-
cal, the contradiction is fundamental; the American writers of the eight-hour day
claim that a man cannot do as much work in eight hours as in nine or ten. Mr. Mc-
Neill, one of the writers of the American Federation, states that the day will never
come when a man will be able to do or should be expected to do as much work in
eight hours as he might do in nine or ten. I say that the writers of the American
Federation of labour maintain that the shortening of the day will mean the shorten-
ing of production, the lessening of wealth and therefore the calling in of the unem-
ployed; whereas the English writers who defend the eight-hour day tell us that the
eight-hour day will not affect production, because on the average a man can do as
much work in eight hours as in nine, and it would not make room for a score of the
unemployed outside the transportation industries.
Arising from this fundamental contradiction there are several others. The
writers of the American Federation of Labour consider that this legislation will pay
the capitalist, his total profits will increase; the English writers say the capitalist will
hardly be affected, he will not lose, except perhaps in a few industries, he will not
gain. The American Federation of Labour writers argue that the whole problem of
the unemployed will be solved; the English writers argue that neither in England nor
in Australia has the shortening of the working day ever made room for a score of the
unemployed. Australia has the eight -hour day almost universally; the question of
the unemployed is worse in Australia than it is in Canada ; it is as bad as it is in the
United Kingdom and in the great textle industries in England the day has been
shortened by legislation from time to time. We possess considerable statistical infor-
mation as to the results and it does not appear that the reduction of hours in the tex-
tile industries of Great Britain has ever made room for one hundred of the unem-
ployed.
Suppose we turn to the third school for the moment. You have what are known
as the Socialists and I suppose it is dangerous at Ottawa even to mention the word
‘ socialist ’ because it might suggest that one was in bad company. I do not know that
the devil himself is as black as he is painted, and certainly as far as the literature of
these English Socialists goes, that is the literature on the eight-hour day, it does not
seem to be so very bad after all, because on the question of the economic consequences
414
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
of an eight-hour law, the socialists are not so extreme as the writers of the Ameiican
Federation of Labour and they have advanced but little beyond those other more
orthodox writers to whom I have referred. The socialist writers say that in many
industries the reduction of hours will mean a reduction in output, and there! ore that
a reduction in hours will mean making room for more of the unemployed that there-
fore since more labour will have to be paid to produce the same output there will be
an increase in the cost of production; that increase in the cost of production must
fall upon profits and probably will fall upon the rate of interest. The Socialists be-
lieve that the shorter day making room for a considerable number of the unemployed
will help the trades unions to maintain the rate of wages and consequently any added
cost of production due to the shorter day must fall either upon profits or upon the
wages of management. Now it is not likely to fall on the salary of the managers so
it would probably fall on the rate of interest, and so the Socialist writers of England
say the great result of eight-hour legislation would be this : It would tbe lessf\’
ing of the average dividends, the average rate of interest m any country that adop ed
that legislation to the advantage of the working classes of that country The ra e o
interest might fall say from 4 per cent to 3 per cent, so industrial dividends of a
fairly safe kind might fall from 6 per cent to 1 per cent, and the difference, the 1 per
cent, would be added to the total amount of money spent m the form of wages amongst
the workers. And so the Socialists regard the eight-hour law as one slight one small
wav of distributing wealth, of redistributing wealth, of taking a little of it from i
wealthy man who can afford to lose a little and distributing that amongst the workers
who need a little more than they have.
There are these difficulties and these contradictions on the economic consequence
of the law. That is not enough. If we ask these three schools of writers who
clamoured for the law how the parliament should proceed to draft the law if you ask
them what law they should pass, you find contradictions Dust as glaring and difficulties
just as great. , ,
The writers of the American Federation of Labour seem to think that a law
should be passed immediately, and made compulsory on all industries of the country, a
hard and fast eight-hour law, and that if such a law is not passed the unions will have
to take matters into their own hands and strike, strike hard, and strike simultaneous y
and long, in order to get an eight-hour day in any case. In England on the other
hand I do not think you can find any one, even a socialist, who advocates a law like
that' It is recognized even by those who want the eight-hour law m Great Britain,
even by those who defend it most strongly, that the greatest danger to the whole move-
ment is the danger of a general and compulsory law, and I doubt if you could tad
half a dozen men in England who seriously clamour for a universal compulsory eight-
hour "law for the industries of the United Kingdom for whatever we may say of the
trades unions of England, and the champions of the working classes of England, there
is this that must always be recognized, that they have had a long experience m these
matters, that they have developed amongst them very able men, that they have some
leaders who rank among the very best men in England to-day.
When we mention a man like John Burns, when we recall that a few years ago
he was earning his dollar a day, when we recall that he got all his training amongst
the trades unions and when we see him to-day, a cabinet minister m the greatest
empire the world has produced, I think we shall be prepared unanimously to admit
that the English trades unions have had an experience and an apprenticeship in these
matters which the workmen in very many other countries have not enjoyed, and I
doubt if we find a single trades unionist in the United Kingdom, at all events among
the older unions, who would support the proposal of a universal and compulsory
eight-hour law. That proposal is not being discussed at all.
The Englishmen for a while diseussed a trades option law and the socialistic
champions of the eight-hour day drafted a Bill embodying the trades option prin-
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
415
APPENDIX No. 4
ciples. We are familiar with options in this country, Dr. Shearer knows all about
them, and the principle of that trades option Bill is that the government should pass
an eight-hour law, but should leave it to the option of those engaged in the various
industries of the country to decide whether the law should be enforced or not.
That was proposed by the Socialistic advocates of an eight-hour day. Then the
trades unions had a great congress not long afterwards, and they riddled it and voted
it out, they would have nothing to do with it, they would have nothing to do with a
universal compulsory law, and they proposed what they call the Trade Exemption Bill.
A Trade Exemption Bill means that the government should pass an eight-hour Bill
compulsory on every one throughout the whole country, but leaving it to the unions
to say whether or not they should exclude their own particular industries. The unions
asked for a trade exemption Bill knowing that they were powerful enough to exempt
their own trade from its operation in case such an exemption were found to be advis-
able. The Socialist writers looked at the Trade Exemption Bill and they repudiated
the Trade Exemption Bill. The other Bills were then tried, a modified trade option
plan and a modified local option plan. But writers clamouring for eight-hour legisla-
tion rejected all these proposals one after the other, and finally, after years of dis-
cussion and controversy, they have arrived at what they call the last, the greatest,
most thorough paced most successful plan of all. Let me describe this plan.
According to this plan which holds the field, the government would be asked to
have a Minister of Labour. While there is nothing very revolutionary in that, whether
he would do them very much harm or very much good of course I really do' not know,
but the government would be asked to have a Minister of Labour, and the Minister of
Labour would be compelled — observe the word — compelled to appoint Boyal Com-
missions. If any trades union, county council, city council, or any recognized body of
men interested, demanded a Royal Commission of three, the Minister of Labour would
be bound to appoint that commission. The commission would have power to take
evidence, examine witnesses, examine books and all the rest of it and to hold public
meetings. I am not quite sure, but I think this is a rather novel feature of the
scheme. Then there would be a census taken and registers kept of all the workers in
every trade. A record of the names and addresses of all the workers would be kept.
It would be the business of the commission to call these workers together in any one
trade or in any group of related trades, to ascertain their views and wishes about the
length of the working day, and if they were on the whole in favour of shortening the
hours and if at the same time the financial conditions of the industry admitted of it,
the commission could then report in favour of a shorter day. Within a specified time
after receiving that report the Minister of Labour would be required to make the
thing effective, without the trouble of passing Bills by what are called orders in council.
The idea of this plan is to obviate the necessity of passing a separate Bill for every
industry, because no government in the world has time to pass a separate Bill for
every industry in the country. The whole time of parliament would not be enough to
consider the effect of a shorter day upon every industry in its turn. The object of the
Bill is to set up machinery by which the day could be shortened in industry after
industry if the commissions recommended it, without the necessity of passing a Bill
through the two houses of parliament.
Supposing now that that plan were adopted in any province in Canada, what
would it mean ? It would mean a tremendous growth in the business of Royal Com-
missions. It would mean that every county council and every city council and every
factory inspector, and every trades union and every labour organization in the country
would compel the Minister of Labour to appoint a Royal Commission. It would
mean that these royal commissions would have to examine the census, the register of
removals, to find out all about voters’ lists, and I would like to see how any royal com-
mission would investigate voters’ lists at times in Canada. It would mean that the
commission would hold meetings and discuss this matter from public platforms. WTiy^
416
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
I would throw up my job as a professor and become a candidate for the business
of royal commissioner. That business seems to be growing as it is, but if this p an
were adopted half the young men would cut loose from their business, from t e Cm
Service for instance, and begin to pull wires connecting themselves with the J\ mister
of Labour to be appointed royal commissioners.
I have tallied along this line to-day in order to illustrate the one point 1 want
to make. The one I want to make is this that so far as I am concerned, if the day
could be shortened for the workingmen of Canada, without closing mines and mills,
without creating unemployment, without making matters worse, every umanitarian
interest of the working classes of Canada requires that that Bill should be passed.
Further, if the day could be shortened without hurting the productive work ot this
country, without handing ourselves over to the tender mercies of others, or compell-
ing us to protect ourselves, by the very doubtful method of exaggerated tarms,. it
would be not merely in the interests of all the people of Canada because a nation
to-day must be broad based upon the masses of the people. We cannot have at the
base of this country a large mass of men growing up like machines, unintelligent,
unobservant, unequal to the duties of citizenship, demoralized— -we cannot have such
a population at the base of this country to-day without producing amongst all the
classes of this country immoralities of the worst kind and national inefficiency of this
most fatal kind. The welfare of the people of the upper classes, if I may use the
word, the welfare of the whole people of Canada, is dependent upon having the very
best conditions, industrially, educationally, and in every other way amongst the work-
ing classes, and if we could improve their position to any extent, whatever,, by short-
ening The working day, it is the bounden duty of every loyal citizen of this country
to support that legislation and the sooner it is enacted the better.
But iny point is this : The worst thing in the whole discussion of labour matters
is the tendency to make general statements. If Mr. Shortt were not here I would
almost dare to go the length of saying that almost any general proposition that you
can make about the labour question of any industrial question is false and must, be
false. The man whom you should always suspect on these matters of political
economy, sociology, &c., is the man with a general proposition, a clear cut and easy
solution of complicated questions! We must in this matter distinguish between
industry and industries. I could show you iron industries, open hearth furnaces and
blast furnaces in Nova Scotia, and show you that if you put an eight hour law on
them to-morrow you will do one of two things, either shut the industry immediately
or reduce the wages of every man in that industry to a point below that which gives
him a living wage. We cannot do that. Long hours are bad, very bad, the progress
of civilization means a shortening of hours. There is no country civilized where the
hours are very long, speaking for the mass of the workers. We must shorten the hours
but we must recognize that it is a matter of industrial evolution. Legislation, must
await that evolution. If we can hasten it here and there we ought to hasten it but
if we go ahead of that industrial evolution, we will merely rush to disaster for our-
selves and for the working classes too.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
417
APPENDIX No. 4
EXHIBIT ‘ F.’
CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION.
(Incorporated.)
Parliamentary Committee,
To Canadian Boards of Trade
Toronto, January 13, 1910.
Compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill.
Last year we had occasion to solicit your valued assistance in opposing the above
measure when it was under consideration by the House of Commons. That it was
never pressed to a vote is probably due in some degree at least to the aid you were
good enough to give us at that time.
This year the Bill has been introduced again, and has been referred to a Special
Committee of the House, who are meeting almost immediately to hear the views of
parties who may be interested one way or the other.
Our Association is undertaking on behalf of employing and business interests to
submit through its Secretary, a general case in opposition to the Bill, and it would
strengthen his position and lend much more weight to his argument if he could pre-
sent to the Committee of the House credentials to show that he was authorized to speak
for your Board. If you are not proposing to send a special representative to testify
before the Committee and if you could see your way clear to give our Secretary this
authority, you are urged to do so at once, under the assurance that you will be taking
(one of the most effective means of defeating a proposal which could not but result
disastrously to the whole country.
If in addition your Board would address a formal letter of protest containing a
summary of your objections, to the Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, Chairman
of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21, House of Commons, Ottawa, it would lighten
the responsibility resting upon those who will represent you, and make their task an
easier one.
The Bill itself reads as follows :
Every contract to which the Government of Canada is a party, which may in-
volve the employment of labourers, workmen or mechanics, shall contain a stipula-
tion that no labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of the contractor or sub-
contractor, or other person doing or contracting to do the whole or a part of the work
contemplated by the contract, shall be permitted or required to work more than eight
hours in any one calendar day, except in cases of extraordinary emergency caused
by fire, flood or danger to life or property.
“ Every such contract hereafter made shall contain a provision that unless the
person or corporation making or performing it complies with the provisions of this
Act,, the contract shall be void, and the person or corporation shall not be entitled to
receive any sum, nor shall any officer, agent or employee of the Government of Can-
ada pay or authorize payment from the funds under his charge or control to the per-
son or corporation, for work done upon or in connection with the contract which in its
form or manner of performance violates the provisions of this Act.
“ This Act shall apply to work undertaken by the Government of Canada by day
labour.”
While it will be noticed that the above refers only to Government contracts, it is
the boast of organized labour that this measure is but the means to an end, and that
4 — 27
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— BOERS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
through it they hope to compel the adoption of an eight-hour day in all classes of in
dustry from one end of Canada to the other.
The following suggestions may prove helpful to you in framing your protest to
the Chairman of the Committee:
(1) . The Bill, if passed, would prohibit every employer and every employee who
works more than eight hours per day from sharing in Government business.
(2) . It would place a discount on ambition. The inherent right of the individual
to raise himself above the level of his fellows by extra work or effort would be de-
nied him.
(3) . Once we have fully recovered from the present industrial depression there
will again be a shortage of help. A reduction in the hours of labour would mean that
this shortage would be tremendously accentuated.
(4) . A shorter working day would mean an increased cost of production, which
in turn would mean a material advance in the price charged the jobber, the retailer
and the consumer, and consequently a general increase in the cost of living.
(5) . The shorter hours of labour in town and city workshops have proved a won-
derfully strong attraction in influencing men to leave the farm. If these hours are
now reduced to eight per day hired help for the farm will be more difficult than ever
to secure and retain. As business men you will appreciate the importance of blocking
a move that would only embarrass the farmer.
As no time is to be lost you are earnestly requested to take action in the matter
with the least possible delay.
Tours faithfully,
CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION.
J. O. THORN, G. M. MURRAY,
Chairman Parliamentary Committee. Secretary.
EXHIBIT “ G.”
CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION.
Parliamentary Committee.
To the Members of the
(Incorporated.)
Toronto, January 13, 1910.
Canadian Manufacturers Association.
Compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill.
Organized labour through its representative Mr. Yerville has again brought for-
ward its Eight-Hour Day Bill. This year the Bill has been taken up more seriously
by the House, who have referred it to a Special Committee for investigation and re-
port. The Committee is meeting almost immediately to hear evidence from parties
who may be interested one way or the other.
On behalf of employing and business interests we are preparing a general case for
submission to this Committee, and we also propose to have evidence as to the imprac-
ticability of the measure submitted by men of experience in labour and business mat-
ters.
We do not wish to rest our case, however, upon this evidence alone. The pro-
ponents of the Bill will no doubt be represented by large and enthusiastic deputations,
and unless we are able to show that the opposition of employing interests is both ser-
ious and widespread, there is just a possibility' that the Committee of the House may
be overawed by the clamour of organized labour.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
419
APPENDIX No. 4
y0U1’ *heref?re’ t0 S€nd at once to Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King.
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21, House of Commons, Ottawa, a con-
report 7h”tn B‘“' ^ressi^ ^ that his Committee will
In case you have not seen the Bill, we reproduce same herewith: —
very contract to which the Government of Canada is a party, which may in-
tionethat H r °f ab°UrerS’ W°rkmen °r mechanicS’ sbad -ntain a stipula-
^ontracSr o. S'" ’ WOlk™n or mechanic in the employ of the contractor or sub-
°/,0th+eir person doin& or contracting to do the whole or a part of the work
hourSn anv J “ be permitted or squired to work more than eight
fire flnnrl 7 a 116 Cale,ndai ^ d£U’ except in cases of extraordinary emergency caused by
hre, hood or danger to life or property
persl^^t°°°tr!,C,t-Weafteri°°<le ShaI1 a *»t unless the
AcT the 1 t ^poratlon “akm? or performing it complies with the provisions of this
ct, the contract shall be void, and the person or corporation shall not be entitled tc
receive any sum, nor shall any officer, agent or employee of the Government of Can-
ada pay or authorize payment from the funds under his charge or control to the per-
fomorm^nne10^ f°r7°rk ^ ^ conn€ction with the contract which in its
form^or inanner of performance violates the provisions of this Act.
labour.” ^ ACt Sha aPPly t0 W°rk undertakeu by the Government of Canada by day
ter nfT*ah°rding l ^ fT the Pr°teSt which we hope y°u wil1 ^nd in to the Minis-
be passed ’ ^ ^ 3 ^ °f the principal reasons why the Bill should not
• t/P' bt W0ldd prohibit every employer and every employee who works more than
eight hours per day from sharing in Government business.
. .,(2); bt ™uld be otterIy impracticable for any establishment to work one portion
its stair eight hours a day on Government orders and the rest of its staff ten hours
a hay. on orders for private parties and private corporations.
(.3). As a natural consequence competition for Government orders would be less
a^a higher8 figure^ g° ^ W°rk W°uld h&Ve to be paid for b^ the Government
llol ,(4)' .Tt ??uld pIace a discount on ambition. The inherent right of the individ-
nied him1"6 ab°VG the level °f his fellow by €xtra work or effort would be de-
(5) . Once we have fully recovered from the present industrial depression there
T11! b€ 3 Sh^age °f help’ A eduction in the hours of labour would mean that
this shortage would be tremendously accentuated.
(6) . A shorter working day would mean an increased cost of production, which in
turn would mean a material advance in the price charged the jobber, the retailer and
the consumer, and consequently a general increase in the cost of living.
A t u ?6 sborter kPurs. of labour in town and city workshops have proved a won-
derfully strong attraction m influencing men to leave the farm. If these hours are
now reduced to eight per day hired help for the farm will be more difficult than ever
to secure and retain. As business men you will appreciate the importance of block-
lng a move that would only embarrass the farmer.
„ . Organized labour which is said to represent only eight per cent of the labour
vote should not be allowed to impose conditions which would hamper the development
of Canadian industry.
As no time is to be lost you are earnestly requested to take action in the matter
wffh the least possible delay. Yours faithfully,
'■ 0-™0EN’ G. M. MURRAY,
Chairman. o ,
O 6CVetQ/i'V
P.S.— Have your reply in not later than the 21st inst
1 — 27 J
420
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
EXHIBIT ‘ H’ (1).
Fair Wages Resolution.
Mr. Mulock. — That it be resolved, that all Government contracts should contain
such conditions as will prevent abuses, which may arise from the sub -letting of such
contracts, and that every effort should be made to secure the payment of such wages
as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen m the dis-
trict where the work is carried out, and that this House cordially concurs, in such
policy, and deems it the duty of the Government to take immediate steps to give effect
thereto. .
It is hereby declared that the work to which the foregoing policy shall apply in-
cludes not only work undertaken by the Government itself, but also all works aided
by grant of Dominion public funds.
EXHIBIT ‘H’ (2).
Copy of Order in Council of the Dominion Government respecting payment of Fai)
Wages and Posting of Schedules on Public Works , approved by His Excellency
the Governor General , at the Government House at Ottawa , the 80th day of
August, 1907.
The Governor General in Council to more effectively further the purpose of the
Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons, of Canada, of March 1900, which
reads as follows: .
“ That it is resolved that all Government contracts should contain such condi-
“ tions as will prevent abuses, which may arise from the sub-letting of such contracts,
“ and that every effort should be made to secure the payment of such wages as are
“generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen in the. district
“ where the work is carried out, and this House cordially concurs in such policy, an^
“ deems it the duty of the Government to take immediate steps to give effect thereto.
“ It is hereby declared that the work to which the foregoing policy shall apply, m-
<e eludes not only work undertaken by the Government itself, but also all works aided
“ by grant of Dominion public funds,” —
is pleased to Order and it is hereby ordered that hereinafter all Government contracts
to which the said Resolution applies shall contain the following clauses.
1. Contractors shall post in a conspicuous place on the public works under con-
struction, the Schedule of wages inserted in their contracts for the protection of the
workmen employed. _ .
2. Contractors shall keep a record of payments made to workmen in their em-
ploy, the books or documents containing such record shall be open for inspection by
the Fair Wages Officers of the Government at any time it may be expedient to the
Minister of Labour to have the same inspected.
(Signed) RODOLPHE BOUDREAU,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
APPENDIX No. 4
421
EXHIBIT ‘H’ (3).
FAIR WAGES.
General Clause.
All mechanics, labourers or other persons who perform labour in the construction
of the work hereby contracted for, shall be paid such wages as are generally accepted
as current for competent workmen in the district in which the work is being perform-
ed and if there is no current rate in such district, then a fair and reasonable rate,
and shall not be required to work for longer hours than those fixed by the custom of
ie rade m the district where the work is carried on, except for the protection of life
or property or in the case of other emergencies. In the event of a dispute arising as
to what is the current or a fair and reasonable rate of wages or what are the current
hours fixed by the custom of the trade it shall be determined by the Minister of La-
bour, whose decision shall be final.
These conditions shall extend and apply to moneys payable for the use or hire
of horses or teams, and the persons entitled to payment for the use or hire of horses
or teams shall have the like right in respect of moneys owing to them as if such
moneys were payable to them in respect of wages.
In the event of default being made in payment of any money owing in respect of
wages or any mechanic, labourer or other person employed on the said work and if
a claim therefor is filed in the office of the Minister , and proof
thereof satisfactory to the Minister is furnished, the Minister may pay such claim
out of any moneys at any time payable by His Majesty under such contract and the
amounts so paid be deemed payments to the Company.
The Company shall post in a conspicuous place on the works under construction
the general clause above mentioned for the protection of the workmen employed.
The Company shall keep a record of payments made to workmen in its employ,
the books or documents containing such record shall be open for inspection by the
Fair Wages Officers of the Government at any time it may be expedient to the Minis-
ter of Labour to have the same inspected.
9-10 EDWARD VII.
APPENDIX No. 4
A. 1910
PART II.
COMPRISING
(1.) Copy of Circular Letter.
(2.) Communications Received.
(3.) Index to Communications Received.
(4.) Index to Minutes of Proceedings.
9-10 EDWARD VII. '
APPENDIX No. 4
A. 1910
PART II.
COMMUNICATIONS.
Page.
Copy of Circular-letter 427
Communications received from: —
Boards of Trade 407
Dominion Grange 444
Farmers’ Institute and Breeders’ Associations 446
Manufacturers 457
Marine 602
Trades and Labour Councils and Unions 601
Transportation 691
Special 692
Index to communications received 695
Index to Minutes of Proceedings 719
425
%
9-10 EDWARD VII.
APPENDIX No. 4
A. 1910
House of Commons, Canada,
Committee Room,
Thursday, December 27, 1910.
SlR~Be^ore recommending to Parliament the passing of any legislation affecting
the hours of labour m this country, the Special Committee of the House of Commons
to whom was referred Bill No; 21, An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
Works, are desirous of obtaining all the information possible on the question and of
hearing the views of all parties interested in the matter.
Por this purpose, copies of the Bill are sent you herewith, and I beg to inform
you that the committee will be pleased to have the views of your associations, given
either verbally m evidence by some of your officers or by written communication
addressed to the clerk of the committee.
An early acknowledgment of this letter will be appreciated.
. The committee will meet again on Friday, January 21, 1910; but for the hear-
ing of verbal evidence a later date will be fixed, of which notice will be given if
you so desire.
Your obedient servant,
V. CLOUTI1IER,
Clerk of the Committee.
(15)
BOARDS OF TRADE.
Alberton and West Prince Board of Trade.
Alberton, P.E.I., January 13, 1910.
Hy Dear Sir,— Inclosed you will find the copy of a resolution passed unanimously
after discussion at the annual meeting of our board. We all think down here that a
man should work ten hours per day and consider that any further reduction on time
would be encroaching on the rights of employers.
Yours truly,
JAMES E. BIRCH,
Secretary.
Copy of Resolution passed by the Alberton and West Prince Board of Trade, at th r
Annual Meeting on Wednesday, January 12, 1910.
Resolved, That in the opinion of this Board of Trade, ten hours a day should
constitute a day’s work on government contracts.
I hereby certify the above is a true copy of the resolution passed.
Alberton, P.E.I.,
January 13, 1910.
JAMES E. BIRCH.
Secretary
427
428
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(20>
Annapolis Board of Trade.
Annapolis Royal, N.S., January 18, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I am inclosing in reply to your letter of Monday, December 27, i
report of the committee of this Board of Trade, and trust it will reach you for your
meeting on Friday, January 21.
Allow me to add another matter that strikes me forcibly and that is in the pro-
vince of Nova Scotia in the diversified work of the province, a very large number
of old men are employed and the government will find this to be the case in a great
many of the public works. These men are able to do ten hours work per day and do
it well, but if the hours of labour were reduced to eight, there is no doubt a speeding
up process would take place and all workmen that were a little slow or unable through
age to keep up with the younger men would be forced to stand one side. This woidd
also apply to work in general, and while employers at the present time are willing to
accept the services of older men who can do good work during ten hours a day they
would be forced to discontinue the employment of older men if the hours were cur-
tailed to eight a day. I am writing this from personal experience.
F. C. WHITMAN,
Secretary.
As a committee appointed, on the 3rd January, 1910, by the Annapolis Koyal
Board of Trade, to answer the inquiry of our Federal Government re eight -hour
labour day on government works; we beg respectfully to state:- — -
That we do not propose to discuss the abstract and abstruse question concerning
labour and adequate remuneration. It has not yet been determined what percentage
capital should consider sufficient ‘ living ’ profit from the hands and brains of the
brotherhood of man, which, for 2.000 years has suffered manifold wrongs at the hands
of greedy employers.
The ‘ government ’ is merely regarded as an executive appointed by the people to
discharge necessary duties for the state, he., the people. As the public and temporary
agents of the populace, the government should exact full value for the people’s money.
Why should individuals be expected to work shorter time for the people collectively
regarded, than for one of the same multitude? Shorter hours for workmen merely
because they are labourers for the state logically implies either that its labour is
especially superior, and therefore worthy of greater remuneration; or that the private
corporation, or individual was too poor or too niggardly to give suitable reward for
similar service. Surely the proposed legislation would create a favoured class. Any
such concessions on public works would evidently make it more difficult to obtain
labourers, or cheerful service during longer hours. Any marked advantage accorded
to the mere employee of the government would lead organized brotherhoods of labour
to imperatively demand, and obtain like concessions for all employees under similar
conditions. The government should not, therefore, play into the hands of labour
organizations unless it can be shown that workmen are generally being inconsiderately
treated. Upon this momentous question — the treatment accorded the labourer — -we
are not competent to advise. Hereabouts, however, labour has never received more
willing recognition, nor has the condition of the day labourer and his family been
more satisfactory than at present. No complaints reach our ears against over-reach-
ing or oppression.
As a concrete and simple question affecting this town and its vicinity, we have
taken some pains to obtain the opinions of credible persons, competent to decide
upon the possibilities of advantageously continuing their various businesses upon the
platform of an eight-hour day with the wages now paid for ‘ a fair day’s work.’ The
Annapolis Royal Agricultural Society most unceremoniously turned down the propo-
sition, as quite unsuitable for a calling requiring perhaps longer hours than are
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
429
APPENDIX No. 4
acceptable, but yet demanded, to receive adequate profits in the face of variable
harvests and fluctuating markets.
J?he Lumbermen s Association state emphatically that it would be impossible to
secure in 8 hours the same yield of lumber, since no saw can be ‘ speeded up ’ to do
20 per cent better. The work and output of the country would, therefore, be dimin-
ished. The profits arising from this business owing to increased cost of labour and
outfits, and care of forests, do not warrant a reduction of the hours of labour, with-
out a corresponding lessening of the day’s wage. This latter proposition the work-
men would not tolerate. We assume that the wage for an 1 eight-hour day’ is to equal
that received. «
The employers of labour in the Annapolis Larrigan factory, A. D. Mills & Sons,
lumbermen and shippers; Buckler Brickyard, the C. Robin Collas Co., Ltd., fish
dryers; the F. W. Pickels Co., ship builders; J. F. Beeler, factory; Clias. Dargie &
Son, furniture factory, and several owners of stationary and portable mills, with one
consent affirm that they are paying all the wages these several industries can allow;
and that their rates are equal to those received elsewhere for like services. They
strongly resent any such change as that proposed. They consider that any such
legislation as that referred to for special works would ere long be extended, through
the growing influence both foreign and domestic of brotherhoods of labour, to these
and all industries in general.
It is contended that the adoption of the 8 hour unit of labour would be the thin
edge of a wedge which would lead in these parts as elsewhere to unpleasant results.
The cost of living, through the disturbance of labour conditions, would be materially
increased for all classes. Canada ought not to be made a more expensive land in
which to live.
The movement for an eight-hour day is, therefore, considered premature. It is
feared that the same period would soon be demanded for all manual labour. Another
generation may be able to further lessen the time now demanded and given in these
parts as ‘ a day’s work.’
You will move if necessary. Move slowly when necessary. See that justice
obtains among all classes; but leave ‘well enough’ alone.
Committee: II. IIow, T. Dwight Ruggles, J. M. Owen, H. R. McKay and F.
C. Whitman.
(Signed) II. HOW,
Annapolis Royal Board of Trade, ‘Chairman.
January, 18, 1910.
(19)
Belleville Board of Trade.
Belleville, January 18, 1910.
Dear Sir, — At a meeting of the council of the Belleville Board of Trade, your
letter of December 27, with copy of Bill No. 21, An Act respecting the Hours of
Labour on Public Works, was discussed.
The following resolution was passed : —
1 That it is the opinion of the council of the Belleville Board of Trade that such
an Act is deemed ill-advised.
‘ That it does not seem practicable at this time of the development of Canada.
‘ That it is too far-reaching in its provisions.
‘ That it would surely interfere with trade and commerce.
‘ That the said Bill be not enacted.’
Yours respectfully,
F. S. DEACON,
Secretary.
430
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(31)
(Translation.)
Chamber of Commerce of the Saguenay District.
Chicoutimi, January 28, 1910.
My Dear Sir, — Here inclosed please find a copy of the resolutions relating to the
Yerville Bill, respecting the Hours of Labour or the Eight-hour Day on Public Works,
which were adopted by the Chamber of Commerce of the Saguenay district, at its
regular meeting, which took place in Chicoutimi, early this month.
Your devoted servant,
J. H. PALARDY,
Asst. Sec. of the Chamber of Commerce.
(Translation.)
A Bill respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, was laid before the
meeting for discussion. Doctor Palardy explained that he had received a copy of
this Bill from the secretary of the Special Committee of the House of Commons
asking our Chamber of Commerce to give its opinion before January 21, the day on
which the Bill was to come up for discussion before that committee.
After discussing the matter at some length, it was unanimously resolved by the
Chamber, fbat is disapproves of the adoption of this Bill as opposed to the best
interests of the country and of the workingmen themselves whose right to work
would be jeopardized should that Bill become law.
Our Chamber admits that the government has the right and is bound to regulate
the hours of labour in certain industries, and among others, child labour and the labour
of women, as also in those industries in which labour is of a difficult and dangerous
nature, such as in metallurgic works and mines; but this chamber objects to such
legislation being made applicable to all workingmen employed on government con-
struction works, and providing that no labourer or workman so employed shall be
permitted or required to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day under
penalty of losing the fruit of his labour, should he work ten hours.
This Chamber authorizes its secretary to write to the special committee of the
House of Commons to inform the members of that committee that this Chamber is
of opinion that the Bill, intituled : ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on
Public Works,’ shall be rejected.
(16)
Edmonton Board of Trade.
Edmonton, Alta., January 14, 1910.
Sir, — With further reference to your letter of the 27th ultimo, relative to an Act
respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, I beg to advise that your com-
munication was brought before the monthly meeting of the board, held on Tuesday,
last, and was ordered to be filed.
Yours truly,
A. G. HARRISON,
Secretary.
'(ID
Fort William Board of Trade.
Fort William, Ont., January 14, 1910.
Sir, — He Bill 21, An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works,
following my communication of the 3rd instant, I beg to advise you that at a meet-
ing of this Board of Trade, held 13th instant, it was moved and unanimously carried,
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
431
APPENDIX No. 4
That, in the opinion of this Board of Trade, it would not be in the best interests
either of the workmen or the country to fix an arbitrary number of hours for day
labour.’
'(13)
Tours very truly,
HERBERT W. BARER,
Secretary.
Halifax, N.S., Board of Trade.
Halifax, N.S., January 15, 1910.
Sir, I have your letter of December 27, regarding Bill No. 21, intituled: ‘An
Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works,’ requiring labourers, workmen
or mechanics to work eight hours only each working day on every contract to which
the government is a party.
We have had several meetings regarding this Bill, and have interviewed numerous
persons, and the general opinion is that the Bill should be more specific in its word-
ing, as in its present wording it could be made too far-reaching. If the Act were
made to apply to such work as excavations or work of that nature required by the
government, I do not think there would be any objection to the Bill as far as this
Board is concerned, but if the Act applied to supplies ordered by the government
under contract, there would be a very great objection on the part of the members of
this board and the citizens generally.
Without going further into details I think I have given sufficient data for you
to understand our positions as regards the Bill, and thanking your committee for the
opportunity of being able to express our views.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
E. A. SAUNDERS,
Secretary.
(25)
Hamilton Board of Trade.
Hamilton, Ont., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee, Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir, The Hamilton Board of Trade were duly in receipt of a communi-
cation, dated the 27th of December, from V. Clouthier, clerk of the committee, with
reference to the legislation affecting the hours of labour in the country, informing
us that the committee would like to have the views of our Board concerning this
proposed Act.
The matter was brought up in the council and referred to a special committee,
and this committee has given the Bill very special attention and have reported that
the board use every endeavour to have such legislation stopped.
Therefore, on behalf of the Hamilton Board of Trade, we protest against such
an iniquitous Bill being enacted. We would submit a few of the particular reasons
why this Bill should not he passed: —
1st. It would prohibit every employer and every employee who works more than
eight hours per day from sharing in government business.
2nd. It would not be possible for any manufacturing establishment to work one
portion of its working staff eight hours per day on government orders, and the rest
of the staff ten hours a day on orders for private parties and private corporations.
432
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
3rd. As a consequence competition for government orders would be less keen and
all work would have to be paid for by the government at a higher figure.
4th. Shorter working days would mean increased cost of production and in turn
would mean an advance in prices charged the jobber, retailer and consumer and con-
sequently a general increase in the cost of living.
5th. As it is now, the shorter hours in town and city work shops prove a strong
attraction in influencing the men to leave the farming districts. If hours were
reduced in the towns and cities it would have an effect of making it harder for the
farmers to retain help and secure them.
We have consulted with several large manufacturing establishments who do
government business in this city, and it is the consensus of opinion that if such a
Bill was enacted they could not do any government work. Furthermore, some estab-
lishments who have government contracts in hand would be compelled to ask the
government to relieve them of the same.
We do not think it necessary for us to enlarge on this any further, and we
sincerely trust that the committee will report on this Bill adversely.
Yours truly,
W. B. CHAMP,
President.
CHAS. LUFF,
Secretary.
(17)
Kingston Board of Trade.
Kingston, January 17, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Re Bill No. 21. This Bill is practically the same Bill that was intro-
duced last session and in connection with which our Board passed the following
resolution on March, 9, 1909 : —
* That this Board of Trade having considered Bill No. 21, respecting the Hours
of Labour on Public Works, introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Verville,
is of the opinion that the legislation proposed should not be enacted, this Board not
being in accord with the principle of the Bill, believing that no restriction should be
placed upon the freedom of contract between employer and employee with relation to
the hours of labour.’ — Carried.
At Friday night’s meeting a resolution was passed confirming this resolution.
Yours respectfully,
E. J. REID,
Secretary.
(12)
London, Ont., Board of Trade.
London, Ont., January 15, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Re Bill No. 21, ‘An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
Works.’ Replying to your printed communication of the 27th ult., inclosing copy of
this Bill, I would say that at a meeting of the council of this Board held yesterday,
I was instructed to write an advise you that this Board is strongly opposed to said
Bill.
Yours truly.
J. A. MILLER,
Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE RILL Xo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
APPENDIX No. 4
(14)
Montreal Board of Trade.
q . Montreal, Que., January 15, 1910.
ill":*- ;he T% of thi?
Labour on Public Works,- with the Jesuit Vat it i reSpeot,.n8 thl H»"rs
opposition offered by the coupei, to aiS^iSatn m
out most Zn, ”PPOSed to this legislation because it would *nt
unnecessary and^ZZZbleZterZZeTZtZen^inpIoiZ an^ZployeZai'id trotdd
■zxzrssL*' working ho"rs »f «— «• -
The council trusts that for these ‘reasons your committee will reject this Bill.
I am, sir.
Your obedient servant,
GEO. IIADRILL,
Secretary.
(37)
The Chamber of Commerce of the District of Montreal.
(Translation.)
Montreal, January 17, 1910.
The Hon. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
Honourable Sm-Herewith please find a copy of the report of the joint com-
mittee on legislation and manufacturing industries, adopted by our Chamber at its
rSifworkf mStant’ in rekti0n t0 BiH N°' 21’ respectin^ the Hours labour
Believe me, hon. sir,
Your most devoted servant,
F. BOURBONNIERE,
Secretary.
(Translation.)
The Chamber of Commerce of the District of Montreal.
Bill No. 21, respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Worles.— Report of the Joifnl
Committee on Legislation and Manufacturing Industries.
The committee met on Monday, January 10, 1910, under the presidency of the
lion. Alphonse Desjardins.
Present Messrs. Isaie Prefontaine, Gaspard DeSerres, Joseph Fortier O. S.
Perrault and E. Bourbonniere, secretary.
Your committee, after having taken communication of the Bill, are of the opinion
that the principle upon which it is based is unacceptable, as it would interfere with
c?vil rights as to contracts and labour.
A true copy,
F. Bourbonniere,
Secretary.
ALP. DESJARDINS,
President.
4—28
434
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(37a)
(Reply.)
(Translation.)
Ottawa, January 19, 1910.
Sir, — I am in receipt of your letter of the 17th instant, inclosing copy of a report
of the joint committees on legislation and manufacturing industries of the Chamber
of Commerce, district of Montreal, in reference to Bill 21, respecting the Hours of
Labour, allow me to assure you that that report will be, on the part of the depart-^
ment, the object of the most serious consideration.
I remain with consideration,
W. L. MACKENZIE KING,
Mr. E. Bourbonniere, Minister of Labour.
Sec. Chamber of Commerce,
District of Montreal,
Montreal, P.Q.
(29)
Moosejaw Board of Trade.
Moose jaw, Sask., January 21, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In reply to your communication of the 27th ulto., re Bill 21, I have
the honour to advise you that at a meeting of the Moosejaw Board of Trade, held on
January 20, 1910, the following resolution was passed: ‘That this Board does not
favour Bill No. 21, respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.’ It should not
apply in the West owing to the scarcity of labour.’
Yours truly,
HUGH McKELLAR,
Commissioner.
(281
Neepawa Board of Trade.
Neepawa, Man., January 19, 1910.
Dear Sir, — At a regular meeting of the Neepawa Board of Trade held on Tues-
day evening, 18th instant, the following resolution was unanimously passed: —
‘ Resolved, That in the opinion of this Board meeting, in view of the scarcity of
labour in different parts of the Dominion of Canada, the proposed Act, being Bill
No. 21, entitled an Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, is not in
the best interests of this country.’
Yours truly,
M. H. EIELDHOUSE,
Secy.-Treas.
(84)
North Bay Board of Trade.
North Bay, Ont., Eebruary 10, 1910.
Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — Extract of Bill 21 has been submitted to this Board for consideration,
and a communication from the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, dated January
13, has been received referring to the same subject.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
435
APPENDIX No. 4
It is the unanimous desire of this Board that Bill known as Bill 21 should be
changed to read nine, instead of eight hours. ’
(22)
Yours truly,
D. J. McKEOWN,
Secretary.
Orillia, Ont., Board of Trade.
Orillia, Ont., January 19, 1910.
EA« blR'~ deferring to your communication regarding Bill 21, in respect to the
Compulsory Eight-Hour -Day Bill/ I beg to inform you that our Board at ateeting
last evening were decidedly opposed to any such measure, as they are of the opinion
that this would not be beneficial to the industrial portion of the country at large
questTo°nmg ^ COmmittee wil1 see fit to Pass Averse judgment on this
(8)
I remain, yours truly,
O. GARNET SMITH,
Secretary.
Owen Sound Board of Trade.
* Owen Sound, Ont., January 12, 1910.
Dear Sir,— I am instructed by our Board of Trade to forward the followin'*
resolution passed at our last regular meeting: —
‘ T^at’ .the °Pin‘on of this Board of Trade, this country is not yet ready to
pass a Bill fixing the hours of labour on government contracts at eight hours and
that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Premier and our member of parlia-
ment, W. S. Middlebro. v
Yours truly,
J. R. BROWN,
Secretary.
(33)
Quebec Board of Trade.
The Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
Quebec, February 5, 1910.
. Sir,— The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, through their representative
m parliament, have been endeavouring for three or four years past, to force on
Canadian contractors, manufacturers, employers and workmen the adoption of an
eight-hour day. Their president, Mr. Alphonse Verville, M.P., again has his Bill
before the House.
While it will be noticed that the Bill refers only to government contracts, it need
scarcely be pointed out that if enacted, it would prove but the thin end of the wedge
Workingmen engaged on other classes of contracts would, at the instigation of
organized labour, soon be clamouring for the same treatment. Indeed, it may he
assumed that this legislation would be followed later by a Bill making eight hours
compulsory everywhere.
We respectfully submit that this Bill should have the active opposition of the
federal authorities, for the following reasons: —
L II passed, it would prohibit every employer and every employee who works
more than eight hours per day from sharing in government business.
4 — 28£
436
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
2. It would place a discount on ambition. The inherent right of the individual
to raise himself above the level of his fellows by extra work or effort, would be
denied him. . , ... • ,, -n
3. Once we have fully recovered from the present industrial depression, there wil
again be a shortage of help. A reduction in the hours of labour would mean that
this shortage would be tremendously accentuated. . . .
4. A shorter working day would mean an increased cost of production, which in
turn would mean a material advance in the price charged the jobber, the retailer and
the consumer, and consequently, a general increase in the cost of living.
5. The shorter hours of labour in town and city work have proved a wonderfully
strong attraction in influencing men to leave the farm. If those hours are now
reduced to eight per day, hired help for the farm will be more difficult than ever to
secure and retain. As business men you wi’l appreciate the importance of b ockmg
a move that would only embarrass the farmer.
6 Organized labour, which is said to represent only eight per cent of the labour
vote, should not be allowed to impose conditions which would hamper the development
pf Canadian industry. _ . , t ,, -p.,.
We are counting On your co-operation in bringing about the defeat ot the -Kill.
Your most obedient servant,
T. LEYASSEUE,
Secretary.
Regina Board of Trade.
Regina, Sask., January 18, 1910.
Dear Sir— Re Bill 21, ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
Works.’ This matter was taken up at a regular monthly meeting of the Regma
Board of Trade on Thursday, January 6, and the following resolution was passed:—
< That in view of conditions prevailing in the West it would not be to the best
interest either of labour or the employers of labour to limit the hours of work on
government contracts.’
Your very truly,
H. C. LAWSON,
Secretary.
(36)
Sackville Board of Trade.
Sackville, N.B., February 19, 1910.
Hon, W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir— At a meeting of the Sackville Board of Trade recently held, the
following resolution was unanimously passed. %
‘ Whereas The granting of an eight-hour day with ten hours public pay on public
works would doubtless soon be followed by a demand for an eight-hour day for all
labour, and . . , . ,,
Whereas, A large proportion of the country’s population is agricultural and witn
the necessarily broken time in farm work, and the stress of special seasons, such an
eight-hour day would be disastrous, and
£ Whereas, The keenness of foreign competition make cheap production a prime
factor in maintaining our place in the world’s markets, and
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
437
APPENDIX No. 4
Whereas, If an eight-hour day should lead to a decrease in labour power it
would be followed by such a loss of foreign markets as would react disastrously upon
the demand for labour, and
Wheieas, The placing of public works in a special class would, by expecting a
lower return for the expenditure of public money than private, tend to give govern-
ment sanction to the prevalent disregard of the sacredness of public trusts.
Therefore resolved, (1) That, in the opinion of this Board, public works should
not be treated differently, so far as economy and thrift in their construction are
concerned from private enterprises.
(2) This board earnestly petitions your honourable committee to report against
an Act so detrimental to the public weal.
Y ours very truly,
IAS. H. WILLIAMS,
Secretary.
(24)
St. John Board of Trade.
St. John, N.B., January 20, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In accordance with your request of 27th ult., that our Board should
consider Bill USTo. 21, respecting the shortening of day labour on public works, a com-
mittee was appointed to investigate the matter.
This committee has reported adversely to the principle involved in the Bill, and
the council of the board have unanimously adopted the report and now urge that the
Bill be not enacted, chiefly on the ground of the inevitable trouble that would arise
as between the hours of labour and the standard recognized as necessary by the manu-
facturer of this country. The extra cost of production, that must necessarily follow,
we believe to be most undesirable in the development of our young growing country,
and we deprecate the undoubtedly detrimental effect on the agricultural development
of this province by reason of the greater attraction of shorter hours of labour in the
large cities.
We, therefore, earnestly pray that your committee will use every effort to prevent
the passage of the Bill.
Tours respectfully,
W. E. ANDERSOK
(32^
Sherbrooke Board of Trade.
Sherbrooke, January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie Xing,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — Re Bill Ho. 21, the Sherbrooke Board of Trade wishes to go on record
as being entirely opposed to this compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill.
We do not think it is practicable. A large majority of skilled labour, which is
none to plentiful, is paid by the hour and they do not want it. It would hinder
Canadians in competition with foreign markets; it would naturally mean an increased
cost of production and should the Bill pass, it would certainly work against manu-
facturers tendering for government contracts.
We trust this Bill will never be brought to a vote.
Yours truly,
C. 0. PALMER,
Secretary-Treasurer.
438
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
(94
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Strathcona Board of Trade.
Strathcona, Alta, January 11, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Yours of December 27 re an Act respecting the Hours of Labour, was
discussed at the regular meeting of this board, and I have been instructed to notify
you that this Board is not in sympathy with the Act.
Yours truly,
EDMUND T. BAINES,
Secretary.
(21)
Toronto Board of Trade.
Toronto, January 19, 1910.
Dear Sir, — As requested in your letter of December 27, I beg to inclose here-
with, memorandum of objections that this Board takes to Bill No. 21, ‘ An Act respect-
ing the Hours of Labour on Public Works.’
Yours faithfully,
F. G. MORLEY,
Secretary.
Objections taken to Bill No. 21, ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
Works,’ by the Board of Trade of the City of Toronto.
The introduction of an eight -hour clause in government contracts, such as is
proposed in Bill No. 21:
Would practically prohibit every employer and employee who works more than
eight hours per day, from sharing in government business. Eight-hour conditions on
government supplies in shops operated regularly for 9 or 10 hours per day, would he
an unworkable as well as an unprofitable restriction.
We disapprove of this initial movement for an eight -hour working day as —
A shorter working day would mean increased cost of production, followed by a
material advance in prices charged the jobber, retailer and consumer, consequently a
general advance in cost of living for all classes.
A shorter working day would materially augment the difficulties existing from
scarcity or shortage of skilled labour.
A shorter working day would still further enhance the attractiveness of urban
versus rural conditions of life, and so render it still more difficult for the agricul-
turalist to obtain the help that, in Canada, is absolutely necessary for this great
fundamental industry.
A shorter working day would make it more difficult than ever for Canadian
traders and manufacturers to successfully meet competition with Great Britain, the
United States and other foreign countries.
F. G. MORLEY,
Secretary.
(35)
Victoria Board of Trade.
Victoria, B.C., February 11, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your letter of December 27 was duly received and referred to this
Board’s committee on trade and commerce, who yesterday submitted a report, as per
accompanying copy.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
439
APPENDIX No. 4
You will observe that the committee consider Bill No. 21, ‘ unwise and against
the best interests of the country. At yesterday’s meeting the board unanimously
adopted the report and instructed that you be so advised.
Yours faithfully,
F. ELWORTHY,
Secretary.
(35a)
Victoria, B.C., February 8, 1910.
The President and Members,
Victoria, British Columbia, Board of Trade.
Gentlemen, Your committee on trade and commerce beg to report having con-
sidered Bill No. 21, regulating the hours of labour in government contracts.
Your committee consider this Bill unwise and against the best interests of the
country, and would point out, that when a similar Bill was considered by this Board
in March, 1907, it was unanimously resolved: ‘ That the questions of hours of labour
should be left to the employer and employee to arrange, and that such questions
should not be settled by legislative enactment.’
t Your committee fully approve that resolution, feeling that Bill No. 21 would pro-
hibit any person sharing in a government contract who works more than eight hours
in one day; and further, in our opinion the government has no right to interfere with
the liberty of the individual who desires to work a greater or lesser number of hours.
Respectfully submitted.
(23)
Walkerville Board of Trade.
Walkerville, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Dear Sir, At a meeting of our Board of Trade to-day, by an unanimous vote,
.the secretary was instructed to write you, stating that the sense of the meeting was
unanimously opposed to the passing of this Bill, as under the present conditions it
would exclude all of our Walkerville manufacturers from participating in any govern-
ment work, owing to the fact that every factory in town, at the present time is run-
ning on either a nine or ten-hour schedule and the changing of this schedule for
government work would entail a greater loss to us than the profit derived from the
work.
Taking this situation into account, it would be very detrimental to the interests
of the manufacturers of this place, who are manufacturing goods for all customers,
to try to make up any goods for government work on the eight-hour schedule and
would be of no benefit to the labourers and mechanics of the town, whom we presume
are the class of people which are intended to be benefited by the passing of such
measures.
Hoping this objection will receive due consideration, we are,
Yours very truly,
J. W. COATSWORTH,
Sec.-Treas.,
(26)
Walkerville, Ont., January 19, 1910
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — We have before us from your secretary, copy of Bill No. 21, ‘An Act
respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works,’ and by an unanimous vote of our
Board to-day the secretary was instructed to send our protest in objecting to the pass-
ing of this Bill.
440
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Under the conditions existing at the present time in our town, it would, if the
Bill came into force, exclude all of our manufacturers from participating in any
government work, as they are all working on a nine or ten-hour schedule.
If government work were secured by any of them it would mean that all the time
this work was being done, the factory would require to run eight hours only, for
instance in the factory with which the writer is connected, there are twelve special
machines making twelve different styles of goods, but all of the same class. The
government work requirements would be made up on one machine providing a contract
were secured, but it would necessitate the closing down of all the other machines,
owing to the fact that a large part of the day labour is distributed amongst the
several machines. The operator would be working piece work but we could not run
the balance of the factory and comply with the eight-hour stipulation on part of it.
This would greatly reduce our output and materially increase the cost of production
and would be of no benefit whatever, but rather a hindrance to the welfare of the
labourers and mechanics employed by us. In fact it would be to our interest to avoid
taking any government contracts if we were not free in making them up, as we our-
selves judge what is best in the interests of all concerned. We find that this is the
opinion of all the manufacturers connected with our hoard.
Hoping this protest will receive due consideration, we are,
Yours truly,
J. W. COATSWORTH.
Secy.-Treas.
(18)
Welland Board of Trade.
Welland, Ont., January 17, 1910.
Dear Sir, — c Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works,’ At a meet-
ing of the Welland Board of Trade, held on the 13th instant, it was the unanimous
opinion that the above Bill if carried into execution, would be most injurious to
Canada at large, both in the interests of labour and of the manufacturer, and the
undersigned committee was requested to reply to your communication of December
27, 1909.
Owing to the nine and ten-hour day systems being in vogue in competitive coun-
tries, it is absolutely essential that we in Canada should get an equal product per day
in order to compete successfully. If, therefore, any factory took a contract or sub-
contract for government work and it was necessary to comply with the eight-hour law,
it would at once cause dissatisfaction among those employees working nine or ten hours.
The result naturally would be, that rather than upset the whole faefory organization,
it would be much better not to accept any government work directly, or indirectly.
Feeling that your honourable body will deal with this Bill in a fair and impartia1
manner,
, Yours very truly,
J. GILB. GARDINER,
Chairman of Committee
(3)
Windsor Board of Trade.
Windsor, N.S., January 5, 1910.
Sir, — We are in receipt of your communication, dated December 27, re hours of
labour on government works and desire to express our strong and unanimous opposi-
tion to such an Act becoming law.
COMMITTEE IIE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
441
APPENDIX No. 4
Were an eight-hour day compulsory in government contracts it would not ston
there, but it would soon extend to all contracts, and in our opinion neither the indus-
trial nor commercial community in Nova Scotia can afford to restrict the hours of
labour, as our severe winters and springs do that very thoroughly now.
Your obedient servant,
J. A. RUSSELL,
President.
(30)
WALTER E. REGAN,
Secretary.
Windsor, N.S., January 25, 1910.
To the Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King.
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Sir— We respectfully beg to protest against the compulsory eight-hour day Bill
becoming law.
This board is unanimous in their objection to this Bill for the following
reasons : —
1. If an eight-hour day were the law for government work, it would mean the
same in a short time, for every other line of industry, and neither the commercial or
industrial interests of the country could afford that.
2. It would be ruinous to our farmers, they cannot afford such a short day, and
of course could not keep their help, who would naturally make for the towns and
cities— -they do that as it is far too much for their own good and the good of the
Dominion.
3. The climate of the Maritime provinces is such that it restricts the hours of
labour in most industries far too much for the good of the population without legal
restriction. Yours truly,
J. A. RUSSELL,
President.
WALTER E. REGAN,
Secretary.
(10)
Winnipeg Board of Trade.
Winnipeg, January 13, 1910.
Sir— I have the honour, by instruction, to acknowledge receipt of your circular
letter of December 27, 1909, with the inclosed copy of Bill No. 21, ‘ An Act respecting
the Hours of Labour on Public Works,’ and to inform you that a general meeting of
this board, having considered the said Bill now desire to register with your com-
mittee their complete and direct opposition to the specific terms of said Bill.
Yours truly,
C. N. BELL,
Secretary.
(461
DOMINION GRANGE.
Dominion Grange, Anihertsburg, Ont.
Amherstburg, January 28, 1910.
Dear Sir, I received the Bill which you sent me regarding this eight-hour labour
question, and brought the same before our members of the Grange at our meeting
yesterday, the 2/th instant. A resolution was passed unanimously disapproving of
442
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
any such Bill becoming law. Why. sir, look at the extra cost of building railways,
canals, &c., it would mean, and eventually would strike us on the farm, where we
often work twice eight hours per day. Why, sir, we as members banded together for
our own mutual protection and benefit, do think it the most ridiculous thing we ever
heard of.
We have 146 farmers in our Grange and every one bitterly opposed this thing in
the strongest terms possible. Now, sir, I hope this will be satisfactory and that such
a scheme will be crushed flat.
Tours truly,
THOMAS A. DOWLER,
i Secretary.
(44)
Dominion Grange, Braemar, Ont.
Braemer, Ont., January 24, 1910.
Dear Sir,- -Your favour inclosing a copy of Bill No. 21, came duly to hand and
was submitted to our local Grange and a resolution was passed, which I am inclosing.
I remain, yours respectfully,
WM. D. McKAY,
Secretary.
Braemar Grange, No. 961,
Braemar, Ont.
(44a)
Resolution.
Moved by Alex. Smith, seconded by A. G. McKay, and resolved, That we as mem-
bers of Braemar Grange, No. 961, view with great disfavour Bill 21, ‘ An Act respect-
ing the Hours of Labour on Bublic Works.’
1st. It will have a strong tendency to aggravate the labour problem on the farm ;
as the farmer cannot do all his work, on account of the short summer season, in less
than a ten or twelve-hour day; and the supply of hired help is becoming scarcer and
dearer yearly, and the average farmer finds it very difficult to earn a dividend on his
investment.
2nd. If government contracts are limited to an eight-hour day; soon all other
contracts will have to follow, and necessarily ail production will become scarce and
dear.
This resolution was carried unanimously.
WM. D. McKAY,
Secretary.
(47)
Dominion Grange, Camlachie, Ont.
Camlachie, Ont., January 28, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I have been instructed by the local Grange here to send you a copy
of the following resolution, which was passed at this meeting: —
That we, Epworth Grange, condemn the eight-hour day Bill, as we think it
would spread great discontent among farm labour in this country.
JOHN B. MASON,
Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
443
APPENDIX No. 4
(50)
Dominion Grange, Cedargrove, Ont.
Cedargrove, Ont., Grange 979, February 15, 1910.
Eight-Hour Day Bill Committee,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Resolution re Eight-Hour Day Bill.
, .. We’ the “embers of Cedargrove Grange 979, herein assembled, do hereby respect-
fully express our opinions m respect to the proposed legislation included in the pro-
visions of the Eight-Hour Day Bill now before the House of Commons.
In consideration of the fact that the products of Canadian farmers for 1909
amounted to over $500,000,000, thus proving the farmers to be the greatest wealth-
producing class in Canada, and that our large and constantly increasing revenue is
largely created by the efforts of the farmers who have to work ten or more hours daily
owmg to the short working season and the scarcity of labour, the latter condition
being to a great extent induced by the abnormal protection afforded the manufacturer
who is m this way able to outbid the farmer in the labour market.
Whereas, We consider it to be unfair that the contract labourer should receive
ten hours wages for eight hours work from the wealth which the farmer has to a
great extent created by working long hours without any adequate guarantee as to
what his pay shall be.
Whereas, This Bill, if passed, will establish a precedent and it will be only n
short time until every industry will be dominated by the provisions of this Bill, and
by becoming effective among the farm labourers of Canada, will surely lessen farm
production, and whatever tends to minimize the food output of Canadian farms, will
certainly increase the cost of living in our towns and cities, which has already reached
an alarming stage.
Whereas, This Bill by limiting the hours of labour on contract work will in this
way retard the development of our country.
Therefore, Be it resolved, that the members of this Grange, place themselves on
record, as being distinctly opposed to the provisions contained in this Bill, believing
it to be not in the best interests of the labourer in the city or the producer in the
country that this Bill should become law.
Signed on behalf of the Grange, by
F. W. RLLANCE,
m. McMillan,
Secretary of Committee.
(43)
Dominion Grange, Churchill, Ont.
Maple Villa, Churchill, P.O., January 22, 1910.
Dear Sir— We are in receipt of your esteemed favour with inclosure. Bill 21.
We hope this Bill will not become law, and that your committee will do all in their
power to oppose it. We consider ten hours a day’s work for a workingman and we
cannot do with any less on our farms. It it getting more difficult to get enough good
help on our Ontario farms owing to the opening up of our western territory, and if
this Bill passes it will make things worse. We think the farmers of this country
deserve some consideration.
I have the honour to be,
Your obedient servant,
D. W. LENNOX,
Secretary, Lake Simcoe Grange, J+5.
444
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(40)
Dominion Grange, Clarksburg, Ont.
Clarksburg, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I acknowledge receipt of Bill 21. and in reply I do not see any good
reason why parliament sh.onld want to make public works more costly than they are.
JBut can see how an eight-hour day on public works would adversely affect many
private businesses.
Yours truly,
WALTER HARTMAN.
Secretary.
(38)
Dominion Grange, Crown Hill, Ont.
Crown Hill, Ont., January 6, 1910.
Dear Sir, — While the legislative committee of the Grange has not been con-
sulted in the matter, and therefore I cannot speak with authority, I will say that my
personal opinion is that in the long run the proposed legislation may work to the dis-
advantage of the farmers of Canada. While the Bill does not effect any but govern-
ment works, its influence is sure to be far-reaching, and is certain to strengthen the
general demand for an eight -hour day for all classes of labour. As you are doubtless
aware, at certain seasons, and for certain kinds of work, it is impossible for the farmer
to shorten the day without suffering serious loss, and anything that will tend to
make the short day a general practice will almost certainly work for trouble between
agricultural labourers and their employers. Aside from this consideration, I can see
no serious objection.
Yours very sincerely,
E. C. DRURY.
Secretary.
(42)
Dominion Grange, Forest, Ont.
Forest, Ont., January 20, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your communications re Bill to regulate hours of labour has been
received and discussed by our society, resulting in the motion, { That the hours of
labour on government works remain as they are.’
Thanking you for communication, we are, on behalf of Forest Grange,
Yours sincerely,
ARTHUR E. VANCE,
Secretary.
(45)
Dominion Grange, Gamebridge, Ont.
Gamebridge, Ont., January 25, 1910.
Dear Sir,— I am requested by the Gamebridge Grange No. 974, to reply to your
communication of December 27, re the Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
Works, to the purpose, ‘ That the said Grange condemns the Bill, as it will have the
tendency to make the labour question of the farmer more difficult.’
Yours truly,
P. S. WARREN,
Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
445
APPENDIX No. 4
(39)
Dominion Grange, Glencoe, Ont.
Glencoe, January 17, 1910.
* ipUrS °fA?eCie“ber, 27’ 19°9’ t0 hand to*daY 1 may say on behalf of
Batte Hill Grange j. No. 188, that we are opposed to Bill No. 21, respecting Hours of
Labour on Public Works, because we consider that it will, if passed, tend to aggravate
the diiiiculty, already serious, of securing farm labour.
I am, yours truly,
H. M. WEEKS,
Secretary.
'(41)
Dominion Grange, Heathcote, Ont.
Heathcote, Ont., January 20, 1910.
Dear Sir,— Your communication, dated December 27, only reached me a few
days ago, and I have not had time to get opinions of many of our people on the sub-
ject to which you refer. It appears to me, however, the Bill as drafted would work
untold mischief to the farming interest. It is very difficult even now to get labourers
to work on the farm; and it would be certainly much more so if the hours of labour
w)ere shortened to eight hours on all government works, as every labourer would be
striving for the place of easy labour and short hours. It seems to me that the hours of
labour should be regulated according to the nature of the employment in which people
are engaged and that hard and fast rules should be laid down by law to govern it ;
as what might suit well in one instance, might not answer at all in another. What
is leasonable and just should be the law under all circumstances. I need not say
more, as I expect the farming interest will be looked after by the executive of the
Dominion Grange. Thanking you for your letter, I remain.
Yours sincerely,
GEORGE CLARK.
Secretary.
(49)
Dominion Grange, Oil Springs, Ont.
Oil Springs, Ont., January 28, 1910.
Dear Sir, Our Grange Association have been notified that a Bill respecting the
Hours of Labour on Public Works has- been brought before the House of Commons
for consideration, and that they are desirous of having our views on the subject. The
copy of this Act received from you was brought before our association for consider-
ation, and after being discussed, we thought it unwise to have the Bill passed and
made law. The Grange Association then decided that we inform you of the same and
I herewith send you our views regarding the said Act.
Your humble servant.
W. M. GOSNELL.
Secretary.
(51)
Dominion Grange, Willow Grove, Ont.
Willow Grove Grange, February 15, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In reply to your communication re the eight-hour day Bill, I beg to
say it was too late for our January meeting, so it came up at the February meeting.
After discussion, it was moved by Wm. Reid, seconded by Samuel Martin, and re-
446
COMMITTEE RE BILL Xo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
solved, That in the opinion of this Grange, the Bill re eight hours a day on govern-
ment works, should not pass. As we think the action of the government in this
matter would not be a benefit to the country at large and particularly in its influence
on the farm labour question.
JOSEPH GOODWIN,
Master.
CHARLIE SHEWAN,
Secretary.
Palmerston, P.O., Ont.
(48)
Dominion Grange, Strathburn, Ont.
Strathburn, February 1, 1910.
Dear Sir, — The proposed Bill meets with an unqualified disapproval by the
association and any attempt to shorten the existing ten-hour day will be strongly
opposed by the farming community.
Hoping this information is not too late to be of some benefit to your deliberations
in connection with the matter referred to,
I am, yours truly,
CRAWFORD ALLAN,
Secretary Alliance Grange.
(98)
FARMERS’ INSTITUTES AND STOCK BREEDERS’ ASSOCIATIONS.
Kent Agricultural and Horticultural Association. ,
Agassiz, B.C., February 18, 1910.
Dear Sir, — At a meeting held yesterday by the directors of this association, it
was unanimously resolved that this association endorses the proposals of Bill 21, an
Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.
Yours truly,
CHAS. WRIGHT,
Secretary.
(97)
Alberni Creamery Association.
Alberni, B.C., February 15, 1910.
Dear Sir, — At a meeting of the Alberni Creamery Association, held February
12, the meeting was in favour of the eight-hour day.
FREDERICK COWLEY,
President.
(95)
East Elgin Farmers’ Institute.
Aylmer, Ont., February 8, 1910.
Moved by John Davis, and seconded by F. Leeson, That in the opinion of the
I'armers at this institute meeting, held at Mount Salem on the third day of February,
1910, that Bill No. 21, entitled: ‘An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
Works,’ as introduced by Mr. Verville, if it became law it would work great injury to
the farming community, and especially to the dairymen of this section. — Carried
unanimously.
The above resolution was adopted at the Union Institute meeting, held on the
fourth day of February, 1910, unanimously.
COMMITTEE RE BILL So. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
447
APPENDIX Nc. 4
(75)
Beachville, Ont., Agricultural Society.
Beachville, Ont., January 20, 1910.
Dear Sir —Owing to illness I have not been able to see many of the directors,
but those 1 have seen about the matter are certainly not in favour of the Bill being
passed, as in time it will affect the agricultural interests of our country. The labour-
ing classes want to get to the towns and cities now expecting better times and shorter
hours. If the proposed Bill passes it will not be long before the factories will have to
cut down the hours and then the farmers will not be able to employ labourers at all.
I he farmer cannot do with such short hours and sincerely trust that no such Bill
be passed by the government.
Yours sincerely,
J. H. HORDON.
Secretary.
(“1 )
Bowden, Alberta, Agricultural Society.
Bowden, Alberta, January 29, 1910.
Dear Sir,— Your kind favour of December 27, mailed at Ottawa January 22, in-
closing Bill 21, came duly to hand January 26, re hours of labour I may say that
after bringing the matter before some of our officers and members, we are of an
opinion that an eight-hour day for government employees would not be for the best
interest of this Dominion, and in the end not the best for those advocating such hours
I may say from a farmer’s standpoint that it would be unfair I think in Alberta-
where 70 per cent of the population are farmers. Now, to get milk and butter, the cow
must be milked every twelve hours as near as possible. Suppose one starts at six
o’clock m the morning and milks one hour, the same in the evening, taking out one
hour for breakfast and one for dinner, he' has eleven hours work, and supoose he
works as hard as any other labourer, should he not get as much per hour, and if he
does, will the government employee get his goods as cheap as he does now. Tc. be
fair, it would cost more, and I am sure it costs far too much at present, but it is not
the producer who is getting more than he should. Also in the light of government
ownership, and an- eight-hour day for the employees we may look for more than a
rush after a government job. I think the farmers are waking up to some things
that are going to have a tendency to bring them into the place they should occupy,
and where they will get somewhere near what belongs to them, then where will the
eight-hour men be. Suppose the farmers, the eleven-hour men, being 70 per cent,
have to pay 70 per cent of the wages of the eight-hour men, are they going to pr.v
him as much for eight-hours as he earns in eleven-hours. I think not, if he can help
it, that is for the same kind of labour. I fail to see how farmers’ hours can be made
any shorter, but are often much longer. I believe as a class, the farmers are very
willing to live and let live, and I think there is more trouble, and more strikes among
short hour men, than among those who work from ten to fourteen hours a day. I
thank you for your communication and hope this may not be too late.
I have the honour to be,
Your humble servant,
R. W. BROWSE
President.
(77)
Bronte County, due.. Agricultural Society.
Brome, January 27, 1910.
At a meeting of the directors of the Brome County Agricultural Society, held at
Brome, Que., it was resolved as follows, to wit : —
448
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Moved by Director Draper, seconded by Director Bates, ‘ That the directors of the
Brome County Agricultural Society now in session, acknowledge the notice of Bill
21, constituting the eight-hour day Act. Not sufficient in the opinion of this associa-
tion. Ten hours should constitute a day’s work.’ — Carried.
GEORGE F. HALL,
Secretary-Treasurer.
(93)
Moose Mountain, Sask., Agricultural Society.
Carlyle, Sask., February 8, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Acknowledging receipt of your letter of .January 23, I beg to inform
you that the opinion of our society upon the Act respecting hours of labour in govern-
ment contracts and on public works is to the effect that such labour should conform
to the wages on similar work in the locality in which the work is performed or in that
part of the Dominion from which the labourers have been brought. T pon our farms
and in the towns covered by our association the hours of labour are ten hours per day,
excepting Sundays only, for mechanics and their helpers and ordinary labourers of
all kinds, excepting farm hands who are accustomed to keep employees for a somewhat
longer time each day. We cannot understand why the government workmen employed
by contractors on public works should receive special legislation of this kind, nor how
the Act can fail to impose an injustice upon all other workmen in the Dominion.
We are further of the opinion that farmers and employers generally in the West
where labour is scarce would suffer from a tendency being given towards shorter hours
of labour, as well as from the increased cost of public works, which the passing of
this Act would bring about.
GEO. FINDLATER,
President.
THEO. M. McNEISH,
Secretary.
(89)
Clifford, Ont., Agricultural Society.
Clifford, Ont., February 10, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Some time ago your letter, with a copy of an Act, respecting the
Hours of Labour on Public Works, came to hand.
Since then I have had an opportunity of speaking to a number of farmers, and
I find that as a rule they are opposed to it.
Men will expect the same wages for eight hours, that they now get for ten. Its
the thin edge of the wedge, and will ultimately affect the agricultural interests.
Possibly I am too long in getting this forwarded to you to be of any service.
Yours very truly,
A. DRUMMOND,
Secretary.
(55)
Soulanges County, Que.
(Translation.)
Cote St. Emmanuel, January 12, 1910.
Sir, — I have duly received a copy of the Bill intituled : ‘ An Act respecting the
Hours of Labour on Public Works,’ and your circular in which you say you are
desirous of knowing my views on the question. After having given the matter some
consideration, I may inform you that, in my opinion, it seems to me that in manufac-
turing establishments, for instance, an eight-hour day is long enough, but with the
COMMITTEE EE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
449
APPENDIX No. 4
farmers in the country, ten hours work would not be too much. I have talked the
matter over with some of my friends, and they all agree with me. Now that I have
expressed my opinion, let me add that we will conform to the law which will be
enacted.
(87)
Your devoted servant,
LUDGER LALONDE,
Secretary .
Grenfell, Sask., Agricultural Society.
Grenfell, Sask., February 5, 1910.
Dear Sir,— At a meeting of the directors of the Grenfell Agricultural Society on
Thursday, February 3, it was decided that the association declare themselves not :n
favour of the Eight Hour Act for Public Works.
Yours truly,
JOHN MITCHELL,
Secre tary- Treasurer.
(53)
Sheep Breeders’ Association, Guelph, Ont.
Guelph, January 10, 1910.
Dear Sir, -Mr. John Campbell has forwarded to me as president of the Sheep
Breeders Association your letter of December 27, asking for the views of the associa-
tion in regard to an Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works. Now, I
cannot say what the views of our association may be in regard to the matter, but I
have the idea that it will receive very little sympathy. However, as the annual meet-
ing of the association will be held first week in February, I will lay the matter before
the members. Speaking for myself in the meantime, I must say that I hope such a
Bill as proposed by Mr. Verville may not become law, for I consider it altogether
uncalled for, and neither in the best interests of the country at large or the labouring
classes themselves.
Yours faithfully
ANDREW WHITELAW,
President.
(73)
Agricultural Society, L’Assomption County, due.
(Translation.)
Extract from the proceedings of the general meeting of the Agricultural Society
of L Assomption county, which took place on January 19, 1910, in the meeting place
of the county council, in the town of L’Assomption, at one o’clock, p.m., pursuant to
a notice of convocation signed by the president and secretary -treasurer and issued
according to law: —
At that meeting were present Nap. Lachapelle, president; L. Rivest, vh e-presi-
dent; T. Bedard, W. Hetu, Ulric Deschamps, J. Z. Tisdale, J. P. Monahan, Egidc
Aumont, Jos. Allard, Lud. Thouin and Ed. Lafortune, directors; and Theod. Ritchot,
G. Anniault, R. Riopelle, Ed. Landry, Philias Charpentier, Chas. Ed. Jeannotte, L.
Lapointe, Wilfrid Dupuis, Felix Labeau, Delphis Turenne and Ged. Brouillet, &c.
The president laid before the meeting a circular and a Bill (No. 21) introduced
in the House of Commons by Mr. Yerville, M.P., concerning the shortening of the
hours of labour on government works.
At the end of the debate, it was moved by Gedeon Brouillet, seconded by J. Z,
Tisdale, and unanimously resolved: —
4—29
450
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
1 That this society cannot approve of the Bill in question, as it considers that a
reduction in the hours of labour for the masses who toil would practically involve the
shortening of the working hours of the agricultural labourers, and that such diminu-
tion of labour on the farm or the increase in the rate of wages would be greatly pre-
judicial to the farming community which plays so important a part in the production
of public wealth, and would consequently be detrimental to the general interests of the
country. Moreover, in the opinion of this society, such shortening of the hours of
labour would not be in the interest of the working classes themselves.
(A true copy.)
J. J. A. MARSAM,
L’Assomption, January 20, 1910. Secretary-Treasurer.
(74)
(Translation.)
Le Bic, Que., Agricultural Society.
Le Bic, Que., January 26, 1910.
Sir, — Y our letter on Mr. Verville’s Bill was duly received. The government has
already done a great deal for the working community by holding the employers liable
for injuries sustained by workingmen and by proportioning the compensation to the
more or less serious nature of the injury. In my opinion, to establish an eight-
hour day might be prejudicial to industry; but at all events your honourable com-
mittee is perfectly able to solve the question and we are quite willing to endorse its
decision which will no doubt be one worthy of the statesmen called upon to deal with
the matter and for the greatest good of our country. In so saying, I am voicing the
sentiments of the agricultural classes of our district.
Believe me, sir,
Your humble servant,
J. B. LAGACE,
(65) Secretary.
(Translation.)
Lotbiniere County, Que., Agricultural Society.
Lotbiniere, January 18, 1910.
Sir, — At a meeting of the Agricultural Society of the county of Lotbiniere, which
took place to-day, after Bill Mo. 21, concerning the eight -hour day had been read to
them, all the members present pronounced themselves against its adoption.
Yours truly,
REMI DESROCHERS,
President.
(63)
(Translation.)
Maskinonge County, Que., Agricultural Society.
Louiseville, January 19, 1910.
Sir, — In answer to your circular, dated December 27, 1909, concerning Bill Mo.
21, relating to the Hours of Labour on Public Works, we beg to inform you that we
totally disapprove of that measure inasmuch as, in our humble opinion, the eight-
hour day is already too short, and we prefer, on the contrary, to see the old law
maintained, in all its force.
We remain,
Your devoted servants,
CLOVIS CAROM, Secretary,
And fourteen other members.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
451
APPENDIX No. 4
(58)
South Muskoka, Out., Agricultural Society.
MacAulay, Ont., January 17, 1910.
Dear Sir, Received your letter inclosing Bill to shorten hours of labour on
public works, now before special committee. Respecting same would say that in. our
opinion ten hours is not too long for a day’s work, and if shortened on public works
others would have to follow suit and it would also be detrimental to agricultural
labour as well. Then, again it would advance the cost of all public works by so much
and thus be so much worse for the taxpayers, which means the public.
Yours truly,
WM. C. DENNIS,
(64) Secretary.
(Translation.)
Agricultural Society (Division A) of Charlevoix, Que.
Malbaie, Que., January 20, 1910.
At a meeting of the directors of the Agricultural Society (Division A) of Charle-
voix, held at Malbaie, on the 9th instant, the directors unanimously expressed their
opinion in favour of the ten-hour day.
A true copy. WILLIAM BLACKBURN,
President.
(79)
ALFRED CARON,
Secretary.
Manilla, Ont., Stock Breeder.
Manilla, Ont., February 1, 1910.
Sir, — Re ‘An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works. Speaking
for the dairymen of the eastern portion of the province of Ontario, I beg to state that
we are of the opinion that the passing of such an Act as this would work inculeable
injury to the great dairy industry of Canada. At the present time help is scarce,
and hard to obtain. Such a law as contemplated would aggravate the trouble, by
taking the men from the farm to work upon public works, where one-fifth of their
labour would be lost in comparison with the hours spent at work at the present time.
We hear the cry ‘ Back to the land,’ as a cure for the present high prices of food
stuffs. Such a law as proposed would lead the people in the opposite direction, and
thus reduce the amount of food stuffs produced.
Such a law would bear particularly hard upon the dairymen of this country, as
the bulk of our dairy products are exported and sold in the markets of the world in
competition with the products of such countries as Denmark, Sweden, Holland,
Siberia and New Zealand, where no such law exists. The result would be that the
export of cheese and butter would be greatly reduced and the large sums of money
annually obtained from this source curtailed, and our country made so much the
poorer by the operation of such a law.
Yours truly,
HY. GLENDINNIN,
President of the Eastern Ontario Dairymen s Association.
(67)
Morden Electoral Division Agricultural Society.
Morden, Man., January 20, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Yours with Bill 21 inclosed, received to-day. Personally I think the
Bill is a just one, and that eight hours per day is all that should be demanded. I
know that this will mean the shortening of the hours of labour on private contracts
4— m
452
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
in the near future, but I think that it is necessary in order that labouring men may
have more time for self and home improvement. Our directors mill meet soon and
I will lay the Bill before them and send you their decision.
I am, yours sincerely,
M. C. RUMBALL,
Secretary-Treasurer.
(57)
(Translation.)
Nicolet County, due., Agricultural Society.
Nicolet, January 13, 1910.
Sir, — I have, with my colleagues, taken into consideration Bill No. 21, respecting
the Hours of Labour on Public Works, about which you wish to know our opinion.
Well, we do not see the opportunity of such a measure, for, in our opinion, the work-
ingmen are sufficiently protected by the fair-wages schedule introduced by the govern-
ment in public contracts. Therefore, the government have all labour they want for
the construction of public works and those who get employment on those works are
looked upon as privileged beings. The ten-hour day should be maintained.
I remain, sir,
Your humble servant,
F. MANSEAU,
President.
(69)
East Peterborough Agricultural Society.
Norwood, Ont., January 22, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In reply to your letter to our president, Mr. Birdsall re an Act re-
specting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, and asking for the views of our
association on the same. I am instructed to report that at our annual meeting, held
on January 19, 1910, the inclosed resolution was unanimously carried.
Yours truly,
JOHN E. ROXBURGH,
Secretary- Treasurer.
(69a)
Resolution passed January 19, 1910, by the East Peterborough Agricultural
Society re an Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.
Moved by J. L. Squire, seconded by F. Birdsall, ‘ That this association entirely
and absolutely disapprove of any such proposition, and that the secretary be instructed
to communicate same to the clerk of the committtee.’ — Carried.
(70)
Nova Scotia Farmers’ Association.
Durham, N.S., January 21, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your letter dated December 27 last, mailed from Ottawa, January 17,
reached me last night, with copies of Bill No. 21, £ An Act respecting the Hours of
Labour on Public Works,’ inclosed.
Under separate cover I send you our last annual report. On page 57 and follow-
ing, you will find a report of discussion upon this subject and the association’s ex-
pression of opinion on page 68.
COMMITTEE RE RILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
453
APPENDIX No. 4
Our annual meeting is held next week, and anything further they may have to
say upon the matter, I will immediately communicate to you.
CHAS. R. B. BRYAN,
Secretary.
The Labour Problem.
Discussion opened by F. L. Fuller, Superintendent of Agricultural Associations,
Truro, N.S.
Mi. Piesident and Gentlemen, Tou are no doubt aware that at the last session
of the legislature, a commission was appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the
equity of the demands of certain labour unions for an eight-hour day. For the pur-
pose of getting information, the chairman of this commission, Dr. Magill, requested
me, as superintendent of agricultural associations, to get expressions of opinion from
the various agricultural organizations throughout the province. With this object in
view, the following questions were incorporated in my annual circular to agricultural
societies : —
1. Is there much demand for hired labour among the farmers of the province?
And in what months of the year is the need of hired labour greatest?
2. Is there any custom or rule regulating the length of the working' day among
farmers ?
3. What are the chief difficulties in getting hired labour for farm work? Would
the shortening of the working day remove any of these difficulties ?
4. Would a law regulating the hours of farm labour injure the interests of agri-
culture in Nova Scotia?
5. Would a law regulating the labour of mines and factories injure the agricul-
tural interests of Nova Scotia?
6. Have you any other suggestions?
After the discussion on this subject the following answers to the questions were
drawn up by a committee, and adopted as the expression of opinion of the associa-
tion : — •
1. Yes, during the summer months.
2. Ten hours is a generally accepted working day.
3. (1) Scarcity of competent men. (2) No, it would increase them.
4. Yes, it certainly would.
5. If anything less than ten hours were made a legal day, it would be injurious.
6. We are of the opinion that the shortening of the working day would not only
be detrimental to the agricultural interests of our province, but would be against the
best interests of the labourers themselves.
(12) Oak Lake, Ont., Agricultural Society.
Oak Lake, Ont., January 24, 1910.
Sir, — I might say that our directors are opposed to any legislation shortening
hours of labour, and think ten hours is a short enough day for any man, the business
of farming in which we are all engaged, calls for more hours of labour each day
than that and our work would never be done could we not get men at times to work
when required. Any laws such as the one Bill 21 has a tendency to draw labourers
away from farm work especially, and individuals cannot compete with government
in amount of wages now in length of hours. It is costing the farmers of Canada
enough now to produce their crops without having government interfering to make
it harder and more costly to get labour. We decidedly object to any law that will
allow a man to work less than ten hours per day.
E. K SMITH,
Secretary-T reasurer.
454
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(83)
Mountain Agricultural Society.
Pilot Mound, Man., February 3, 1910.
Dear Sir, — The directors of Mountain, No. 2, Agricultural Society have instructed
me to acknowledge receipt of your circular letter and a copy of Bill No. 21, respecting
the Hours of Labour on Public Works, and also state that they are opposed to the
passing of the Bill. At a meeting held on January 25, 1910, they passed the follow-
ing resolution : — •
Whereas, The agricultural and business interests of the Dominion of Canada
make it necessary that persons engaged in those pursuits must work more than eight
hours per day, and frequently twelve hours per day. Therefore, be it resolved that
we the directors of Mountain No. 2 Agricultural Society place on record our dis-
approval of Bill No. 21, respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.
Yours respectfully,
E. H. MAYNE,
Secret ary -Treasurer.
(61)
' Central Muskoka Farmers’ Institute.
Port Sydney, January 18, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Yours of December 27 to hand re Bill for reducing hours of labour.
Not having time to call a meeting of the other officers, as your communication only
reached me on the 15th, I take the liberty of answering it myself.
So long as men are receiving a fair wage according to their ability, I don’t think
that ten hours a day is a bit too much, if you take the greater part of workingmen,
should they have an eight-hour day, they would soon be calling for a seven-hour day.
Yours respectfully,
ALFRED KAY,
President.
(84)
Red Deer Exhibition Association, Red Deer, Alberta.
Red Deer, February 3, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Re Bill 21, * An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
Works,’ I beg to say that I placed Bill 21 before the Board of Directors of the Red
Deer Exhibition Association for their consideration at a meeting held on January
31, and the unanimous verdict was, ‘ That mechanics and labourers should work as
long hours on government works as on private contracts.’
Yours respectfully,
HENRY JAMESON,
(62) President.
(Translation.)
Rouville County, Cue., Agricultural Society.
Rougemont, January 19, 1910.
Sir, — At the general annual meeting of the members of the Agricultural Society
of the county of Rouville, which took place to-day, after due consideration of Bill
*No. 21, ‘ A Law respecting the Hours of Labour,’ it was proposed by Mr. J. E. Lareau,
seconded by Mr. Philias Brodeur, That the members of the meeting unanimously
protest against this Bill, and that copy of this motion be sent to Mr. Y. Clouthier,
clerk of the committee.
This motion was unanimously adopted by the meeting.
Your humble servant,
A. CIRIS,
Secretary -Treasurer.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
455
APPENDIX No. 4
(94)
Sackville, N.B., Agricultural Society.
Sackville, N.B., February 2, 1910.
Dear Sir, Yours re Hours of Labour on Public Works, to hand. I cannot see
any just reason why hours of labour should be shortened on public works, and the
passing of such a Bill as outlined is in my opinion in sympathy with the strikes we
hear and read so much about. We farmers cannot run our business on such hours
and therefore labouring men are all looking for employment on public works, so it
is contrary to the interest of farmers. If the hours are shortened, I say, shorten
pay also or accordingly. As it is to-day the labouring man is master of the situation
and the more you give them in this way the greater the difficulty between capital and
labour. I am a firm believer that honest labour should be well paid and that is what
is being done in all works at the present time. Railways are paying good salaries
and for the sake of our country don’t make it any worse.
Yours truly,
ALBERT ANDERSON,
Secretary.
(90)
South Riding of Perth Agricultural Society.
St. Mary’s, Ont., Febuary, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your circular re Bill No. 21, Hours of Labour, was laid before our
society at the annual meeting, when the following resolution was passed: —
‘ That the members of the South Riding of Perth Agricultural Society at their
annual meeting, having considered the proposal of making an eight-hour per day the
limit for work on government contracts, wish to express their decided disapproval of
any such legislation that may be passed in that direction.’
Yours truly,
A. CARMAN,
Secretary.
(88)
(Translation)
St. Isidore, N.B., Agricultural Society.
St. Isidore, Gloucester Co., N.B., February 8, 1910.
Sir, — We have considered Bill No. 21, respecting the Hours of Labour, and in
answer to your inquiry, we beg to inform you. that we have not the least objection to
that Bill being adopted.
Yours truly,
JOSEPH C. DELAGARDE,
Secretary.
(68)
Sunnidale Corners, Ont., Agricultural Society.
Sunnidale Corners, Ont., January 20, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Yours under date of December 27, 1909, respecting the Hours of
Labour on Public Works, duly received, and in reply beg to say that I have gone to
considerable trouble to gather all information I could in regard to your request. I
have consulted our association and I have also consulted the Grange Association,
which consists of all shades of politics, and also others, and have failed to find one
man who is not opposed to the passing of that Bill.
No doubt it has been thoroughly debated both pro and con on the floor of the
House of Parliament, and therefore further words would be unnecessary.
Respectfully yours,
W. A. HUTT.
Secretary.
456
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
(99)
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
United Farmers of Alberta.
Stettler, Alta., March 10, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Re Bill 21, respecting Hours of Labour on Public Works. In answer
to yours of the 18th ult., I beg to inform you that this matter was fully discussed at
our regular meeting on Saturday last, 5th instant, when the following resolution was
adopted : ‘ That eight hours should constitute a day’s labour for all clerks or others
similarly engaged on indoor work while for labourers, workmen or mechanics, ten
hours should be the limit.’ The reason for this course was on account of the' diffi-
culty already experienced by farmers in this province in obtaining hired help and the
feeling of the meeting was that by making the hours of labour on public works less
than on a farm this difficulty would be still further enhanced.
Yours truly,
HENRY ARTHUR STEELE.
Secretary.
(96)
Surrey, B.C., Agricultural Association.
Surrey Centre, B.C., February 10, 1910.
SIR, — I beg- to acknowledge the receipt of your communication containing Bill
No. 21, an Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works. Unfortunately we
have had a meeting of the directors of the Surrey Agricultural Association a few
days ago and we are not likely to meet again for at least a month. At present most
of the public works carried out by the province of British Columbia and the muni-
cipalities in British Columbia are carried out under a nine-hour day; a few have intro-
duced an eight-hour day, the sentiment of the public being towards an eight-hour day.
If the Dominion should pass inclosed Bill it will have a tendency to hasten the
general adoption of an eight-hour day on public works.
Yours respectfully,
E. BOSE,
Secretary.
(82)
E.K.A. Society, Thamesville, Ont.
Thamesville, Ont., January 22, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your letter re Hours of Labour was brought before the members of
the E.K.A. Society at their annual meeting, held 19th instant, and by a unanimous
vote I was instructed to write you stating they were not in favour of an eight-hour
Bill.
Yours truly,
C. A. MAYHEW,
Secretary.
((66)
Would Aggravate Labour Situation on Farm.
What has come to be known as the Verville Labour Bill introduced by Mr. Ver-
ville, of Montreal, is again before parliament. This Bill goes further than any of its
predecessors , it has also met with more serious attention than other like measures
in that it has been sent to a special committee for full consideration.
In brief, the measure provides that eight hours shall be the maximum day
allowed on any contract to which the government of Canada is a party. It would thus
COMMITTEE RE RILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
457
APPENDIX No. 4
IlnTln116 WOrkl11^ day t0 one of eigh* tours, not only on public works carried out by
t e government itself, but in establishments having contracts with the government
Ihus a firm obtaining a contract for the manufacture of militia uniforms for the
m -mg of rails for the Intercolonial, for the construction of post office boxes, or for
supplying of any of the thousand and one needs of the government would bp
obliged to limit the hours of labour on the same to eight. It is quite obvious if such
liild e^rr 0nCVnt1r1°duCed’ that * would not st°P with government contracts. It
wou d extend soon to all contracts and to all establishments, private and public. Nor
would even that be the end. Farmers are finding more and more that they are having
to approximate the period of labour on the farm to that prevailing in the town
E Sinera ®Jfh!'hour day m the latter would soon force the adoption of
nethmg similar on the farms. The labour situation on the farm is serious enough
now, needless to say it would be very much worse under what is proposed. Weekly
bun, Toronto, January 19, 1910, (W. L. Smith, editorial).
(76) Springfield, Man., Agricultural Society.
Springfield, January 25, 1910.
Dear Sm,-Yours of 27th ult., inclosing Bill No. 21, referring to ‘Hours of
Labour on Pub he Works, received to-day. I will place it before our society, which
meets next week, for their consideration, although I don’t anticipate that it will be
looked upon very favourably. We being all farmers, who have to work considerably
onger hours, are not apt to favour legislation, which will tend to make our hired
help dissatisfied.
Yours very truly,
,o 0. B. HARVEY,
Secretary.
MANUFACTURERS.
The Alaska Bedding Company, Limited.
tt wr t hi - tjt Winnipeg, Man., January 21, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, ~
Ottawa.
Dear Sm ,-Re Compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill. We beg to protest against this
-BUI being reported upon favourably, as should it become law the effect upon western
manuiacturers would be particularly severe.
Conditions in western Canada necessitate a large amount of overtime work for
a least six months of the year, while during a portion of the remaining six months
short time is the order. This is owing to climatic conditions, and business originating
m an agricultural district. s
. Consequently, it would prohibit us from tendering upon any government work
as it would be impossible to apportion such work to a staff for eight hours per day
while running the balance of a factory on ten or more hours per day.
Furthermore, we do not believe an eight-hour day is practicable in Canada for
the reason outlined above, viz., that conditions of business are such that advantage
must be taken of same when offering, even if the rush of business compels ten or
more hours per day.
Our own experience during 1909, from July 1 to December 15, was that we were
compelled to work a large portion of our staff of sixty employees as much overtime
as they could physically stand, owing to the amount of business offering and the
impossibility of securing skilled workmen.
We, therefore, pray that your committee will see fit to report upon the above Bill
adversely. Yours very truly,
THE ALASKA BEDDING CO., LTD.,
J. H. Parkhill,
Manager.
458
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
The Alaska Feather and Down Company, Limited.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — Permit me to express the hope that Bill No. 21, respecting eight-hour
labour on government contracts will not meet with your support.
As a manufacturer, I believe that the proposal to limit the hours of labour on
government contracts will have a very harmful effect on manufacturers throughout
the country. Our competition in this country is with countries where labour is not
as well paid, and if the Canadian labour in a body insisted on an eight-hour day, for
manufacturers in general, it would make this competition much harder to meet under
the present tariff. Even if this were not the case, it would mean higher cost of pro-
ducts in all commodities which are used by the working class and the farmers, and
necessarily involve higher prices. The farmer has great difficulty in securing help
at present, largely because of the necessarily long hours, and in my opinion, if the
Bill before you becomes law, it will work a more severe hardship to the people of
Canada than the framers of the Bill have any idea of.
Yours very truly,
J. H. SHERKAKD, President.
The Alaska Feather and Down Co ., Ltd.
(386)
American Bank Note Company.
Ottawa, February 19, 1910.
Dear Sir, — We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 17, inclos-
ing copy of Bill 21 respecting the hours of labour on public works.
We note that this Bill applies only to work undertaken by the Government of Can-
ada by day labour.
Our business, therefore, would not be affected by this Bill, but you will be inter-
ested to know that since the establishment of our business in Canada we have strictly
enforced the principle of an eight-hour day and a half holiday on Saturday. The
majority of our employees work forty-six hours per week; a very small minority work-
ing forty-seven hours.
Yours respectfully,
JOSE A. MACHADO,
General Manager.
(115)
Ames-Holden, Limited, Shoe Manufacturers.
Montreal, January 10, 1910.
Dear Sir, — If there is any probability of applying this, or legislating in this direc-
tion later in connection with the manufacturing interests generally, we are strongly
opposed to it, and are opposed to the general principle of shortening the hours of labour
as suggested, as the beginning only means the starting of the wedge in other direc-
tions.
The existing conditions are in no way oppressive, or work any hardship or injus-
tice on the employees, and any general change to the eight-hour basis indicated, we feel
sure, from our long experience as manufacturers, would be of no practical benefit or
advantage to the employed, would necessitate the readjustment of things all around,
would be a manifest injustice to the employers, and would result in no material advan-
tage to the employed.
COMMITTEE RE BILL A To. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
459
APPENDIX No. 4
The present hours of labour are reasonable and fair to both employers and em-
p oyees, and any disturbance of existing- conditions are neither desirable or, in our
opinion, necessary.
(323)
Yours very respectfully,
AMES-HOLDEN, LIMITED,
W. A. MATLEY,
Assistant General Manager.
Amherst Foundry Company, Limited.
Amherst, N.S., January 13, 1910.
Dear Sir We received your letter of the 27th ult., together with a copy of ‘ An
Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.'
We are strongly opposed to legislation for an eight-hour day on public works or
any other branch of business, unless it becomes general on all classes of work just as
we are opposed to an eight-hour day for the province of Nova Scotia, or any other
province, while the other provinces of the Dominion continue to have a ten-hour day.
In saying this we do not want to give the impression that we favour an eight-hour
day even in general, at the present stage of our country’s development, but we think it
would Le particularly disastrous to the industrial conditions of the country for an
eight-hour day to apply to any one branch of the country’s business.
Yours truly,
AMHERST FOUNDRY CO., LTD.,
C. A. LUSBY,
Secretary and Treasurer.
(112)
Andre Cushing- & Company, Lumber Manufacturers.
St. John, N.B., January 10, 1910.
Dear Sir,— As large manufacturers of lumber, box-shooks and other by-products
of lumber, we take decided objection to this proposed legislation. We find that even
with our 9-hour day as at present, we are very seriously handicapepd in finding foreign
markets at remunerative prices in competition with lumber and box-shooks from other
countries, such as Norway and Sweden, where they have a 10-hour day— and even an
11-hour day in some places — with a lower wage rate per day than we have for our
9-hour day. Should the government adopt an eight-hour day on their contracts', as
provided for in this Bill, it will, of course, only be a short time when factory employees
all over Canada will be insisting on the same hours of labour, and this in our opinion,
as above indicated, would be a very grave mistake from a Canadian commercial stand-
point, no matter how much may be said to the contrary from an academic and theor-
etical point of view. We believe, that in the gospel of hard work without drudgery — at
a fair and honest living rate of wages, lies Canada’s future success and greatness as a
nation.
(308)
Yours respectfully,
ANDRE CUSHING & CO.,
per A. WILSON.
Andrew Malcolm Furniture Company.
Kincardine, Ont., January 19, 1910.
John Tolmie, M.P.,
Ottawa.
My Dear John, — I might just say that I am not in favour of the eight-hour a day '
system, and I think it would be an imposition upon the country to ever introduce
legislation leading to that end. Of course, I do not think that it would matter a great
460
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ao. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
deal to the manufacturers themselves, as it would simply increase the price of produc-
tion of the goods, and the public would just have to pay accordingly. In fact, busi-
ness this last ten or twelve years has been going ahead by leaps and bounds. At the
same time it has cut a trade that we have been trying to cultivate for some time, that
is, the export trade. As you know perfectly well, ten or fifteen years ago we used to
do a very successful export trade, and I might say, a profitable one. But since then
the advance in the price of all the material that goes into the manufacture of furni-
ture, more particularly lumber, has increased in price as much as 125 per cent. And
taking everything into consideration, on account of the cost of production, it is simply
impossible for. manufacturers in our line to do anything in the foreign market and
have anything for their trouble.
Tours very truly,
ANDREW MALCOLM.
(Note. — Sent to clerk of committee by Mr. Tolmie.)
(236)
Andrew Muirhead, Paints, Varnishes, &c.
Toronto, January 19, 1910.
To the Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,- — I beg very respectfully to make my protest against the enactment of the
above Bill, and to say that the passage of such a Bill would, in my opinion, be a serious
injustice to a large number of people of this country.
Yours truly.
A. MUIRHEAD.
(230) S. Anglin & Company, Lumber and Coal Merchants.
Kingston, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir, — With regard to the Compulsory Eight-hour Day Bill, now under con-
sideration, as employers of labour, we beg to say that we believe it would not be in the
interests of the country to pass it.
In the first place, it would create discontent among all those now working nine
and ten hours a day. In the second place, labour is so scarce, the season for out-door
work is so short, and there is so much to be undertaken in this growing country, that it
ould be most difficult to accomplish all that is to be done in a working day of eight
w
Many other reasons might be advanced, but we will stop with the above and trust
you will see your way clear to oppose the measure.
Yours truly,
S. ANGLIN & CO.
(138) Anglo-British Columbia Packing Company, Limited,
Vancouver, B.C., January 10, 1910.
Sir, — We, beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 27th ulto., inclosing a
copy of draft of Bill No. 21, respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works. We
suggest that the words ‘ permitted or ’ be omitted in the first clause, as crossed out in
red^in draft of Bill returned to you. (See lineJIO, section 1 of Bill.)
We have the honour to be, sir,
Yours truly,
II. BELL KING & CO., LTD.,
Agents.
COMMITTEE RE RILL _Y o. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
461
APPENDIX No. 4
BiU 21.— An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of
Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: —
1. Every contract to which the government of Canada is a party, which may
involve the employment of labourers, workmen or mechanics, shall contain a stipula-
tion that no labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of the contractor or sub-
contractor, or other person doing or contracting to do the whole or a part of the work
contemplated by the contract, shall be required to work more than eight hours in any
one calendar day, except in cases of extraordinary emergency caused by fire, flood or
danger to life or property.
2. Eveiy such contract hereafter made shall contain a provision that unless the
person or corporation making or performing it complies with the provisions of this
Act,, the contract shall be void, and the person or corporations shall be entitled to
receive any sum, nor shall any officer, agent or employee of the government of Canada
pay or authorize payment from the funds under his charge or control to the person
or coipoiation, for work done upon or in connection with the contract which in its
forrn^ or manner of performance violates the provisions of this Act.
3. This Act shall apply to work undertaken by the government of Canada by day
labour.
(293)
Asbestos Manufacturing Company, Limited.
Montreal, Que., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — We wish to enter our protest against the Eight-Hour Day Bill, and
would ask for your influence against it as it stands before the special committee.
You can readily understand that this Bill as it stands to-day practically prohibits
our company from competing for government work, and it would be utterly imprac-
ticable for any establishment to work one portion of its staff eight hours per day on
government orders, and then attempt to get the rest of the staff to work ten hours
per day for private parties or private corporations. We are anxious to compete for
government orders, and should this Bill pass, it practically puts us in the position
that we could not do so, which we cannot see would be to the benefit of the public at
large.
Believing that you will take up the interests of the manufacturers, which we
believe to be the interests of the public generally in this matter.
We are, yours faithfully,
GEO. K. SMITH,
V.P. and General Manager.
(247)
Auer Incandescent Light Manufacturing Company, Limited.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill Ho. 21,
Ottawa.
Montreal, January 19, 1910.
Dear Sir, Referring to Bill No. 21 referred to your special committee, we desire
to present to you and to your committee the following objections : — -
(a) It would prohibit all who work more than eight hours per day from sharing
in government business.
462
COMMITTEE RE DILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(b) It would be impracticable for an establishment to work part of its stall eight
hours a day on government orders and the rest ten hours on orders for others.
(c) Competition for government orders would be less keen and all work would
have to be paid for by the government at a higher figure.
( d ) It would place a discount on ambition. The right of the individual to raise
himself above the level of his fellows by extra work would be denied him.
(e) A shorter working day would mean an increased cost of production and con-
sequently a general increase in the cost of living.
(f) If hours of labour in city workshops are reduced to eight per day hired help
for the farm will be more difficult than ever to secure and so will embarrass the
farmer.
( g ) As organized labour represents only about eight per cent of the vote it should
not be allowed to impose conditions which would hamper the development of Canadian
industry.
Qi) This Bill would even prohibit the Saturday half-holiday made possible by
longer hours on other days.
Yours truly.
A. O. GRANGER,
President.
(220)
The Bain Wagon Company, Limited.
Woodstock, Ont., January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — We sincerely hope that you and your committee will report adversely
on the Eight-Hour Day Bill, because we thoroughly believe it is not a good thing for
"Canada in any way. It would, if passed, be a serious handicap to the manufacturer,
builder and contractor, and in the end, a great injury to the workingmen.
Yours sincerely,
JOHN A. BAIN,
Vice-President and Manager.
002)
The Banwell Hoxie Wire Fence Company, Limited.
Hamilton, Ontario, December 30, 1909.
Dear Sir, — We would strongly urge upon the committee not to recommend less
than ten hours constituting a legal work day. Our reasons are as follows : —
It is frequently the case that much time is lost by bad weather on outside work,
or in other words, the entire working season during the year is comparatively short.
We believe that most men would prefer to work ten hours per day, provided they were
paid proportionately. The trouble we find with most of the labouring class is that
they want to get ten hours’ pay for eight hours’ work or even less. We are not speak-
ing without knowing, for we have ourselves followed public works in years that are
passed and do not feel that ten hours’ labour is in any way a hardship.
Again, the time for a contractor to put through a given contract is perhaps very
limited. He could not well have two shifts of men and should have an opportunity to
accomplish all he possibly can in a reasonable way during the limited time given him
to accomplish the work.
Yours respectfully,
THE BANWELL HOXIE WIRE FENCE CO., LTD.
II. BANWELL.
Manager.
COMMITTEE RE BILL X o. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
463
APPENDIX No. 4
(223) The Banwell Hoxie Wire Fence Company, Limited.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Hamilton, Ontario, Tuesday, January 18, 1910.
Dear Sir— Our attention has been called to the fact that there is a Bill being
presented to the House of Commons, the object of 'which is to make it illegal for a com
tractor or other person doing government work to work their men longer than eight
hours per day.
While we have no difference or quarrel with the labour people whatever, we think
that such legislation is not in the best interests of our country or even of the labouring
people themselves, for it is not reasonable to suppose that they can get ten hours’ pay
tor eight hours’ work, and in many cases it would be better for them to work the extra
time and get the extra money. We believe that such legislation, as the Bill proposed,
toget er with the fixing of values by combines, &c., is largely responsible for the
increased cost of living. It goes without saying that one of the reasons for the in-
creased cost in building is due to the restrictions enforced by the labour unions. This
re-acts at once on the labouring people, as they have to pay more house rent because it
costs more to build.
Then again, this Bill would make trouble for manufacturers, who would be turn-
ing out material or supplies for the government in case they were in the habit of work-
ing their men, as most manufacturers do, longer than eight hours. It would disturb
their whole routine and would, of course, have the effect of their bidding higher prices
when tendering on government work, than they otherwise would, if allowed to operate
their plants ten hours per day on such work as we understand is the case at present,
ana as ha£ been pointed out, such a Bill would place a discount on ambition. We
believe it would in many cases work hardships on the labouring man himself, who
might heartily wish in good weather to work more than eight hours, as on account of
weather conditions many days are experienced that will not permit of outside labour
at all, which conditions, with the passage of the Bill, would reduce the number of work-
ing hours of some individuals to a very few in the year’s time.
Ti listing that you will consider the reasons we are advancing as to why this legis-
lation should not be passed, we remain.
(219)
Respectfully yours,
THE BANWELL HOXIE WIRE FENCE CO., LTD
H. BANWELL, Manager.
Chas. Barber & Sons, Manufacturers of the Canadian Turbine.
,r Meaford, Ont, January 18. 191(1.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir, — Re Eight-Hour Day. We are deeply interested in this question and
not opposed to the principle, but think that the measure now under consideration by
your committee would cause a great amount of annoyance at the present time, until the
whole industrial community is prepared to adopt it, either of their own free will or by
compulsion.
There is no hardship in working ten hours per day for at lease seven months of
the year, say between the first of May and the first of December ; for the other five
months it might be charitable to have an eight-hour day apply to all government work
carried on in the open, and we respectfully suggest that this modification be consid-
ered by your committee.
464
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ko. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
The above are the hours which we work in our own shops here and we find the
arrangement very satisfactory from every standpoint.
One of the chief dangers we see to the country at large is the influence the short
working hours in towns would exert on the minds of country labourers and farmers
sons generally.
This is a real danger and the suggestions made above would lessen the danger
from' this source and we think would remove all personal hardship from labour on gov-
ernment contracts.
Hoping that these suggestions will meet with your favourable consideration, we
are,
Yours very truly.
CHAS. BARBER & SONS.
Per T. Barber.
(281)
Beardmore & Company, Leather Manufacturers.
Toronto, J anuary 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King.
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir, — We understand that a Bill for a compulsory eight -hour day in con-
nection with all government contracts has been referred to a special committee for
investigation and report, and we cannot help considering even the remote prospect
of any Bill of the kind being passed in parliament to be a most serious matter.
If we understand it right, it would prohibit any employer or employee who works
more than eight hours per day from sharing in any government business. It would
be impracticable for us to run one portion of our staff eight hours per day on govern-
ment orders, and the rest of our staff ten hours per day on other orders.
As a matter of fact, the leather which we supply to the government, either in the
shape of leather belting or shoe leather, goes through a long and varying process
which takes about six months. These hides when tanned and finished are put into
different selections according to substance and quality, and from the same lot of hides
will be produced leather suitable for different purposes and the whole of one lot of
leather as it runs is seldom or never required by the same party.
The same thing would happen with government orders, and it would not take us
five minutes to show you that it would be not only impracticable, but impossible to
tan and finish leather required for government contracts by men working only eight
hours per day in a tannery, where the men work nine or ten hours per day, as the
case may be, the latter being the usual time in tanneries. The only way leather could
be supplied to the government to comply with the proposed Act would be to run
several tanneries (we say ‘ several tanneries ’ because it is not practicable to make all
kinds of leather in one tannery) exclusively by labour employed only for eight hours
in the twenty-four, and in tanning for these government contracts, probably 50 to 75
per cent of the leather produced would not be suitable for the purposes of the govern-
ment and would have to be sold to the regular trade, and the 25 or 50 per cent that
was suitable for the government would be far more than they would require unless
the tanneries were very small.
This would involve working at such a disadvantage that it would enormously
increase the cost of the leather, and if the government were to insist on these con-
ditions, they either could not get their contracts filled or they would have to pay two
or three times the prices which they now do.
As a matter of fact, it would be impossible to comply with the Act in supplying
leather and leather belting, and we have no doubt this would apply to a great many
other kinds of manufacturing. Of course, if it were merely a matter of the work
done in erecting buildings, it would be quite practicable for the government to stipu-
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
465
APPENDIX No. 4
late that the men working on those buildings should not work more than eight hours
per day; if however, the Act applied to the material for the buildings we judge tha
they would have the same difficulty. ’ Juage mat
The fact of the matter is that unless the Act were very much restricted it would
become a dead letter or the government would have to go without supplies.
We would further remark that if the eight-hour day became general it would be
a very serious matter for our country and would interfere very much with its develop-
ment. Even this winter we are experiencing more or less difficulty in our business in
getting a supply of help, and we have been short-handed at times and it would W
been much worse were it not for the fact that we have an agent in Scotland who I
sendmg us out week by week men from that country. During the winter it is not
so bad, but as soon as spring opens we anticipate a great scarcity in labour which we
are now trying to provide against, but we fear that we are going to have the same
conditions which prevailed in 1906, when we were not able to keep our works gain*
nearly to their full capacity, simply and purely because the labour was not to be had
If we have to curtail the hours the men work, it would handicap us most seriously'
paidicularly as we now have very keen competition from Great Britain in many kinds’
Enllanhder'b ? ^ 8?pie kmds which are Produced here and exported to
England, but the finer kinds are imported and our tanners who are endeavouring to
estab hsh the manufacture of the finer kinds of leather in this country are findin"
very keen competition particularly from Great Britain, and with the men compelled
to work shorter hours it would be impossible to continue.
Of course the shorter hours will be an attraction to men who are pursuing agri-
culture and will attract men from the farms. That, however, is the last thing to be
desired. It is more important in this country that our men should be farmers than
workers m factories Farmers now have sufficient difficulty in getting labour and it
should not be the policy of the government to permit the passing of Acts which will
make this condition worse. Organized labour, which we understand only represents
about eight per cent of the labouring class, should not be allowed to impose con-
ditions which hamper the development of Canadian industry.
Trusting you will give this matter your very serious consideration.
We remain, yours very truly,
(336) BEADMORE & CO.
M. Beatty & Sons, Limited, Dredges, &c.
rr w T ir Welland, Ont., January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
. . Gentlemen,—' We wish to advise that we consider this Bill will work a -reat
injustice to us and the most of manufacturers, for the following reasons-—
It would be impossible for any factory to work a portion of° its men eight hours
a day on government work and the balance of them ten hours on other work there-
iore would prohibit us and other manufacturers, most of whom are working ten hours
per day, from sharing in government business, the results being there wo°uld be less
competition for the business and the prices would go up so that all work for the
government would cost more.
Should this Bill pass, we will have to refrain hereafter from tendering on o-0v-
ernment work. B b
Might also say that shorter working day will mean increased cost of production
and higher cost of living. We hope your committee can see the justice of the above
and be able to report again si the Bill.
Yours respectfully,
M. BEATTY & SONS, LTD.,
, Per W. L. Beatty.
4 — 30
466
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(386)
Bechtels, Limited, Clay Working Machinery.
Waterloo, Ont., February 22, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I have your letter inclosing copy of Bill No. 21, An Act respecting the
Hours of Labour yn Public Works. I note that the Bill refers only to work under-
taken by the Government of Canada by day labour. I might say that I am of the
opinion that the effect will be detrimental to the business interests of Canada. While
it does not affect the manufacturing interests, it will form the introduction of the thin
edge of the wedge for the reduction of hours of labour by mechanics generally. The
reduction of hours of labour will increase the price per hour, and the cost of manufac-
turing goods at the present time is already too high to make it profitable and possible
to compete with manufactured goods from across the line. It is just possible that so
soon as our infant industries get on a little better footing a matter of this kind might
meet with approval, but at the present time we firmly believe that it will be detrimental
to the interests of our manufacturing industries.
Yours very truly,
R. E. BECHTEL,
President.
(313)
A. Belanger, Stoves, &c.
Montmagny, P.Q., January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir, — In the name of the freedom of the labouring man, we beg to protest
against this Bill No. 21 as introduced in the House of Commons.
In our opinion, if this Bill should pass, it would simply mean that, eventually, no
labouring man in Canada would have the right to work more than eight hours a day,
even if he wanted to. This is putting too much restriction on a man’s ability and
should not be allowed.
We trust your committee will see the advisability of reporting against such a
measure.
Yours truly.
A. BELANGER.
(240)
Belding, Paul & Company, Silk Manufacturers.
Montreal, January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir, — We desire to protest energetically against Bill No. 21 now before the
House, which orders that labour on all government work should not be over eight hours
per day. 'This would add very materially to the expenses of the government, and as
these are already very high, we cannot see the benefit of increasing them still farther.
It also involves a very heavy loss upon all manufacturers. We have all a heavy
line of machinery and plants and to reduce the working hours by twenty per cent
would mean the production of so many less goods
We have a plant of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000), and it would be a
blow to us to be obliged to reduce our production which the hours asked for would
entail.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
467
APPENDIX No. 4
We might also say that our hours are fifty-four to fifty-five per week, and we have
no complaints from our employees as to hours and time. We trust this Bill will be
defeated.
We are, very truly yours,
BEDDING, PAUL & CO., LIMITED.
(218)
The Belleville Pottery Company.
T Belleville, Ont., Januarv 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sffi,-Observing you are chairman of Special Committee on Bill No. 21
respecting reduction of hours in day’s work on all government contracts to 8 hours per
day.
I would respectfully ask that this measure be not favourably considered by your
committee Government work is already costing too much, and such a measure would
m all probability aftect labour m general, and the farmer and manufacturer in par-
ticular. ^
Respectfully yours.
(189)
C. A. HART.
B. Bell & Son, Limited, Farm Implements and Machinery.
St. George, Ont., January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ont.
tt D^R |IR,r;^S °hairma1n of the s^cial committee of the House on the Eight-
four Day Bill No. 21 we desire to enter our protest against the passage of this Bill.
It, may be true that if everybody in this world were as industrious as they should
be, no one would have to make more than three or four hours per day, but as matter
are it is certainly a fact that all employers are a good deal harder worked and
worked tor longer hours than any employee is to-day, while as compared with tire
farmer and his labour, the present ten hours per day gives the urban working man a
great advantage.
To pass the Bill applying to government work would simply put every factory
doing anything for the government out of the way of getting any government work
because no factory is run on government work alone, and any one running a factory
knows that it is absolutely impossible to work his hands for eight hours on part of hi
work, and ten hours on the rest, while in competition with the world as Canadian
hands'168 iaVe t0 ^ ^ ‘,USt 35 neC6SSary that they get ten hours work from their
, We sincerely trust that your committee will be strongly opposed to the passing
oi this Bill. 1 &
Yours truly,
B. BELL & SON COMPANY, LTD..
Per E. K. Bell,
(282)
The Berlin Interior Hardwood Company, Limited.
ti tt T T Berlin, Ont., J anuary 20, 1910.
ilie Hon. AY. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour, House of Commons,
Ottawa, Out.
Dear Sir, — As manufacturers and employers of labour, we desire to place on
record, our protest for the consideration of the committee against the proposed Bill
f°i an eight-hour day on all government contracts. In our business of the manufac-
4 — 30 A
468
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
turing of interior woodwork, it is the custom of the trade throughout the entire
Dominion for a ten-hour day. In industries where power and machinery are em-
ployed, and where large investments are necessary for the equipment of a plant, a
compulsory eight-hour day for workmen on government contracts would mean the
disorganization of the entire plant, and rather than submit, it would be found that
the up-to-date manufacturers would cease to tender on government work. The few
manufacturers who would be found willing to put their plants on an eight-hour a day
basis when working on government work, must necessarily increase the selling price
of their output to make the eight-hour day equal the ten, otherwise it would not pay.
It, therefore, would result in higher prices for the government.
It would result in less competition on government contracts, unjustly depriving
the wideawake manufacturer from tendering on government work, and have a de-
moralizing effect on the workmen. It would place a discount on ambition, and with
the return of prosperity there will he a shortage of skilled mechanics. Manufacturers
will be compelled to work their plants short handed even at a ten-hour day.
The fair-wage clause at present embodied in government contracts, we consider
fair to both manufacturing and labour interests, and the number of hours per day to
be regulated by the custom of the trade in the district where the work is to be per-
formed.
Government contracts, in our opinion, should be governed by the customary con-
ditions of the trades where the work is to he performed as at present. We believe that
the committee of investigation on this measure, after serious consideration, will repon
unfavourably on the Bill.
Yours truly,
THE BERLIN INTERIOR HARDWOOD CO., LTD.,
Thomas Ford,
(271)
Berry Brothers, Limited, Varnish Manufacturers.
Detroit, January 19, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie Kin<j,
Chairman, Special Committee, Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,— We have read the ‘ Compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill,’ brought for-
ward by organized labour through its representative Mr. Verville. The passage of
such a Bill would inevitably result in many business complications and embarrass-
ments. That the passing of such a Bill would he productive of any real good to the
cause of labour is highly improbable, while there is no doubt whatever, that its pass-
age would eventually do much harm both to employer and employee and that indus-
trial conditions would be adversely affected.
We are unreservedly opposed to the Bill and trust it will not become law.
Yours very truly,
JAS. S. STEVENSON,
Assistant General Manager.
(376)
The Big River Lumber Company, Limited.
Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, January 24, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Sir, — Re Compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill. On behalf of employing and business
interests in general, we beg to submit our opinion of the injustice and inconsistency
(not to speak of impracticability) of this measure.
COMMITTEE RE BILL Eo. 21—EOVRS OF LABOUR
469
APPENDIX No. 4
The injustice would appear to us to be apparent from the fact of the inevitable
restriction it would place on ambition and enterprise.
While the logical deduction from shortening the working day would be increased
cost of production and necessarily increased cost to the consumer; hence, in the end
striking the very man in whose interests the Bill was originally devised, decreasing his
earning powers, and increasing the cost of living.
We, therefore, teg to express the hope that your final decision in the matter will be
in the negative.
Yours respectfully,
THE BIG RIVER LUMBER CO., LTD
(287)
J. R. Booth, Manufacturer.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ont.,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill Ko. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
January 20, 1910.
Dear Sir, In leference to Bill Ko. 21 to make an eight-hour day on government
work, I append a few. reasons why I think your committee should report against the
Bill.
As a large employer of labour, I look on having two fixed sets of hours for a day’s
work in a new country like Canada, would be very unsatisfactory to both employer and
employees. For instance, two sets of men are working side by side. One set com-
mences work at S o’clock and stops at 5 o’clock, and the other set commences at 7
0 clock and quits at 0 o’clock. This would cause much unrest, so much so that the
ten-hour men would feel that they were giving two hours’ work for nothing.
I do not see how a farmer could carry on a farm within hearing ot the whistle of
the government farm, and expect his men to do two hours more work than the men on
the got erijment farm, or any other work that the government may be carrying on ; and
1 ask . Could any farmer work his farm and pay expenses if his labour only worked 8
hours a day? In my opinion, he could not. The result would he that the 'farm from
which everything must come would suffer.
There is scarcely any part of this country that there is not government work of
some kind busily carried on. And all other workers within hearing or seeing, let it be
farmers or factory hands or workers of any kind, would be so much dissatisfied that
the value of their work would be very much reduced.
If a factory, doing general work, takes in a piece of government work, and a part
of the factory hands, who are working on the government piece of work, come in at
8 o’clock and quit at 5 o’clock; imagine, if you can, the confusion in that, factory. I
venture to say that the factory could not succeed; and if our farmers and factories, and
in fact all industries, do not only pay working expenses— but interest as well— who
will put capital in them.
If all manufacturers are not in a position to compete for government work, there
will be no competition, and the factories that only do government work can get their
own prices, but I cannot see how government work could be performed in factories
where other and general work is done.
Canada must fight for her markets. She is at a great disadvantage with older and
better equipped countries close by. Our farmers are already suffering through scaricty
of labour, why add to their present trouble? Government employees are better paid
than any other class of men, and better paid than any private employer can afford to
pay, and they generally work as they please; whilst the men of the private employer
are expected to do a fair day’s work, which if they did not, the factory or industry in
which they work could not succeed, and the labourer or mechanic would be the first to
feel the loss.
470 COMMITTEE RE DILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VIE, A. 1 91 Q
I cannot feel that our government should allovo a Bill to pass that would make it
possible for one class of labour to be placed at a disadvantage over the other, and cause
untold dissatisfaction.
We must all work in this new country of ours, and I feel it would be most unfair
and unwise to legislate for the few to the disadvantage of the many, i do not see how
pur canals could be worked if men were only permitted to be on duty eight hours per
day, neither do I see how the government railroads could be worked, or government
elevators, government slide booms or river works of any kind.
Yours respectfully,
J. B. BOOTH.
(277)
Bowes, Jamieson and Others, Manufacturers.
Hamilton, Ont., January 20, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Sir, — Be Compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill. We understand that this Bill is to
be up for consideration by your committee at an early date, and as it is of vital
importance to the various manufacturers of stoves, we feel that you will be desirous
of having information showing how it affects our industry.
For the purpose of acquainting you with the facts as they appear to us, a meet-
ing of stove manufacturers, was held in this city yesterday, and the firms whose names
are signed hereto, were represented at that meeting.
It was the unanimous opinion that the proposed Bill must be looked upon as
being very much in advance of the times, and it was felt that a compulsory eight-
hour day in connection with government contracts would result in a serious advance
in the prices paid for such work, which would reflect on all people and carry with it
an advance on other goods as well. At the same time it would greatly handicap
Canadian manufacturers as compared with foreign makers, and thus retard the
development of our country.
Undoubtedly this Bill would prove a strong attraction in influencing men to leave
the farm and result in a serious embarrassment to the agricultural industry, upon
which the general prosperity of our country so largely depends.
We have given a few of the reasons why we think the Bill should be reported
adverseV by you, and trust that you will give our communication- your best consider-
ation.
Yours respectfully,
BOWES, JAMIESON & CO., LTD., Hamilton,
WM. BUCK STOVE CO., LTD., Brantford,
BURROW, STEWART & MILNE CO., LTD., Hamilton,
CANADIAN HEATING & VENTILATING CO., Owen Sound.
CLARE BROS. & CO., LTD., Preston,
W. J. COPP, SON & CO., LTD., Fort William,
THOS. DAVIDSON MANFG. CO., LTD., Montreal.
FINDLAY BROS., LTD., Carleton Place,
GURNEY FOUNDRY CO., LTD., Toronto,
GURNEY, TILDEN & CO., LTD., Hamilton,
IIALL-ZRYD FOUNDRY CO,, LTD., Grimsby,
McCLARY MANFG. CO., LTD., London,
D. MOORE COMPANY, LTD., Hamilton.
JAS. STEWART MANFG. CO., LTD., Woodstock.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
471
APPENDIX No. 4
(375)
The W. J. Boyd Candy Company.
Tr ^ Winnipeg, January 26. 1910.
Hon. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Can.
Dear Sir— Regarding the Compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill shortly to be brought
beiore parliament.
( <i®!re *n ^le interest of Canada as a whole to enter a protest against passing
ot said Bill.
Canada, with the future hope of becoming a great nation cannot afford to be
hampered with laws of this class.
Honestly believing m the above view, and trusting you will consider well the
ultimate effect on Canada before endorsing, or recommending passing of the Bill T
remain,
Yours truly,
W. J. BOYD.
(307)
J. B. Blouin & Fils, Boot and Shoe Manufacturers.
Levis, January 19, 1910.
Sir, We are emphatically opposed to this Bill being enacted, on the following
grounds : —
1st. Every contractor and every employee who works or has worked ten hours for
the government is by the simple fact debarred from the privilege of working eight
hours.
2nd. It would be no incitement to ambition, as well as a barrier to individual initia-
tive for one who, by dint of more strenuous efforts and work, wishes to rise above the
ordinary level, in view of more rapid advancement.
3rd. When the present industrial depression which has existed for some time is
over, we shall have to face again a scarcity of labour, and in fact, there are certain
industries which are at present affected by it; considering that the reduction of the
hours of labour simply means that the scarcity of labour which already exists will be-
come more and more acute.
4th. The shorter day simply means an increase in the cost of production which the
consumer will ultimately pay for.
5th. The manufacturer or the contractor, having to face that increase in the cost
of production, would be reduced to a state of inferiority and handicapped by competi-
tion both from his own locality and from foreign manufacturers. It would really be
a suicidal policy on our part to enact an eight-hour law at a time when we have to face
the keenest competition from European and Asiatic countries where the ten and even
eleven-hour day is in force.
6th. Let us not forget that the shorter hours- of labour in towns and cities have so
far led our rural working classes to seek the larger centres. Should an eight-hour day
come in force here, farm hands and agricultural labourers who are already so few will
become still more scarce and will demand higher wages. The manufacturers as well
as the other classes of society are interested in smoothing down the difficulties the
farmers meet with.
7th. Organized labour which, after all, represents only about an eighth of the
labourers’ vote, should not be allowed to dictate conditions calculated considerably to
retard the development of our industries.
Yours truly,
J. B. BLOUIN & SON'S.
By C. B. Blouin, M.P.P.
472
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
(188)
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Bradshaw’s, Limited, Manufacturers of Chewing Gum, &c.
Toronto, January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Compulsory Eight-hour Day Bill.
Dear Sir— In reference to the Bill now before your committee, the Com-
pulsory Eight-hour Day Bill, we certainly trust you will use every influence to have
this Bill rejected. The fact of a Bill of this kind passing’ would mean a great hind-
rance to the manufacturers, especially at the busy seasons of the year, consequently
increasing the cost of production which would have to be added to the manufactured
article, in that way the consumer would have to pay an increased cost.
Trusting you will give the above your best attention, we remain,
Yours very truly,
BEADSHAW’S LIMITED.
(209)
Brass and Steel Goods, Limited.
Belleville, Ont., January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Hon. and Dear Sir, As manufacturers now ‘ in the thick of the fight ’ competing
with United States goods at export prices, we view with alarm the attempt to enforce
an eight-hour day. From our viewpoint it simply means the present extinction of
some industries, the public and government paying proportionately more for goods,
beside placing a discount on ambition.
Lazy men and chronic kickers backed by organized labour would be the parties
largely benefited.
Wo trust you will believe it your duty to oppose this measure.
We are, respectfully,
BRASS & STEEL GOODS, LTD.
H. O. Hunt,
Managing Director and Secretary.
(309)
John Breakey, Saw Mills and Lumber.
Breakeyville, Co. Levis, P.Q., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Sir, As a large employer of labour, I protest against the passage of this Bill and
pray most earnestly that yTour committee will report thereon adversely.
Yours truly,
JOHN BREAKEY.
COMMITTEE RE BILL So. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
473
APPENDIX No. 4
Breithaupt leather Company, Limited.
-nP4R Qtp_t? i • Berlin, Ont., January 14, 1910.
of Bill M,
Bill, as we have not had any government^ ^ contract, % mterested ™ this
not likely to have any further than mio-ht hP tl * V ‘ m 916. nature of things are
not know whether this Bill would be far re 83 6 °f i°Ur fi^lshed product. We do
by workingmen on articlefsuch as ^ labour
If lit should be as far-reaching as this it TT V th® gov^rnment under contract.
our tanneries are run ten hourf per J v’ J f T™ ?** ™ as a11
Wp opp „ , ours Per day, as m fact all manufacturing concerns are
obliged to work' iLT hours thaTSheT0 government work should be
work) as they can eer7aTl! ? workmen (unless it be specially hazardous
eight We shall be nleisei t m nlire ™011oy in ten hours labour than they can in
eight. We shall be pleased to rece.re further communication in connection here
Yours truly,
J. C. BEEITHAUPT,
#/qa£,\ , # Secretary .
Bntish American Dyeing Company.
W. L. Mackenzie King, Esq., Montreal, January 20, 1910.
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,— Regarding Mr. Verville’s compulsory Eight-Hour Bill to us it seems
o thoroughly unworkable and so unfair to employed of labour thaf we Lcerely true
that your honourable comnnttee on Bill 21, will unanimously report adversely thereon
Yours very sincerely,
BRITISH AMERICAN DYEING CO.,
Joseph Allen.
(144)
The British Columbia lumber and Shingle Manufacturers, Limited.
Vancouver, B.C., January 13, 1910.
• , E‘iR, IRy dn re8'ai'd to the views of this association on the proposed Bill I am
-nstructed to say that our manufacturers are firmly of the oninion that ■
cases where the health of the employers demand shorter hours, it is inadvisable few
forth0™??? °f Canada interfere in the fixing of the hours of labour. We are
BilMt wo n •P,TH at 6 g0vernment flowed the course as prescribed in the
J tL U r “T? 7 ,inCrerer 6 T? °f a11 public works in the same proportion
woild Wlv Tad t° ’ 3 t eStablisTent of these hours on government works
would finady lead to the same hours being demanded in all lines of industry which
would be a great hindrance in the successful prosecution of manufacture and develop-
ment throughout the Dominion. cieveiop
Yours very truly,
R. PI. H. ALEXANDER,
Secretary-Treasurer.
British Columbia Marine Railways Company, Limited.
Victoria, B.C., January 11, 1910.
advised bY the directors of this company to say that we view with
J great disfavour any action on the part of the government as regards regulating
ie hours of labour. We are of the opinion that matters of this sort should be left
to tiie employers and the employees, and circumstances over which neither have any
(143)
Sir.-
474 COMMITTEE RE BILL 1 Vo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
The manufacturers on the Pacific coast have had, and are having, a jeiy hard
up-hill fight to compete with the imports from other countries and also from t e
mother country. The difference in the cost of wages between here and England is
such that our markets are flooded with the output of the English factories, sue i as
boilers, engines, pumps and machinery of all kinds, and even with the duty, competi-
tion is well nigh impossible, and what will the result be with the eight-hour day. .
So far as this company practically are concerned, we find ourselves now in tns
position : We have endeavoured in the last twenty years to build up a ship-building
business. However, the government will allow a vessel to be built complete in the
old country, she comes to our coast, participates in our coastwise trade and does not
pay a five cent piece of duty. We start to build, and various parts of the material
are subjected to duty, in other words, the finished article comes in duty free, and the
raw material is subjected to duty.
Then again, the government calls for a tender for the construction of a vessel
for government use, such as lighthouse tenders, survey steamers, fishery piotee-
tion steamers, &c. Ho you mean to tell me that in calling for tenders for the con-
struction of these vessels that you would have any control over the hours of labour,
were they built in the old country or elsewhere? And yet you would think it fair to
handicap us with the eight-hour day on government work. We assure you that when
tenders are received at Ottawa, they are looked upon from purely a price standpoint,
and if the vessel can be built cheaper in the old country, that is where she is built.
Of course, on the other hand, I do not say that the eight-hour day or the seven-
hour day would make any material difference to any of the employers of labour, if
the eight-hour day was universal at all the competing points. Eor instance, this com-
pany is in competition with Seattle, Tacoma, Portland and San Francisco, in the
docking, repairing and building of vessels. Ho you think that the eight-hour day if
instituted here would enable us to compete favourably with the hours on the Ameri-
can side, where they work nine and ten hours?
From the writer’s knowledge of organized labour, we can assure you that the
labour organizations aro simply trying to insert the thin edge of the wedge. If they
can persuade the government to break the ice by restricting the hours of labour to
eight hours on all government work, it would be forced on the employers as well as all
classes of work.
You, no doubt, would readily appreciate the state of affairs that would exist in
a ship-building yard where there are from eight hundred to one thousand men em-
ployed, were they to work eight hours on all government work and on other work nine
hours. What would be the feeling of the men working on the outside work at the
same rate of pay, to see the men working on the government job knock off an hour:
earlier? Would it not be demoralizing? And moreover, the feeling that exists gener-
ally along the Canadian Pacific coast is the same as expressed above.
Yours truly,
FRANK F. BROWN,
Director.
(371) . ,
British Columbia Marine Railways Company, limited.
Victoria, B.C., January 24, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
Hear Sir, — We are informed that an Eight-hour Hay Bill has been introduced by
Mr. Verville, M.P., and I am instructed by the directors of the company to lay before
you the following facts regarding this Bill:—
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
475
APPENDIX No. 4
to ou^eiy™aye\UXS4Tfd m°re P"ticularly the people engaged in similar business
iLT m 1 of comPetition that, were the Eight-hour Day Bill to become
Kt LTat the"10113 T’ if “0t C°mplete cessati°n of business' For reason^
in foretn co LtU- 7 \ province is' fl°°ded with articles manufactured
nrp ^ & countnos, and more particularly in the old country. Even your government
no control o^t^h^of k^168 ^ ^ °ld C°Untry’ °Vei' which y°U Can haV6
r r t ^ “te.: wS iztzzz Lt;
under the3 E i <di BDuir ' Day 'g ^d Canadian firm !,e irl> if you forced them to work
17771 V 7 ? Bl11, and at the same time compelled them to compete
t manufacturers who carry on their work on the nine and ten-hour basis? ?
We consider it unfair and unjust to have such legislation introduced into Can-
Snag n ah goXTr^ “I the, 3amei Bme Wil1 - complete protection ^in bar-
a day ’ on them anufactured articles that do not carry the stamp of ‘ eight hours
eniplPP^oridP'P IP qUfti0n °f fght h°UTS a day would not be objected to by any
1 XI Um urSal at a11 the comPeting points. If the government
i i we Withdraw all opposition, but under the present circumstances, we
look upon the eight hours a day as simply an excuse to get overtime.
H e have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servants,
BRITISH COLUMBIA MARINE RAILWAYS, LTD.
Per Henry F. Bullen,
Secretary.
(340>l Bruce Stewart & Company, Iron Founders.
Hon W. L. Macicknzie K,„„. Chahlottetow*, P.E.I., January 20, 1910.
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21.
House of Commons, Ottawa.
creas^cost8^-6 Str0ngl/.,obJect “ Eight-hour Day Bill, as it will tend to in-
unnecessary expense.^ pr°duCtl°n’ aud put manufacturers to uncalled and
We are, faithfully yours,
BRUCE STEWART & CO.
h381) Builders’ Exchange, London.
London, Ont., January 25, 1910.
Bill introduced by Mr. A. Verville, M.P., for Maisonneuve, to limit work on
mittee ment C°ntraCtS to eight hours per daF referred to a select Parliamentary Com-
Mr. Duncan C. Ross, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir— At a meeting of the executive board of the London Builders’s Ex-
cnange held this afternoon, I was instructed to submit the inclosed resolution, that was
unanimously adopted at that session. Knowing that our views on this question will
meet with careful consideration by the committee, and hoping that the Bill will be
withdrawn.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
GEORGE S. GOULD,
Secretary.
476
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
The Builders’ Exchange of the City of London.
Copy of Resolution adopted unanimously at a meeting of the Builders’ Exchange,
London, Canada, January 25, 1910; re Bill to limit work on government con-
tracts to eight hours per day.
1. Whereas, the adoption by the Federal government of an eight-hour day on all
public works would promptly result in a similar demand to be extended to all private
building contracts; and
2. Whereas, such a law woidd undoubtedly lead to increased cost of building
operations and consequent increase of rentals, constituting an added burden to the
vast body of tenants (including artisans and mechanics) residing in our larger cities,
to whom present high rents are already a serious item in the cost of living; and
3. Whereas, any such arbitrary limitation of the working day is opposed to the
climatic conditions of Canada, inasmuch as exterior building is already confined by
nature to about seven months, into which limited period it is essential to get all out-
side work completed; and
4. Whereas, such a measure would constitute a ‘ privileged class ’ opposed to the
democratic principle of ‘ equal rights for all ’ and would unjustly discriminate both
against mechanics and contractors on non-public works ;
5. Be it resolved, that while this association is ready at all times to co-operate
with the government in supporting legislation for the protection of life and limb in
hazardous occupations, whether by shortening the hours of work or by other protec-
tive measures, such protection is uncalled for in the building trades; and the pro-
posed legislation would be against public policy and constitute an unwarrantable
interference with the personal liberty of the individual — unjust alike to the worker
who would thereby be prevented from turning his spare capital (i.e., his labour) to
account by utilizing it to make prudent provision for the winter months; and to the
contractor, who on most contracts is bound to complete by a certain time limit, and
who would thus be discouraged from competing on government works, owing to the
great risk involved.
Resolved, further that a copy of this resolution be sent to the chairman of the
Select Parliamentary Committee, and a delegation follow later, at the convenience of
said committtee.
The whole of which is respectfully submitted.
GEORGE S. GOULD.
Secretary.
(255)
Builders’ Exchange and Department of Exhibits.
Montreal, January 18, 1910.
Re Bill introduced by Mr. A. Yerville, M.P. for Maisonneuve, to limit work on
government contracts to eight-hours per day, referred to select parliamentary com-
mittee : —
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Hon. and Dear Sir, — At the annual general meeting of this asisociation held last
week, I was directed to respectfully submit the inclosed resolution, unanimously
adopted by the Builders’ Exchange in full executive session.
I am further to add that a delegation will be named by the board of directors to
present the case personally to your committee at such time and place as may best suit
your convenience.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. H. LAUER,
Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
477
APPENDIX No. 4
^57:' ad°p‘ed by the Annual General Meeting of the
Government contracts to eight hours per day ’ t0 hmit WOrk °n
1 Whereas, the adoption by the Federal government of an eight hour day on
resu,t in a simi,ar de-"d - * -iti aS
opera" i„"rd%„rXIrT„e^Ld “ J- -
vast body of tenants (including arMsaJ and **W ‘° tla
to whompresent high rents are already a serious item in
climatic conditions ^f^anada'^n^much^s0^ day is opposed to the
rjsts
4. Whereas, such a measure would constitute a ‘privileged class’ ormn^l
democratic principle of ‘equal rights for all-’ mi l JL m • S op.pofed to the
.gains, mechanics and contractors ol, ^ ,L^b, iTtoZ
=sssis#=i;ars
mmmma
involved d ged fr°m competllW on government works, owing to the great risk
The whole of which is respectfully submitted.
of °f if T®8.oludlon adopted by the Fourth Annual Convention o± the C 1ST A B
of Builders, held in London, Ont., February 8 to 10. ^-iN.A.B.
Whereas, the adoption by the Federal Government of an eight-hour dav on all
buildtarcontocts- and”'1'7 “ Si""Iar denMm<1 *° be “tended to «H P1-™*®
ody of tenants (including artisans and mechanics) residing in our larger cities to
ompresent high rents are already a serious item in the cost of living- and
Whereas any such arbitrary limitation of the working day is opposed to the
o miatic conditions of Canada, inasmuch as exterior building is already confined by
nature to about seven months, into which limited period it is essential to get all out-
side work completed; and b
Whereas, such a measure would constitute a ‘privileged class’ opposed to the
democratic principle of ‘ equal rights for all ’ and would unjustly discriminate against
ootn mechanics and contractors on non-public works :
Be it resolved, that while this association is ready at all times to co-operate with
tiie government m supporting legislation for the protection of life and limb in hazard-
ous occupations, the limitation of present working hours is uncalled for in the building
trades, and the proposed legislation would be against public policy and constitute an
unwarrantable interference with the personal liberty of the individual— unjust alike to
ie worker, who would thereby be prevented from turning his spare capital (he., his
478
COMMITTEE RE BILL Xo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
labour) to account by utilizing it to make prudent provision for the winter months,
and to the contractor, who on most contracts is bound to complete by a certain time
limit, and who would thus be discouraged from competing on government works,
owing to the great risk involved.
Resolved, further that a copy of this resolution be sent to the chairman of the
Select Parliamentary Committee, and a delegation follow later at the convenience of
said committee.
The whole of which is respectfully submitted.
J. Id. LATTER,
Secretary.
(371)
Builders’ Exchange, Ottawa.
Ottawa, Ont., January 31, 1910.
Re Bill introduced by Mr. A. Verville, M.P. for Maisonneuve, to limit work on
government contracts to eight hours per day, referred to a Select Parliamentary Com-
mittee : —
lion. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Select Parliamentary Committee.
IIon. and Dear Sir, — At the annual general meeting of this association held last
week, I was directed to respectfully submit, the inclosed resolution, unanimously
adopted by the Builders’ Exchange in full executive session, to your committee with
reference to the above proposed measure.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
d. j. Mackenzie,
Secretary.
Builders’ Exchange, Ottawa.
Copy of resolution adopted unanimously by the annual general meeting of the
Builders’ Exchange, January 27th inst.
Re Bill to limit work on government contracts to eight hours per day.
1. 'Whereas, the adoption by the federal government of an eight-hour day on all
public works would promptly result in a similar demand to be extended to all private
building contracts; and
2. Whereas, such a law. would undoubtedly lead to increased cost of building opera-
tions and consequent increase of rentals, constituting an added burden to the vast body
of tenants (including artisans and mechanics) residing in our larger cities, to whom
present high rents are already a serious item in the cost of living; and
3. Whereas, any such arbitrary limitation of the working day is opposed to the
climatic conditions of Canada, inasmuch as exterior building is already confined by
nature to about seven months, into which limited period it is essential to get all out-
side work completed; and
4. Whereas, such a measure would constitute a ‘ privileged class ’ opposed to the
democratic principle of ‘ equal rights for all ’ and would unjustly discriminate both
against mechanics and contractors on non-public works;
5. Be it resolved, that while this association is ready at all times to co-operate
with the government in supporting legislation for the protection of life and limb in
hazardous occupations, whether by shortening the hours of work or by any other protec-
tive measures, such protection is uncalled for in the building trades; and the proposed
legislation would be against public policy and constitute an unwarrantable interfer-
ence with the personal liberty of the individual — unjust alike to the worker, who would
thereby be prevented from turning his spare capital (i.e., his labour) to account
COMMITTEE RE BILL Xo. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
479
APPENDIX No. 4
by utilizing it to make prudent provision for the winter months - and tn ™ f ,
wo on most contracts is bound to complete by a certain time limit, and who woukHhr ’
be discouraged from competing on o-overnment wm-i-o „ • ,
The whole of which"* re^eetMly ”b™i,Ted ' ”g *° ** »"* "* mvolved-
d. j. Mackenzie,
Secretary.
(149)
Burrell-Johnson Iron Company, Limited.
Yarmouth, N.S., January 17, 1910.
arrived for a”y sr.ch'aSion. °'mdm phW7’ ** *> Wie™ *• >»”
or Tor^zs:;:j7r^:t^i ™tp? the >« ^
ot".;: accord t ‘h« *«W >•»« it we gave U toSTS
business as ourselves in tlm me there are several companies in the same
system! 1 the maritime Provinces who still adhere to the ten-hour
Working under the nine-hour system, you will find all classes perfectly satisfied
the^ miners. ^ ~ k"°W «" °"ly W"""* "*<> >>«'- agitated eighth are “5
boil „dartiCrUvr l:"; °f tasi"“s iB “'“"ufocture of small stoamere. engines and
boilers and m this work we are m competition with Great Britain, and it is a fact
to-day that manufacturers m Great Britain can manufacture marine engines boiler-
sell the same. Cheaper than the Canadian manufacturers can
to thtSe rnditiTSl we do not think it ^ for the Canadian manufacturers
satisfied andlCaPPed by reducti0n of hours’ Particularly, when the workmen are
wo tFUrmeii' 14 Wil1 ^ imP°ssible t0 run part of the shop working on government
work eight hours a day and continue the nine-hour system, for once that basis was
adopted it would have to be continued.
?kgi™ KVeral “*1”. “'S'™61118 »S»inst the adoption of this new Act but
ha"dica" Caiiadi“
Respectfully submitted,
II. S. CROWELL,
Manager.
(334)
Butterworth Foundry, Limited.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, January 21, 1910.
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
Ottawa.
My Dear Sir— We understand that it is now proposed to again bring before the
parliament of Canada a Bill to provide for the compulsory 'Eight-Hour Day’ and
as employers of labour we desire, with others, to protest against the passage of such
a measure, and we feel confident that full and careful consideration will be given by
tbe honourable gentlemen who have the conduct of the affairs of this country, before
the adoption of a law which must prove to be detrimental to the industrial interests
o ie Dominion, which add so materially to the progress of the country.
480
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
The adoption of the Bill would prohibit almost every manufacturing establish-
ment from tendering for government business, because of the impossibility of work-
ing one class of employees a shorter term per diem, than another, thereby causing
constant friction in the factory. Just in this connection the prices for government
work would doubtless be increased because of fewer firms caring to submit tenders
under the new conditions imposed.
It is admitted that every man has the right to improve his position by extra
effort whenever the opportunity offers, but the passage of this Bill takes away that
right and, therefore, interferes with the individual’s liberty.
It is difficult now to secure sufficient skilled labour and as industrial conditions
improve, the employers of labour must be hampered in the conduct of their business
should the hours of labour be lessened.
Less hours of labour must mean increased cost of production, because there are
certain fixed charges in every business that cannot be avoided, and the cost of every
lost hour must be added to the .productive hours. This means more to the consumer
in every line.
A strong cry has been heard for years past from the most important class of
producers, the farmer, as to the difficulty of securing assistance, and we believe the
introduction of shorter hours of labour in the cities will materially increase this diffi-
culty, because men will more and more be attracted to the industrial centres.
We find only a small percentage of employees favour a shorter hour now that
Saturday afternoons are allowed in so many factories or other places of employment,
and we believe the demand for lessening of the hours comes principally from those
who cannot be considered the most competent.
Perhaps one of the strongest arguments against the reduction of the hours is
the effect such would likely have upon the morals of the men. We find in our par-
ticular line of business that after every holiday a large percentage of the men arc
off duty for one or more days. It is a well recognized fact that when men are idle
they are more liable to fall into temptation, and we believe the shorter day would
certainly have an evil tendency.
We submit these points to your committee in the hope that thoughtful consider-
ation will bring about results the most beneficial to the citizens of the Dominion at
large.
Yours faithfully,
II. W. CHAMBERLAIN,
President.
(1601
The Ontario Biscuit and Confectionery Manufacturers.
London, January 19, 1910.
Re Bill No. 21.
Dear Sir,— Replying to yours of the 23rd ult. While not opposing the principle
of the eight-hour system as a work day for employees whose labour does not enter into
competition with imported manufactured product, the Ontario biscuit and confection-
ery manufacturers feel that, at the present time it would be inopportune for the govern-
ment to recognize the principle by an Act of Parliament.
It would be putting an official recognition of the eight-hour principle on record
that might eventually work harm, not only to the manufacturers of Canada, but to the
employees as well.
If such law became general, Caandian manufacturers would have their per capita
output reduced 20 per cent, and would have to compete against imported goods made
under ten hours as a day’s labour, which under present tariff conditions, would give
further advantage to the foreign manufacturer.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
481
APPENDIX No. 4
The English manufacturer has been for some time getting to large a share of Can-
a lan ra e in our mes; a share which he is not entitled to in competition on quality,
a owing to is c leap labour (pays about half the Canadian manufacturer pays), has
practically free raw material, and low freight rates.
. ,I.t the Canadian workman wants to make our day of labour eight hours, let him
be fair, and insist on an extra duty being placed on products that have not been pro-
t uced by an eight-hour per day system. He cannot expect to raise the cost of produc-
tion by shortening the hours of labour, without paying his proportion of tnat cost.
e penalizing of any manufacturer or workman working more than eight hours
per day is an infringement on the personal liberty of the subject, and working men
themselves are not by any means unanimous that such a condition should exist. They
are just as eager to earn overtime at certain seasons as the manufacturer is to have
them do so in order to fill their customers’ wants promptly.
There are two seasons in the year when it is practically impassible for biscuit and
confectionery manufacturers to avoid working overtime; that is, midsummer for bis-
cuits, and the fall for confectionery. To limit a work day to eight hours would only
accentuate these conditions and make them worse than ever.
Making stock ahead in our line is not practicable. The consumer demands fresh
goods, consequently there are certain rush seasons when overtime work is imperative.
. stat.e ^or your information that the minimum wages paid to girls in our
me of business is $4 per week, as far as my information goes. They make consider-
ably more than this when they become experts. Some factories who work on the day-
wor p an, start their green help at even a higher rate than the one mentioned, all be-
mg based on the amount of work than they can turn out.
. ^ a(n a(ivised on good authority that English manufacturers pay their girls from
si^x to eight shillings per week.
As a corroboration of this statement, I would refer you to a recent lecture of Mrs.
onowden s in the city of Toronto, but would intimate at the same time, that is not my
source of information ; it comes more direct.
In conclusion would say, that it is the opinion of the manufacturers in our line
that the eight-hour system is premature, and that n0 country could exist against it
un ess the tariff provides against imports of manufactured materials, especially from
countries where such a system would not be recognized.
You will, of course, understand that I am not representing all the manufacturers
of Canada, but I am intimate with them, and with conditions from Halifax to Van-
couver.
Trusting my information is not too lengthy, and that it will be of some use to you
I remain,
Yours truly,
C. CAIN,
Acting Secretary.
(192)
The Canada Axe and Harvest Tool Manufacturing Company, limited.
St. Paul. Que., January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,— We note with some concern that the organized labour interests, which
we believe represent hut a very small percentage of the labour vote, have again brought
forward the Eight Hour Day Bill, and we understand that this Bill has been referred
to a special committee of which you are chairman.
Primarily, this Bill will prohibit manufacturers, who work their staff longer than
eight hours per day, tendering on work in anv connected with the government. Al-
4-31
482
COMMITTEE RE BILL Xo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
most universally the practice is for goods to pass from department to department, from
process to process, making it practically impossible to work a portion of the staff on
government work eight hours per day and a portion on regular work for ten hours per
day. The element of competition will be killed, and the government will pay much
higher prices in consequence.
What we are facing in the immediate future is not lack of business but lack of
labour to meet the demands of renewed prosperity. Legislation which tends to reduce
the hours of labour will still further cripple us. Compulsory short hours will raise
prices and the cost of living while measures of this kind hamper the man who has ambi-
tion to strive. Surely his handicap is big enough already.
As we are specialists in farming tools, we are sensitive to the farmer’s viewpoint.
Compulsory short hours make the lure of the city that much greater. Our friend the
farmer tells us that the cost of labour is making farming a hazardous occupation. He
tells us that shortage of hands is frequently prevalent even with high prices. Legis-
lation of the type in question means an increase of his troubles.
For these and a number of other reasons, with which we will not take up your
time, we are strongly opposed to this Bill, and hope that the mature consideration of
your committee will result in a report thereon adversely.
Yours truly,
THE CANADA AXE AND HARVEST TOOL MFG. CO., LTD.
Leslie Drake,
Secretary Treasurer.
(140)
Canada Cycle and Motor Company, Limited.
West Toronto, January 14, 1910.
Dear Sir, — We consider the Act, as drafted, entirely unworkable, and, if adopted,
we believe it would prove a serious blow to Canadian industries. We are not in a
position to speak with special authority as to the advisability of an eight-hour day
in certain special industries, where hygenic conditions may be different from normal;
neither are we in a position to speak with special authority for industries which are
purely local, and whose competition is also local; but as the Bill is drafted, it would
apply to industries which are doing business, not only in Canada against foreign
competition, but in foreign markets themselves, and it would seem to be entirely
unworkable that a firm should have a contract for the government of the Dominion
of Canada to work part of its factory eight hours on such work, while competitive
conditions might demand nine or ten hours on all the rest of the work. In fact, the
Act seems to us entirely unworkable, and we trust it will not go through.
Yours truly,
T. A. RUSSELL,
General Manager.
<216)
Canada Furniture Manufacturers, Limited.
Woodstock, Ont., January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir, — We are writing you, as chairman of the special committee on Bill No. 21,
and wish to lay before you our views with respect to same. We employ about 1,200
hands, operating a number of factories, and in not one of which have we a union
man that we are aware of, and there never has been any desire on the part of our
men to join labour unions.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
463
APPENDIX No. 4
We are strongly apposed to the Bill being passed for the following reasons -
1 It would prohibit every employer and every employee who works ,»„ e than
eight hours per day from sharing in government business.
o ,2; °Ultbp utterly' impracticable for any establishment to work one portion
of its staff eight hours a day on government orders and the rest of its staff on ten
hours a day on orders for private parties and private corporations.
3. As a natural consequence competition for government orders would be less
at ^ higher6 figure!^ ^ ^ ^ ^ W°uld have to be paid for government
4. It would place a discount on ambition. The inherent right of the individual
to raise himself above the level of his fellows by extra work or effort would be deniel
5. Once we have fully recovered from the present industrial depression there will
shortage ImZ ^ ^ reductl0n in the h°urs of labour would mean that this
shortage would be tremendously accentuated.
<>. A shorter working day would mean an increased cost of production which in
urn would mean a material advance in the price charged the jobber, the retail and
the consumei and consequently a general increase in the cost of living.
/. ihe shorter hours of labour in town and city workshops have proved a wonder-
u lj strong attraction in influencing men to leave the farm. If these hours are now
i educed to eight per day hired help for the farm will be more difficult than ever to
27 Zt wo ld' I® TSS T Wi” appreciate the importance of blocking a
move that would only embarrass the farmer.
voteSshmlfl‘!mlefv1'1p0”r wid' “ *a!d t0 represent only eight per cent of the labour
of Catdia,, Yndttry ‘mP°Se C0,,,J,"O"S '7hich ”uM ham5er development
I am sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. K. SHAW,
Managing Director.
(290)
The Canada Linseed Oil Mills, Limited.
Tr w T nr Montreal, January 20, 1930.
lion. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ont.
1 <t “ deSir! t0 ent6r °Ur pr0t6St aSainst the Bight Hour Day Labour Bill now
! r*hetH0U®’ foi\lf ™ interpret it correctly, its adoption would mean that the
government would not be able to use our products, since it would be quite impracticable
h. adapt our operations to the eight-hour day to supply government material.
Moreover, its adoption would establish a precedent of eight-hour dav labour which
m our opinion would be injurious to Canadian manufacturing, by creating unrest and
disturbances between employer and employees. Production would be reduced and cost
oi production consequently increased, which would have to be met by reduction in
wages or loss of business. We do not believe that Canada has reached the positon in
manufacturing that we can afford to have such disturbances to trade, as we fear the
enactment of such a radical Bill might bring about.
Hoping you will give our protest due consideration, we remain,
Yours truly,
CANADA LINSEED OIL MILLS, LTD.
E. Lursch,
Manager.
4-3 n
484
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
<257)
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Canada Paper Company, Limited.
Windsor Mills, Que., January 19, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — Regarding- the Bill now under consideration by your committee, would
say as we sell some paper to the government, we would like to point out how the pass-
ing of this Bill would affect us.
It would be impossible to have special employees manufacture this paper, as the
production of paper is a continuous process, all employees in the mill more or less tak-
ing part in. it.
In some parts of our mills, where the labour is severe, the men are already working
eight hours, but it would be impossible to apply this system throughout and stay in
business, for the reason that a large part of our output goes abroad, and the margin of
it is already extremely narrow.
As you are probably aware, a large proportion of paper made in this country is sold
in foreign markets, and in selling this we are already at a disadvantage, on the one
hand competing with low-priced European labour, on the other with American manu-
facturers who compete with us in the purchase of wood in Canada, and protect their
Tome market with a duty on paper.
As you are aware, it is a difficult matter to keep labour in a small place like this,
ns labour naturally gravitates towards large centres, and the reduction of the hours of
labour thereat would still further accelerate this somewhat undesirable movement.
Yours truly,
CANADA PAPER COMPANY, LTD.
<270)
The Canada Producer and Gas Engine Company, Limited.
Barrie, January 19, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Hon. and Dear Sir,- — Relative to Bill No. 21 coming before the House in the near
future, and of which special committee we believe you are chairman, we desire to
express our protest and dissatisfaction with the proposal contemplated in this Bill.
The manufacturers of Canada are already sufficiently handicapped on the labour
question, because of the high price of labour and the high cost of living, combined with
the fact that on a large portion of their raw products they have to pay a considerable
duty. Should an Eight Hour Act come into force in connection with government con-
tracts, it will certainly embarrass very considerably every manufacturing industry
throughout the country, for the labouring class would very quickly endeavour to make
this universal.
We sincerely trust that the report of the committee will be unfavourable to the
proposal.
Yours truly,
THE CANADA PRODUCER AND GAS ENGINE CO., LTD.
E. C. Hill,
Managing Director.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
APPENDIX No. 4
(177)
485
Canada Screw Company, Limited.
Hamilton, Ont., January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir— We have before us a copy of the Eisht-TTmir T>;n i r
ment at Ottawa, and view with very considerable alarm th;- ’ef.0]'€ Parlia-
account of the very serious results which must of necessity follow efl, 6gl® atl.0n 01!
the proposals contained therein; not to mannfaetm-; • J low the adoption ot
every interest in Canada, so far-reaching would be thf AAuTs of' o^ation^
every manufacturer, and employer of labour flT,4 f operation. Io
than eight hours a day it ulld prohibit Sm h, tv X’T*’ ° "»**
business; for the reason as you wfll readily sS „ f J Id 7 •"* “
33S58^^a£eSSs
r Canadian industries of any kind to compete with those of other countries "and
the certain result would be to close up a very large percentage of them.
Ihe shorter working day with its increased cost of production mint in
a material advance in the price charged for all kind* of ™ l + V * mean'
a general increase in the cost of IhSg Pr0‘ll,CtS' ,nl “nsegnently
This fact is brought out very clearly in the matter of thp post of Lnim- 1 • ^
under short hours of labour has increased to such an extent that the real estate holder
building houses to rent, is compelled to charge a rental to the working man which
is nearly double what it was ten or fifteen years ago b
Another feature is that the shorter hours of labour in town and city workshops
as a strong attraction in influencing men to turn from the farm to the city and the
farmer now finds it very difficult to get sufficient hired help to carry on ‘ids wort
^ * —t difficulties would b;
that la?Tr i!| Ca"ada.is a vei'y small Percentage of the whole, and we fecf
the dpvpf ^ h A6! d °Wed t0 ™?°Se conditions must very seriously hamper
the development of this country in its varied interests. ^
K1llmS ?USt11that aS husine*s men y°u and the committee to which this Bill has been,
“ 711 apPreciatf, the importance of blocking a proposal, the result of the
adoption of which would so seriously embarass the farmer, the manufacturer the
employer of labour m every class of our varied industries, and not only these but a’ so
at least ninety per cent of the workingmen of Canada, who it is safe to say arc will-
advancement °nger h°UrS 3nd thereby increase their earnings and possibilities of
Very sincerely yours,
CYRUS R. BIRGE,
President.
486
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(221)
The Canadian Bridge Company, Limited.
Walkerville, Ont., January 18, 1910
lion. W. L Mackenzie King.,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill Ho. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — Referring to the proposed compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill, we wish
to say that we consider the Bill decidedly objectionable, and we sincerely hope that
the special committee will report against it. It will be practically impossible for us
to undertake government work on an eight-hour day basis at the same time with our
regular run of work which is dono on a ten-hour basis. The result of the proposed
law will certainly greatly enhance the cost of government work, and incidentally
increase considerably the cost of our ordinary output. Erom our knowledge of con-
ditions among our workmen we do not believe there is any sentiment whatever for a
change from our present basis of a ten-hour day. We may say further, that the
penalty proposed in the Bill for infraction of the proposed eight-hour law is confis-
catory and out of all reason. We feel sure that upon due consideration of the Bill
the committee will report upon it adversely.
Yours very truly,
E. C. McMATH,
President.
(391)
Canada Car and Foundry Company, Limited.
Montreal, P.Q., February 28, 1910.
Hon. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
My Dear Sir, — We are advised that the special committee of the Commons is at
present considering a Bill introduced by Mr. Verville, M.P., to limit the hours of all
government labour to eight per day. Should this Bill pass, it would affect any con-
tracts we might have for equipment for the Intercolonial Railway Company, and
would be a very bothersome measure, not only for us but for the railway people.
We cannot work economically and profitably on eight-hour shifts, and it would be
very difficult to put work through our shops for the Intercolonial railway together with
other work and stop the men on Intercolonial railway work on an eight-hour shift.
It would disarrange our whole shop and it would be necessary for us to estimate our
costs sufficiently high to take care of this condition when we are tendering for Inter-
colonial railway work, thereby increasing the cost of Intercolonial railway equipment.
I hereto attach a letter written by the president of our company, Mr. N. Curry,
under date of November 15, 1908, to Prof, Magill, with reference to this matter, which
was in reply to certain questions propounded by Prof, Magill.
This will give you our reasons for objecting to this measure.
Yours very truly,
W. W. BUTLER,
First Vice-president.
(392)
Rhodes Curry & Company, Limited.
Amherst, N.S., November 15, 1908.
Professor Magill,
Pine Hill, Halifax, N.S.
Dear Sir, — Referring to your circular letter and list of twenty-four questions in
reference to eight-hour day.
COMMITTEE RE BILL iXo. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
487
APPENDIX No. 4
1. If an eight-hour day were in operation, we would lose ll£ hours of production
per week, and the amount of our output would be reduced 20 per cent
..In some of our departments, labour represents 50 Per cent or more of the out-
pu . In these departments, cost of production would go up 10 per cent. The average
over the whole plant would probably go up about 7 per cent.
‘ ° n0t, SUpP°SeiC0St -of our Production would advance more than that of others
operating under eight-hour law, but we would be handicapped to the extent of from six
to ten per cent as against those operating under ten-hour day.
4. We try to keep our mechanical equipment up-to-date and in a thoroughly effi-
cient state, and do not think anything could be saved by changes in equipment under
an eight-hour day. . Same answer applies to multiple shifts and lessening of waste.
j. n ^ an ei^, J 10111 0lir emPloj'ees would insist on having their holidays,
attending circuses, horse races, &c., the same as they do now. The industrious and
steady men are not absentees under present conditions. The other class would be
absentees under any conditions. Meal and rest intervals does not affect our plant.
V\ e could not look lor greater efficiency under shorter days.
6. Have had no reduction in hours. Have always worked ten hours to the dav.
i. Our employees could not do as much in eight hours as they do in ten. Nearly
half of the men are on machines, and the machine will do so much per hour, whether
the hours are eight or more, and this applies to the men as well, unless the work is
heavier than ours, and the hours go beyond ten.
8. An eight-hour day would have a tendency to throw the old men out of work,
a» we are quite sure that under an eight-hour day, we could not get work at remunera-
tive prices to keep all our men employed, and could only afford to keep the ablest and
most efficient.
9. If an eight-hour law were in operation, and we wished to maintain our present
output, we would have to increase the different classes of employees 20 per cent. The
increase in labour cost would be in like proportion. The effect upon the price of our
product would be to advance it from 6 to 10 per cent.
10. During the present year, there have been a number of unemployed in oUr dis-
tiict. Previous to this year, we have had no unemployed for many years.
11. We work overtime and pay 25 per cent extra for night work; 50 per cent extra
for Sunday work.
12. About 7 per cent of our employees are English and Scotch, the balance Cana-
dians, natives of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
13. We rate each man individually, acording to the quality and the quantity of
work performed.
14. In my opinion, if an eight-hour law were in force in Nova Scotia, and not in
the rest of the Dominion, that employers could not afford to Pay more per hour than
was paid in other provinces. Thsi would mean that eventually the workmen would get
20 per cent less than workmen in other provinces.
15- An eight-hour day would have the effect on the safety or health of the steady,
industrious men, as these men are not content with even ten hours’ work. They work
at home both night and morning in their gardens, and doing work for their neigh-
bours, while the unsteady men would have more time to spend in saloons and places
of amusement than they now have, and the result would be they would have less money
and poorer health.
16. Less than 1 per cent of our output is exported.
17. Export trade so small, have not bothered to look up competitors.
18. Export trade such as it is, would be affected by an eight-hour day same as
local trade.
19. An eight-hour day would not handicap our industry as against other similar
industries, working under an eight-hour law.
20. The climate of Nova Scotia is a good one for manufacturing. We have no
extreme heat, or extreme cold, consequently we do not think any man who is able
488
COMMITTEE RE BILL Eo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
to work at all, is injured by working ten hours at any season of the year. There
might he some excuse for an eight-hour day in a southern climate, but do not think
Noca Scotia needs it.
21. In a plant like ours, it is necessary for nearly all the men to work the same
hours. Do not know that it would be of any use to exempt a portion of the men from
the eight-hour law.
22. We use about 15,000 tons of ISTova Scotia coal, and about 1,000 tons of Nova
Scotia coke.
23. We use about 1,000 tons American coke, and about 200 tons American anthra-
cite coke.
24. In our opinion, an eight-hour day would be the most foolish and harmful
piece of legislation that Nova Scotia’s government ever have, or ever could put on
the statute book. It is not for a new country like this, that is struggling to establish
industries, to attempt to reduce the hours of work. Let the old countries that have
had hundreds of years’ experience in manufacturing, and who have made the found-
ations for business, and with ample capital, thorough organization, and everything
possible to successfully conduct same, first take up this question, and even after such
a law is in operation in these countries, it should not be put in force in a new coun-
try for at least twenty-five years. In our own case, an eight-hour day would put us
out of business in one year. We estimate that the increased cost of our output
would be an average of 7 per cent, while the profits on our output for the past ten
years, has averaged less than 6J per cent.
We might say that the chief reason for our car-building business now being in
Amherst is that where it was formerly located in St. John, the nine-hour day was
established by the unions, and the increased cost of wages made it impossible for the
industry to compete with the upper Canadian industries working on the ten-hour
system, and if eight-hour day were to become law in Nova Scotia, and not in the
other provinces, it is more than likely that we would either close up the business
entirely or remove to a point in New Brunswick, or farther west, probably farther
west.
A number of the industries now located in the lower provinces, feel that they
could do better west, and we are quite sure that an eight-hour day in Nova Scotia
would be the deciding factor, and that a number of industries would immediately
make arrangements to move farther west where they would be nearer their market.
As regards our own output, over 80 per cent of it goes west of Nova Scotia.
Factory employees at the present time work shorter hours than those employed
in stores, hotels, restaurants, barber shops, &c. They also have much shorter hours
than farmers and fishermen.
Yours truly,
N. CURRY,
President.
(225)
Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company, Limited.
Montreal, January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,- As employers of about three thousand (8,000) people, and as manu-
facturers of certain lines of goods used by the Canadian government, we beg to regis-
ter our protest against the Bill about to be introduced by Mr. Yerville, commonly-
known as the Eight-Hour Day Bill.
COMMITTEE RE BILL Xo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
489
APPENDIX No. 4
We base oar protest on the following, among other reasons:-
eight ho ^f^S^tXe^sS^ "h° "* — “»»
of sS jr r ss s rt r* pr ira
a day on orders for private parties and private corpora, Lns h°""
agai^eTsC'^„ffUtirT“lfZ„‘ie„ XT ""’"f ra' d™' «- wiD
this shortage would he tremen.b™ly acTXtS °f WKm W°”Id m“" «“<
turnl„ti?m?anr^tn.riaiaXn'de «“* »
the oonsumer, and consequently a general increase in fte c^st'of iTv’i'rg? “d
fully strong attraction in'influendng m^'to kavf- tWarm58!^^^?011 * W°ndei"
reduced to eight per day hired helper the farm will b mor dS T*™ ™
bs »
Fours faithfully,
D. H. WARD,
Assistant General Manager
(348)
Canada Foundry Company, Limited.
Toronto, January 20, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill Ho. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
r Bear Sir,— Regarding Bill No. 21, entitled ‘An Act respecting the Hn„« of
Labour on Public Works,’ I have looked through this Bill and on behalf of the nh
tc^orif W<ht1f P°mt °lUt that :t W°Uld be Utterly impracticable for any establishment
onTrderst, ^ ^ g0vernment orders’ and the balance of the staff ten hours
orders for private concerns; consequently, any concern working ten hours a dav
would, of necessity, be debarred from doing government work, or would have to nut
their staff on an eight-hour basis. ^
The majority of the works in this city are at present operating on the basis of fiftv-
five hours per week-ten hours per day for five days and five hours on Saturday If
.ms i H goes through as at present worded, it would mean a forty-five hour week—
eight hours per day for five days, and five hours on Saturday.
now T?1S ?? Wl!1 haVe,a tendency t0 raise Priecs by reason of the decreased earning
• pacity ot the plant, which must, of neceesity, increase the cost.
Prior to the present period of industrial depression, there was a great shortage of
labour in the country, and when this depression passes away, which we hope will be
soon, there will still be a shortage of help, and the effect of this Bill will be to increase
tms shortage in a very marked degree.
490
COMMITTEE RE BILL Vo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
I hope, therefore, that your committee will report adversely on the Bill, as I feel
that it would be a great hardship.
Very sincerely yours,
GEO. W. WATT,
Manager of Works.
(167)
Canada Furniture Manufacturers, Limited.
Woodstock, Decemebr 31, 1909.
Sir, — We wish to state that we are emphatically opposed to the Bill. In this
young and growing country it is absurd to restrict the time of labour to eight hours a
day. A large majority of the manufacturers of Canada cannot get their work done
during certain periods of the year, in ten hours a day, for the reason that they cannot
get a sufficient number of hands to do the work. How much worse off would we be if
the hours of labour were limited to eight? If this is the condition of affairs with the
manufacturer, is it not the same with the government? We do not think the govern-
metn should consent to the Bill being passed.
Suppose we had a contract from the government for making furniture; we run our
factories ten hours a day; because the one particular job happened to he a government
job, would we be supposed to curtail our running time to eight hours? This point does
not seem to be provided for in the draft Bill.
Yours truly,
CANADA FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS, LTD.
.1. R. Shaw,
Managing Director
(331)
Canadian Gas Power and Launches. Limited.
Toronto, January 21, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie Kino,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir, — Referring to Bill No. 21 introduced by Mr. Verville, we would say that
cn general principles we are in favour of an eight-hour day, provided it be brought into
operation by natural evolution, but we protest most earnestly against the first and
second paragraphs of this Bill No. 21, for the reasons concisely set forth by the chair-
man and secretary of the Manufacturer’s Association, a copy of which is appended.
We think that the strongest of all these reasons are those laid down in clauses 7 and 3
of the manufacturer’s memorandum. (See Exhibit G.)
At the same time as an example to employers, we think that the last clause of the
Act should pass. There is nothing compulsory about it, it simply provides that where
the government of Canada, the largest employer in the Dominion does work by day
labour, the eight-hour day should be introduced. This would not increase the scarcity
of farm labour, except in fewi and widely scatterer neighbourhoods.
Yours truly.
CANADIAN GAS POWER AND LAUNCHES, LTD.
D. J. McKinnon,
Treasurer
COMMITTEE RE BILL Xo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
APPENDIX No. 4
(349)
49]
Canadian General Electric Company, Limited.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. ’ 0R0NT0' January 20> 1910-
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill Xo. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir ,-Eegarding .Bill Xo. 21, entitled, ‘An Act respecting the Hours of
Labour on Public Works, I have looked through this Bill, and on behalf of the above
HTeKtsr; r iat * wouid be *** for any
! %ht Uls a day 011 government orders, a'nd the balance of the staff ten hours
on orders for private concerns. Consequently, any concern working ten hours a dav
would of necessity be debarred from doing government work, or would have to put
their staff on an eight-hour day basis. 1
^ “a;iority of tke works in tllis city arc at present operating on the basis of
H ^th?sVBmUJoesP+b W6elf_tei1 hours Per day for five days, and five hours on Saturday.
• £ ! BlU g es Jhrough as at present worded, it would mean a forty-five hour week-
eight hours per day for five days, and five hours on Saturday.
Tins Bill will have a tendency to raise prices by reason of the decreased earning
capacity of the plant, which must, of necessity, increase the cost.
■ ,,Bri0r *° tlie Present industrial depression, there was a great shortage of labour
m the country and when this depression passes away, which we hope will be soon, there
will still be a shortage of help, and the effect of this Bill will be to increase tin's short-
age in a very marked degree.
I hope therefore, that your committee will report adversely on the Bill as I feel
That it would be a great hardship.
Very sincerely yours,
GEO. W. WATT,
Manager of Worhs.
(126)
Canadian Hart Wheels, Limited.
Hamilton, January 11, 1910.
Dear Sir,— We would say that if such an Act was put into force we would be
compelled to decline all government business. If an an eight-hour law was put into
orce generally it would cut the wages of our men 20 per cent as we would have to put
on more men to turn out the same quantity of product.
The conditions of our trade in this country would not allow a corresponding rise
in price as our customs laws are against the dumping of American goods in our line
m this country are not enforced with the same stringency as the United States enforces
its custom laws in regard to emery wheels. The lowest discount at which we can in-
voice wheels for export to the United States is 70/10 from the list prices, whereas
American firms are allowed to send emery wheels into this country at discounts as low
as 80/10/10/5, which is not what might be regarded as fair treatment. We would much
prefer free trade giving us access to their large market on equal terms.
. Returning to Bill Xo. 21. We would say most emphatically that it would be a
decided detriment to our business.
Yours very truly,
CANADIAX HART WHEELS, LTD.
G. R. Harvey,
Secretary and Treasurer.
492
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— E OCRS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(117) Canadian Linotype, Limited.
Montreal, January 11, 1910.
Sir,— The measure seems to be one based upon a condition entirely foreign to
those -which obtain in this country.
The writer has had a very long experience in dealing with Canadian skilled work-
men, and he would not undertake a contract, under this Bill and employ Canadians
under it. Foreigners may be willing to work under such conditions, but it is his
experience that Canadians will not do so. They are in the mass, men who strip to
their shirts, put their backs into the job, work for results, not for so many hours ol
pay, and who want results for themselves as well. They will not, therefore, be satis-
fied with eight hours pay as a day’s work.
Seventeen years ago I came to the conclusion that ten hours work a day at such
work as building linotype machines was more than any man could do in justice to
himself and his employer. It was decided to put the men on a nine-hour day and
stop work at five o’clock, and a new scale of wages was struck, giving every man the
same wages for fifty-four hours a week that had been paid for sixty.
I believe this was the first time such a thing was done in a Canadian shop. The
men did not like it, were quite willing to work until six o’clock, and in the end the
fifty-five hour work giving the Saturday half-holiday was adopted, and the shop
developed a hockey team.
The sort of grandmotherly legislation of which Bill No. 21 is a sample is out of
place in a country that has still free lands for the settlers. It is an imported article,
and in the writer’s opinion would have the effect of driving Canadians from all public,
works in their own country.
Yours truly,
DAVID A. POE,
(361) The Canadian Locomotive Company, Limited.
Kingston, Ont., January 27, 1910
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir, — Our attention has been called to Bill 21, ‘An Act respecting Hours
of Labour on Public Works,’ which provides that every contract entered into by the
government shall contain a stipulation that no labourer, workman, or mechanic,
employed thereon, shall be required, or permitted, to work over eight hours per day.
From reading this Bill, and notwithstanding the third clause thereof, it seems to
us that the Bill — if passed as printed — would apply to work done in our shops in
building locomotives for the government railways. If so, we earnestly request the
privilege of being heard by the committee having the Bill in charge in protest against
its passage. We believe that we can convince the committee that this legislation
would be not only unwise, but impracticable, and would work serious injury to the
government, employers and employees.
C. BERMINGHAM,
Managing Director.
(1661
Canadian Manufacturers’ Association (Nova Scotia Branch).
Halifax, N.S., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa.
Nova Scotia Branch Canadian Manufacturers’ Association repeat their dis-
approval of Vervillo Bill, and express hope your committee will report adversely.
M. McF. HALL,
Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
493
APPENDIX No. 4
(222)
The Canadian Shovel and Tool Company, Limited.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Hamilton, January IS, 1910
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No PI
Ottawa, Ont.
the rZZZZtahZlZZ6* !finSf?m N°' **> 0o“P“>»'y Eight-hour Day for
works more than eight hours ~7U L, pl°Upt ,every employer and every employee who
eoet of all government work; that it would place a discount on the ,X one fi m i
Ltm ttt alhL^r," °£ St^dard l,0UrS Wl11 ‘“'l *» increase the sZ-t ™ S
shortage of hours will increase the cost of the manufactured product;
Zl L7tZ Zf V.Z u trade 0f m“”f>«‘frers who are at present exporting
goods and that as the Bill has been proposed by organised labour it be not considered
as they represent only a small portion of ,he wage-earners of this coLtry
Yours truly,
CANADIAN SHOVEL AND TOOL COMPANY, LTD.
Per Fred K. Skelton.
(2831
Canadian Westinghouse Company, Limited.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Hamilton, Ont.,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
January 20, 1910.
Covipulsory Eight-hour Day Bill
Dnwr3?^ SlRrOUr-aitteMi0n haS been Ca!led t0 Mr- Yervillc’s Compulsory Eight-hour
1T7 lU’ a^! We W1*h t0 eriter a veiy stron8' Protest against the adoption of such a
«. ure. The provisions of the Bill would thoroughly disorganize the general works
ol a manufacturer or a contractor who might undertake government work, and at the
same time it would operate to the decided disadvantage of the government. We
append herewith reasons which have been tabulated by the Manufacturers’ Association,
and which are c ear and concise, consequently needing no further comments from us.
. U would Prohibit every employer and every employee who works more than
eignt hours per day from sharing in government business.
. (2) dt Z0llld be utterly impracticable for any establishment to work one portion
o± its staff eight hours a day on government orders and the rest of its staff ten hours a
day on orders for private parties and private corporations.
(3) As a natural consequence competition for government orders would be less
keen; prices would go up, and all work would have to be paid bv the government at a
higher figure.
(4) It would place a discount on ambition. The inherent right of the individual
to raise himself above the level of his fellows by extra work or effort would be denied
hurt
. W 0uce we have fully recovered from the present industrial depression there will
again be a shortage of help. A reduction in the hours of labour would mean that this
shortage would be tremendously accentuated.
(6) A shorter working day would mean increased cost of production, which in
turn would mean a material advance in the price charged by the jobber, the retailer
and the consumer, and consequently a general increase in the cost of living.
494
COMMITTEE RE BILL Xo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(7) The shorter hours of labour in town and city workshops have proved wonder-
fully strong attraction in influencing men to leave the farm. If these hours are now
reduced to. eight per day hired help for the farm will he more difficult than ever to
secure and.retain. As business men you will appreciate the importance of blocking a
move that would only embarrass the farmer.
(8) Organized labour, which is said to represent only eight per cent of the labour
vote, should not be allowed to impose conditions which would hamper the development
of Canadian industry.
We trust the committee in its deliberations will be guided by the reasons as above
stated, and particularly number (8), which shows the labour vote, representing a very
small percentage of the total vote, should be allowed to impose a condition which
would hamper the development of Canadian industries.
Very truly yours,
CANADIAN WESTINGHOUSE CO., LTD.
Paul J. Myler,
Vice President and General Manager.
(185)
E. T. Carter & Company, Wholesale Dealer in Wool, Hides, Skins, &e.
Toronto, January 18, 1910.
Chairman Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Canada.
Dear Sir, — As a member of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association and an em-
ployer of labour, I cannot help but protest against the proposed Eight-Hour Day Bill
which is being advocated through Mr. Verville.
If there was a surplus of labour unemployed, and which showed signs of being
permanent, there would then be some excuse for talking eight hours.
I have had as many as one thousand men under my employ at one time in fac-
tories as well as in out door work, and the point that astonished me most in all my
experiences was that when holidays came around, or there was talk of shorter hours, the
large majority of men protested and said they were willing to work holidays and all
rather than spend their time loafing at home with nothing to do. I may add that I
found this same condition in many places both on Canada and the L nited States where-
ever I had charge of labour.
Hoping you will use your efforts to put a stop to such unnecessary and uncalled for
legislation, I remain,
Yours very truly,
H. J. CARTER
(180)
Castle & Son, Decorative Artists.
Montreal, January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Out.
Dear Sir, — In reference to the ‘ Compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill,’ we proffer the
following objections against the adoption of this measure: —
1st. It is an arbitrary intervention without any relation to the economical law
which governs supply and demand in its relation to the sale of labour, without the
justification of state interference for human purposes. It means in times of pressure,
when it would be impossible to execute the demands caused by the rising market, that
there would be a limitation set upon production. Its strongest adherents and pro-
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 495
posers would be the first to violate it, but for a cash consideration; w., the time above
eight (8) hours would have to be paid for at time and a half rate, thereby increasin'
the cost of production It would eventually by the wheels of things come back a 1
basis of support on its authors; . therefore, in the long run they would pay for it
n o meantime manufacturing is dislocated and all that appertains thereto.
mid. We submit it would be impossible to accept any work or contracts from the
government of Canada with this provision attached. We will cite you an instance—
and while not a work of large moment— will illustrate our point. We have fitted up
the interior fittings of rooms at Government House for Iiis Excellency. The instal-
wo k had?o bT ""I " 1 mattei’-n0t time-but al'l of this wood-
woik had to be constructed m our works here, which is operated at nine hours a day
Eow consider the impossibility of having an eight-hour schedule on this one piece of
work, and working nine hours on all other contracts or work that we are carrying
through. This would be inoperative and impracticable; and if the law was enforced
(which I presume and have a right to presume it should be)— it would make it
nnpossible to accept any work or contracts with these conditions attached.
While there are other objections, it appears to us that these are the essential ones
,TJ A-% P n-eSS of legislative interference could overcome or satisfactorily harmonize
the difficulties set forth.
Submitting this to your esteemed judgment,
We beg to remain.
Yours very truly.
CASTLE & SON.
(357)
Chicoutimi Pulp Company.
Hon. W. I.. Mackenzie King, Q0EBE°' 24’ ,910'
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,— On behalf of the Chicoutimi Pulp Company, which employs several
hundred men. I beg to protest against the above stated Bill, which may also be called
the Compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill.
That Bill should be rejected for several reasons, among which are the following:—
. , ; , it would prohibit every employer and every employee who works more than
eight hours per day from sharing in government business.
; .,2- ^ W0.uJd be Utterly impracticable for any establishment to work one portion
ot its staff eight hours a day on government orders and the rest of its staff ten hours
a day on orders for private parties and private corporations.
3. As a natural consequence competition for government orders would be les =
heen; prices would go up, and all work would have to be paid by the government
at a higher figure.
4. It would place a discount on ambition. The inherent right of the individual
tojaise himself above the level of his fellows by extra work or effort would be denied
_ 5 Once we have fully recovered from the present industrial depression there will
again be a shortage of help. A reduction in the hours of labour would mean that
this shortage would be tremendously accentuated.
6. A shorter working day would mean an increased cost of production, which in
urn would mean a material advance in the price charged the jobber, the retailer and
the consumer, and consequently a general increase in the cost of living.
1. The shorter hours of labour in town and city workshops have proved a wonder-
iully Strong attraction in influencing men to leave the farm. If these hours are now
reduced to eight per day hired help for the farm will be more difficult than ever to
secure and retain. As business men you will appreciate the importance of blocking
a move that would only embarrass the farmer.
496
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
8. Organized labour, which is said to represent only eight per cent of the labour
vote, should not be allowed to impose conditions which would hamper the develop-
ment of Canadian industry.
I beg to request that this, our protest, be put before the committee with the hope
that it will be taken into serious consideration.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
N. GARNEAU,
President.
(337)
Christie Brothers & Company, Limited, Coffins and Caskets.
*
lion. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir, — Re Bill No. 21, for oight-hour day, we, as manufacturers, desire to
protest most strongly against the passage of this or any such Bill.
In regard to our own class, we would say that our work is of a light character,
factory and shops are well ventilated, present hours very reasonable and there is no
dissatisfaction on the part of our employees. We work a ten-hour day, from 7 a.m. to
6 p.m., with an hour at noon, and close at 5.30 p.m. Saturday throughout the year,
with the exception of six weeks during the summer months, when we close at noon on
Saturday. Our employees, however, get full 60 hours pay a week, notwithstandnig the
reduction in time. We are losers to practically the full extent of this reduction, and
consider that an eight-hour day would mean that we would have to pay ten-hour wages
for eight hours’ work.
Now, in regard to the manufacturers and the country in general; employers and
employees working more than eight hours a day would be practically prohibited from
sharing in government business, for no establishment could work part of its staff eight
hours on government work, and the remainder, ten hours on private work. This, or
course would restrict competition on government contracts and as a consequence work
would cost the government more.
Also if this Bill is passed, it will inevitably follow, sooner or later, that the eight-
hour day will be imposed, not on government contracts alone, but on all industries.
This means increased cost of production, which in turn, will mean increased prices
to the jobber, general dealer and retailer, and therefore increased cost of living.
Shortage of labour will, no doubt, be felt when the cloud of industrial depression
from which we are emerging is passed away. Any decrease in hours of labour will
greatly accentuate this.
A Bill of this character would disturb more than ever the balance of labour hours
between the farm and city. The problem of keeping men on farms will be greater than
ever and hired help for farm labour will be almost impossible to obtain. Ibis is fair
neither to the farmer nor to the manufacturer.
In conclusion we would say that organized labour represents only eight per cent
of the Canadian labour vote and should not, therefore, be allowed to impose conditions
which would so seriously affect, not the manufacturers only but the country at large.
Yours very truly,
CHRISTIE BROS. & CO., LTD.
Per II. R. C. for J. A. C.
(157)
J. Christin & Company, Aerated Water Manufacturers.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Montreal, January 18, 1910.
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — In reference to the Eight-hour Day Bill which we understand is again
to he brought forward by Mr. Verville, we beg to call your attention to the detrimental
effect of such a measure would have on the trade in general.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
497
APPENDIX No. 4
ix gr“T"y wof iself *° ,he •— *
would want the same alnnt for afelht h 7 '* W"1 Say *2 P“ dW.
the coat of labour to the maltar ?' "17' an<J !■ W°U“' tWfore- increase
ing man who actuallv L hZ ! !■ Sa“e ProP°rtion, ^nd moreover the work-
keep for his family, would by Ihe facHf he t0 SPend the money he should
tempted to. spend mo?e “one, in t“ elentop? 81,6 ‘° W "°rk «“> >»
better'reasons^or^shorter'^toy^ave^lread0118' ““W’ &c- "ho altto“«h tb^
have not bettered their wlS th ° ‘h,t ^
whose ambition is stimuli b, “*
cause at^alTnteTseln r^fr^ t? °f Pr°d'“*i“> “d “
S5i“a3.^SS3S*S£
We LI1 la*e hours or the development of Canadian industries.
sanetio; of tie HouTe ' re<1Ue!t ,h“‘ 8 M1 s“d ““* ««*«> the
This being our humble opinion, we remain,
Yours faithfully,
J. CHRISTIN & CO., INC.
Per J. A. Christin,
President.
(3271
W. H. Clark & Company, Limited, Manufacturers of Sash, Doors, &c.
800 to 809 9th Street,
Edmonton, Alta, January 15, 1910
wp p?pEAR SlR'~lr°Ur f™r of 27th ult., to hand, and in reply we beg to state that
reasons ^"wTrdmE t^afthe ^e1]leglSflation gained in Bill No. 21, for the following
. e admit that the Bill as framed does not seriouslv affect us directlv Q+ +ho
its ifr™ » b°nnd to affect all LntScforfo “btilLsel
C y oi indirectly, and is bound to work against our interests.
rml n,a 5°Ung country such as this, it is more production that we want and not less
malufaltoc!SPeC1 7 “ "e *° C°"P!!te “ tke WOTld’s markets with *>« goods we
nf pf0t iniy mUSt 7e have m0re production> but we must he able to draw on supplies
WpPf 3 Tn’ SfUCh aS ^ ar-6 n0t enabled t0 do to aiW extent at the present time.
We trust that your committee will deem it advisable to advise against the Bill.
Yours very truly,
W. H. CLARK & CO., LTD,
Per W. H. Clare.
(300)
The Clinton Knitting Company, Limited.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,— We beg to address you with reference to Bill No. 21, now before the
mouse of Commons and referred to special committee, proposing the introduction of
an eight-hour day for labour employed by the government of Canada.
4—32
498
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
We respectfully beg to dray your attention (as a manufacturer) to the fact that
this would tend towards restriction in the matter of tendering for government con-
tracts as the cost of production would be increased materially for the manufacturer
to allow his plant to stand idle for two hours each day. It is quite apparent that such
reduction of time would not only increase the cost of production, but would increase
the price of the consumer and dealer, and in view of the fact that the vote of organized
labour of Canada is but a small percentage of the total labour vote, we trust your
committee will find it their duty to report adversely.
We beg to remain, your humble servants,
E. M. McLEAN,
(169)
Colin McArthur & Company (Incorporated), Montreal Wall Paper Factory.
Collingwood, Ont., January 28, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour, Ottawa.
Sir, — We desire to enter our protest against this Bill, as it appears to us to be
simply a species of class legislation, and as such is not in the interest of the manu-
facturer, the farmer, or consumer. We maintain that as the privilege as sought for
py this one class, would if obtained, be inimical to the best interests of three classes
enumerated by ourselves, that it would not be equitable therefore, nor a proper measure
to become law.
This law, if it came into force, would be detrimental to the manufacturer, as
shorter hours of labour would inevitably involve the engaging of more hands, the
employment of more machinery, and therefore the enlarging of the manufacturies,
all of which would prove heavy burdens which the manufacturers should not be asked
to assume.
Secondly, it would be detrimental to the farmer, inasmuch as shorter hours in
the city and town would inevitably lead the farm help away from the farm, and the
farmers now find it exceedingly difficult to obtain and retain the help actually required
in order to harvest their crops. Surely the farmer is entitled to great consideration
in this matter.
It would be detrimental to the consumer in so much that a shorter working day,
and the consequent employment of extra hands in the factories, must increase the
price of goods, and it is an axiom well known that in the final analysis the consumer
must pay the price.
Yours respectfully,
W. WILLIAMSON,
President.
Collingwood Shipbuilding Company, Limited
Collingwood, Ont., January 28, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — It has been brought to our attention that the Eight-Hour Day Bill is
being forcibly pressed on the government to have same passed at the present term of
parliament. Speaking on our own behalf, I sincerely trust that the government will
not consider the passing of such Act. We consider the Eight-Hour Day Bill a dangerous
piece of legislation, especially dangerous to the advancement of Canada; such a
law might be of some benefit to the unemployed poor in some of the congested labour
centres of Europe, even that is doubtful. We feel that it would be a death-blow to
present progress of all the industries of Canada, this is a new country, economic con-
ditions are not the same as in the older settled countries, it is the hope of doing better
that brings the worthy emigrant to Canada, such immigration will build up this
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
APPENDIX No. 4
499
-ru^'sr out to be a day dream- °r “»-to^»b«%rn!Sz„r“f
^c^^isrtt,iwTiLzr,,sid8r “• even if t,,e w -»<> -
in British shipyards receive lSs /Sh^Jn h n °U\0Wn expenses- The skilled labour
day; the unskilled labour in our employ receive aUeast^l 50^ T a\T\ ^ f ^ ^
mechanics in Great Britain receive $1 95 toll ' per day! the hlSUy skilled
our business here receives from $2 50 to $3 50 ° l'1” < ay’ ^ ordmary meckanic in
easily 100 per cent higher than the rate of If/ S° ^ °Ur rate of is
building and engineering business n ^es paid the British workmen in the ship-
than the same 25
tii^outTbu^Ms^th? t°Ur lWhile |° Seri0USlyP consi^er beforeTeiilat?iatoepuSh
justification of ti ■ V 1 1 T g 6 13 alm0St an impossible condition at present In
i , , u per cent bonus for fifty years on every dollar of expenditure for
plant and equipment for a shipyard to be established at Quebec or Levis • such a mono
SitZveaWnn fT"" T *°
llT 1 1§; and unattractive shipbuilding is to capitalists.
5^^svi?«s^
m tne world to aid m manufacturing cheaply, and the low paid competition from
nnsaflf11 ™am,fact"rers’ makes manufacturing of all kinds in Canada more or less
“ \0r tke investment of capital even under present conditions, so what could you
orPtwenf * the 6ntirVUtput °f these Tories of the country about tweSy
articles and wouldhaT W°uld Create scarcity of the manufactured
art cies and would have a tendency to raise prices or cause a demand that would be first
mmeby “fT®.8®*1 imports, and as it is questionable whether manufacturers would put
dZTT wJ bUSreSS’ 1 7°Uld l0°k t0 a great ^^nizetion in trade and con-
dit ons through the placing of the Eight-hour Day Bill, and sincerely trust that you
will turn down such a measure when it comes before the House, for if it is passed for
' daTwoT W°rk’ Jt naturally f0]I°- that i<; will very soon directly affect all commer-
Yours very truly,
COLLING WOOD SHIPBUILDING CO., LTD.
J. M. Smith,
(245) Manager.
The Commercial Oil Company, Limited.
Hon.
m T ,r Hamilton, Ont., January 19, 1910.
W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir —Herewith find eight reasons, which as a manufacturer I entirely en-
dorse. As a life-long supporter of the Liberal party and an admirer of your own poli-
tical career, I sincerely hope that you will not touch this matter of eliminating the
kours of labour on government contracts. By so doing it will entirely tie your hands
and we think jeopardize the whole employing community.
Yours truly.
4— 321
S. M. KENNY.
500
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(294)
The Coniagas Reduction Company, Limited.
St. Catherines, Ont., January 20, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee of Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir— As a member of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, the under-
signed begs herewith to submit its protest against the enactment into law of the Bill
now before your honourable committee, and known as ‘ The Compulsory Eight-hour
^ Our objections to the Bill are, amongst others, in the main as follows : —
1. Its adoption would be an unwarrantable invasion of the freedom of contract,
experience not having shown that working for ten hours per day is injurious to the
ordinary adult labouring man. If special circumstances justify exceptional treatment
in particular cases where danger to the health of the wage-earner exists, another ques-
tion arises which would be dealt with by the various provincial legislatuies.
2. If the eight-hour day were universally adopted by industrial communities and
business affairs re-organized on that basis, it is not questioned that the change might
he beneficial, but it is submitted that it would be folly for the country to adopt such
a law at the present time in view of the disadvantages her industries would be sub-
jected to in connection with her industrial competitors.
2. No such law could be passed in the United States without amending the
federal constitution, which recognizes the freedom of contract. In many of the
neighbouring states attempts to introduce such legislation have been declared uncon-
stitutional by the courts. .
3. One of the greatest dangers now confronting the people of North America is
the high cost of living, and as such is engaging the serious attention of the United
States Congress now in session. Wages are higher in that country, and Canada than
ever before, and any addition to the cost of the necessaries of life at the present time,
at all events, would it is submitted, be a serious menace to the welfare of the com-
4. ^In many branches of industry an arbitrary limit placed upon the length of. a
day’s work would prove ruinous, and make the pursuit thereof impossible. It is,
therefore, inadvisable that any special law should be passed applicable to special or
favoured lines of employment, thereby causing dissatisfaction and unrest amongst
classes of wage-earners, and permitting ideas of caste and class amongst the indus-
trial community.
5. It is being universally recognized that the extraordinary movement from the
country to urban centres which has been going on for many years is raising a serious
problem which must be dealt with soon. The farmer can now with difficulty obtain
the necessary help to gather his crop and cultivate the soil. Legislation should not,
therefore, proceed on lines which will make it still more difficult for him to make
ends meet. If his purchasing power is diminished, to that extent is the manufactur-
ing industry crippled, and eventually all classes, including the wage-earner, will
suffer.
6. The enactment of the suggested law applicable only to government contracts
would, it is submitted, be unjustifiable. If the law is good for the government
employee, why is it not good for all employees? Any distinction recognized by the
legislature between classes of workmen will lead either to the law being made uni-
versal, or will create artificial distinctions amongst the working classes not based on
natural conditions.
7. The country is entitled in so far as it represents an industrial agency, to as
good treatment as the members of the community in it.
It is submitted that especially in a country where so many public works are in
progress, and so much remains to be done in that direction, that no special legislation
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
501
APPENDIX No. 4
affecting a class of the community should be favoured which will hinder the com-
pletion of these works and make the introduction of new undertakings more onerous
and m some cases, impossible.
Yours very truly,
R. W. LEONARD,
President.
(379)
Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, B.C.
tt Tu- t ir Trail, B.C.. January 27, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. ^
Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
. PaSla5f °f B,in N°‘ 21 might have effect of forcing all manufacturers of lead
to adopt eight-hour day, or else prevent Canadian manufacturers from bidding for
government work, as we are already producing more lead than Canada consumes, we
cannot afford lose Canadian business, nor do I think manufacturers can afford go on
eight-hour basis. We are, therefore, opposed to its passage.
W. H. ALDRIDGE,
(264)
The Cowan Company, Limited, Manufacturers of Cocoa and Chocolate.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Toronto, January 19, 1910.
,, J°EAR S]R’ 0ur attention has been drawn to the Eight-hour Bay Bill now before
e House of Commons. We wish to place ourselves on record as being opposed to the
general conditions of this Bill.
In our particular business, at certain seasons of the year, we require help to work
longer than eight hours a day, but to effect this we close our factory at noon on Satur-
day the year round. Any night work is paid for as overtime. We feel that while this
f.i 1 3S at pre®ent drafted has special reference to government contracts, it might, in
ime, encroach on the general business of manufacturers, and we, therefore, are opposed
to it.
Respectfully yours,
THE COWAN COMPANY, LTD.
R. O. Macke,
Secretary.
(171)
Crescent Manufacturing Company, Limited, Makers of Shirts, Shirt Waists, &c.
„ wt t * r Montreal, January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,— We beg to enter a strong protest against Bill No. 21, ‘ An Act respect-
ing the Hours of Labour on Public Works.’
, We fee| tIiere are a great many reasons why such law should not be enacted, and
without taking up too much of your valuable time, we might say that it would prohibit
every employer and every employee who works more than eight hours a day from ever
s aring in government business. No establishment could possibly work one part of its
staff on government works, and get the other employees to work longer hours on orders
for private parties.
502
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Limiting the labour day to eight hours would place a discount on ambition. Many
employees are not only willing but are anxious to work more than eight hours and earn
correspondingly larger amount amount of wages. We are satisfied that those who are
willing to do this, form by far the larger portion of the wage-earners of the producing
class, and it seems most unfair that they should be deprived of the right to earn as
much as they possibly can, by the minority who have little or no ambition to make
progress, but whose desire is, or seems to be to get through life as easily as possible
without regard to any improvement they might make in their social standing, or in t e
number of comforts they might enjoy by a little extra effort on their part.
We are also satisfied that if this law is enacted, the government will pay a great
deal more for their supplies than they are paying at present, and the development of
Canadian industry will be seriously hampered.
We trust your committee will give the matter very serious consideration, and we
hope will report adversely on this particular Bill.
Yours truly,
CRESCENT MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.
W. LI. Walkley,
Secretary Treasurer.
(324)
The W. J. Crothers Company, Biscuit and Confectionery Manufacturers.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa.
Kingston, Ont., January 20, 1910.
Dear 'Sir. — We see that there is a Bill before a special committee of the House
of Commons, known as Bill No. 21, which is being presented by the labour organiza-
tions of the Dominion, asking that a day’s work consist of eight hours on all govern-
ment contracts.
We take it for granted this is only a thin edge of the wedge in which to have the
government make this eight hours a day a law on the statute books of this country, and
as large manufacturers we wish to enter our protest.
In many instances members of the government staff would have to work ten hours
a day while others would claim eight hours, and from our standpoint of view it would
make endless amount of work for somebody. As you know in all branches of man-
ufacturing departments, salaries have gone up by leaps and bounds during the last few
years, and if the day’s work is to be shortened by two hours it will increase the cost
of manufactured goods just as much in proportion. The same would apply to all
government work, because the labourer would expect the same amount of pay for eight
hours as he would for ten. _ (
With this eight hours a day, in large cities it would be almost impossible to get
help in the smaller towns and villages as a man would naturally gravitate to the centre
where the hours would be shorter.
As you know at the present time this would work a great hardship on the farmer,
where they would be much better off were they to stay in the country.
It does not seem a reasonable thing that this organization which represents only
a small per cent of the capital invested in this country should impose any such hard-
ships on the manufacturing industries. It would certainly hamper the advancement
of Canadian industries which we all would deplore.
We trust that your committee, after looking at this matter as you will from all
points of view, will report on it adversely when presented to the House.
Respectfully yours,
W. J. CROTHERS,
President.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
503
APPENDIX No. 4
(291)
The Davidson Manufacturing Company, Limited.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie K™, MoOTE*a1' 20- 19m
Chairman of Special Committee, Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,— It has come to our notice that a compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill for
government contracts is being studied by the above committee. We would respect-
iu y call your attention to the fact that in a great many lines it will be practically
impossible to conform with the provisions as drafted at present, providing it applies
to the general purchases of the government. The goods which we supply to the govern-
ment, through jobbers and others, are made in large quantities by us, and sold to these
jobbers out of stock for them to supply government contracts or purchases, and it would
be impossible to make such goods in small quantities under an eight-hour arrange-
ment, without more than doubling the cost; we would also point out that tinware is
subject to a duty of only 15 per cent from Great Britain, while the ingredients going
into the manufacture of which, such as varnish, japan, &c., are subject to a preferen-
lal duty of 15 per cent and 20c. per gallon, and wire locks, trimmings, &c., &c., are
also subject to a heavy duty. The difference in freight on the finished article com-
pared with the raw material is probably lower on the finished article on account of the
large amount of waste in cutting for sizes and patterns, so that you will see that our
protection is not sufficient to compensate us for the high wages we pay over and above
that paid m Great Britain, so that any further burdens placed on us is likely to drive
the manufacturing of such goods as we make, out of the country.
We will be glad to have the pleasure of showing you through our works some timo
you are m Montreal.
We have the honour to be.
Yours very truly,
J. DAVIDSON,
President.
(328)
A. Davis & Son, Limited, Kingston Tannery.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee on Bill 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Kingston, Ont., January 21, 1910.
Dear Sir,— We beg leave to enter our protest against what has come to be known
as the Compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill, in other words, Bill No. 21, which we under-
stand a committee, of which you are chairman, has at present under advisement.
. Permit us to place before you a few reasons why, in our judgment, no such action
as is anticipated in this Bill should be taken by the government.
1st. If this Bill became law it would prohibit our firm, or any firm in our posi-
tion doing a regular manufacturing business, and working more than eight hours a
day, in sharing in any government business that might be offered. It would be utterly
impracticable to maintain organizations and establishments working one portion of
the staff eight hours per day on government work, and the other employees more than
eight hours per day on other business. As a natural consequence of this there will be
fewer firms in a position to compete for government business, and, consequently, with
Jess competition the prices the government would have to pay would be higher.
Permit us also to call your attention to the fact that prior to the financial crisis
in 190 1 it was difficult to secure sufficient labour in Canada with practically all lines
working at ten hours per day, and there is every probability that in the near future,
504
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
with the full recovery of business, as great a shortage of labour will prevail as we
had to contend with before. A reduction in the hours would mean a still greater
shortage in the matter of labour. A shorter working day means of necessity a higher
price to the purchasers of the goods, whoever they may be.
Permit us also to call your attention to the fact that apparently the Bill in ques-
tion is being urged by organized labour. This, we understand, represents only about
S per cent of the labour vote of the country, and, in our judgment, this comparatively
small portion of our people should not be permitted to impose conditions which will
hamper the developments of our Canadian manufacturing interests. We sincerely
hope that your committee will report adversely on the Bill in question.
Yours truly,
ELMEK DAVIS,
(127)
Vice-President.
The Dennis Wire and Iron Works Company, Limited.
London, Ont., January 12, 1910.
Dear Sir, — While we would perhaps have no objections to a Bill proposing a uni-
versal eight-hour day for employees and mechanios, it is our opinion tha the discrimin-
ating provisions of the Bill under consideration are decidedly objectionable from our
viewpoint.
In our factory the hours of work are ten hours a day except Saturday, when the
working hours are five hours. If our employees who are working on government
orders are only permitted to work eight hours a day it will certainly cause friction and
dissatisfaction on the part of employees working on other contracts, who are obliged to
put in ten hours a day.
We presume that if this Bill becomes law it would not prevent our employees mak-
ing government work, putting in eight hours on the government contract, and working
the other two hours on some other job. In this event, the evident intention of the Bill
would be defeated so far as. government work done in the factory is concerned, but
would still give trouble and much inconvenience in our shop routine. This feature, of
course, pertains to the government work being manufactured in the factory and not in
connection with the erection of public works. We receive occasional orders for certain
goods to be manufactured for the government and we consider it would be most unsat-
isfactory to have the workmen sometimes working eight hours when employed with
government work, and the greater portion of their time working ten hours, the regular
time schedule of our own and other factories in this city, and so far as we are able to
learn, while our workmen would appreciate a general eight-hour Act, they would prefer
to be without this most confusing law as proposed by Mr. Verville’s Bill. We remain,
Yours truly,
DENNIS WIRE AND IRON WORKS CO., LTD.
E. R. Dennis,
Manager.
(133)
The Dickie Lumber Company, Limited.
Stewiacke, N.S., January 12, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Replying to above, we cannot see how the lumbermen of Canada can
remain in business on an eight-hour day, and compete with our Swedish and Russian
opposition in the European markets.
Yours truly,
THE ALFRED DICKIE LUMBER CO.
Alfred Dickie,
President.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
505
APPENDIX No. 4
(215)
Dodge Manufacturing Company of Toronto, limited, Engineers, Founders, &c.
tt ttt r n/T tt" Toronto, Ont., January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir —Respecting the proposed legislation on eight-hour day, we can say that
our men do not want a shorter day’s work. We know this from actual experience.
What our men want is money, and the most likely way to get this as we see it, is
in the first place by working for it to the extent of their abilities, and in the second
p ace roug t e government giving their labour reasonable and consistent protection
against foreign competition.
As to adopting an eight-hour day for all government work, we cannot see that such
a move would be practicable. It might be, did shops exist where nothing else but
government work was carried on, but as such is not the case and where government
and civic must be carried on in shops where other work is going on, it must be plain
that any distinction as to hours on any given work would be entirely impracticable.
We cannot see but what it would be vastly in the interests of organized laobur to devote
their attention _ to the imports of machinery into Canada and exert thmselves in this
direction of bringing about such a state of affairs as will necessitate this machinery
being manufactured in Canada and thereby enhancing the value of skilled labour in
this country. We think such a move would work out greater to their advantage ulti-
mately than their efforts in the direction of an eight-hour day ever can ; all of which
is respectfully submitted.
Yours very truly,
DODGE MANUFACTURING CO.
C. H. Wheaton,
Manager.
(Ill)
Dominion Bridge Company, Limited.
Montreal, January 10, 1910.
Dear Sir, — We consider the proposed legislation decidedly objectionable for
several reasons. It is not restricted to the work being done at the site of a contract,
but apparently would follow back to the shops or other places where material for the
government is being manufactured or worked and cause endless annoyance and con-
fusion at such places, for it is out of question that a shop, a quarry or a sawmill
should work eight hours per day on material for government contracts and work the
usual hours on other business in hand at the same time. It is unreasonable to forbid
a labourer or mechanic working more than eight hours, and earning more than eight
hours pay if he cares to do so.
The penalty provided for the infraction of clause 1 is out of all reason.
The foregoing we think covers the more serious objections to the proposed Act.
Yours very truly,
PHELPS JOHNSON,
, _ Manager.
(278)
Dominion Car and Foundry Company, Limited.
Montreal, January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir, — We wish to protest against the passage of Bill No. 21.
This matter of an eight-hour day was agitated in the province of Nova Scotia
two years ago. The provincial government appointd a commission to inquire into the
506
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
matter. Prof. McGill, chairman of the committee, sent to employers of labour of list
of 24 questions.
I now inclose a copy of my answers to the questions and you may now consider
these answers as the opinion of the Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Limited,
reference to above Bill.
Yours very truly,
N. CURRY,
President.
Amherst, N.S., November 15, 1908.
Professor Magill,
Pine Hill,
Halifax, N.S.
Dear Sir, — Referring to your circular letter, and list of twenty-four questions,
in reference to eight-hour day: —
1. If an eight-hour day were in operation, we would lose 11^ hours of production
per week, and the amount of our output would be reduced 20 per cent.
2. In some of our departments, labour represents 50 per cent or more of the out-
put. In these departments, cost of production would go up 10 per cent. The average
over the whole plant would probably go up about 7 per cent.
3. Do not suppose cost of our production would advance more than that of others
operating under eight-hour day, but we would be handicapped to the extent of from
six to ten per cent as against those operating under ten-hour day.
4. We try to. keep our mechanical equipment up-to-date and in a thoroughly
efficient state, and do not think anything could be saved by changes in equipment
under an eight-hour day. Same answer applies to multiple shifts, and lessening of
waste.
5. Under an eight-hour day, our employees would insist on having their holidays,
attending circuses, horse races, &c., the same as they do now. The industrious and
steady men are not absentees under present conditions. Meal and rest intervals does
not affect our plant. We could not look for greater efficiency under shorter days.
6. Have had no reduction in hours. Have always worked ten hours to the day.
7. Our employees could not do as much in eight hours as they do now in ten.
Nearly half of the men are on machines, and the machine will do so much per hour,
whether the hours are eight, or more, and this applies to the men as well, unless the
wark is heavier than ours, and the hours go beyond ten.
8. An eight-hour day would have a tendency to throw the old men out of work,
as we are quite sure that under an eight-hour day, we could not get work at remuner-
ative prices to keep all our men employed, and could only afford to keep on the ablest
and most efficient.
9. If an eight -hour law were in operation, and we wished to maintain our present
output, we would have to increase the different classes of employees 20 per cent. The
increase in labour cost would be in like proportion. The effect upon the price of our
produce would be to advance it from 6 to 10 per cent.
10. During the present year, there have been a number of unemployed in our
district. Previous to this year, we have had no unemployed for many years.
11. We work some over time, and pay 25 per cent for night work; 50 per cent
extra for Sunday work.
12. About 7 per cent of our employees are English and , Scotch, the balance
Canadians, natives of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
13. We rate each man individually, according to the quantity of work performed.
14. In my opinion, if an eight-hour law were in force in Nova Scotia, and not in
the rest of the Dominion, employers could not afford to pay more per hour than
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
507
APPENDIX No. 4
was paid in the other provinces. This would mean that eventually the workmen would
get per cent less tli&n workmen in other provinces.
. 15\ eight-hour day would have no effect on the safety or health of the steady,
industrious men, as these men are not content with even ten hours’ work. They jvork
at home both night and morning in their gardens, and doing work for their neighbours,
while the unsteady men would have more time to spent in the saloons, and places of
amusement, than they now have, and the result would be they would have less money
and poorer health.
16. Less than 1 per cent of our output is exported.
17. Export trade so small, have not bothered to look up competitors.
local1tradeP°rt SUC^ aS woulc* be affected by an eight-hour day same as
19. An eight-hour day would not handicap our industry as against other similar
industries, working under an eight-hour day.
20. The climate of Nova Scotia is a good one for manufacturing. We have no
extreme heat, or extreme cold, consequently we do not think any man who is able to
work at all, is injured by working ten hours at any season of the year. There might
be some excuse for an eight-hour day in a southern climate, but do not think Nova
Scotia needs it.
21. In a plant like ours, it is necessary for nearly all the men to work the same
hours. Do not know that it would be of any use to exempt a portion of the men from
the eight-hour law.
22. We use about 15,000 tons of Nova Scotia coal, and about 1,000 tons Nova
Scotia coke.
. 23‘ We use about l-OOO tons American coke, and about 200 tons American anthra-
cite coal.
24‘ Iu our °Piuion> aa eight-hour day would be the most foolish and harmful piece
of legislation that Nova Scotia government ever had, or ever could put on the statute-
books It is not for a new country like this, that is struggling to establish industries,
o attempt to reduce the hours of work. Let the old countries that have had hundreds
of years’ experience in manufacturing, and who have made the foundations for busi-
ness, and with ample capital, thorough organization, and everything possible to suc-
cessfully conduct same, first take up this question, and even after such a law is in
operation in these countries, it should not be put in force in a new country for at
least twenty-five years. In our own case, an eight-hour day would put us out of busi-
ness intone year. We estimate that the increased cost of our output would be an aver-
age of 70 per cent, while the profits on our output for the past ten vears, has averaged
less than 6J per cent.
We might say that the chief reason for our car-building business now being in
Amherest is that where it was formerly located in St. John, the nine-hour day was
established by the unions, and the increased cost of wages made it impossible for the
industry to compete with the upper Canadian industries working on the ten-hour
system, and if an eight-hour day were to become law in Nova Scotia, and not in the
other provinces, or is more than likely that we would either close up the business en-
tirely or remove to a point in New Brunswick, or farther west probably farther west.
A number of industries now located in the lower provinces, feel that they could
do better farther west, and we are quite sure that an eight-hour day in Nova Scotia
would be the deciding factor, and that a number of industries would immediately
make arrangements to move farther west where they would be nearer their market.
As regards our own output, over 80 per cent of it goes west of Nova Scotia.
Factory employees at the present time work shorter hours than those employed
in stores, hotels, restaurants, barber shops, &c. They also have much shorter hours
than farmers and fishermen. Yours truly,
RHODES CURRY & CO., LTD.
N. CURRY, President.
508
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ho. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(101)
Dominion Corset Company.
Quebec, December 30, 1909.
Dear Sir, — As a member of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, who is
taking quite an interest in everything in relation with all industries, and being also
a manufacturer myself, employing nearly 1,000 people, I must say that such an Act
would be considerably harmful, and would cause serious trouble and damages, and
would be a source of great difficulty for all the industries of this country.
In the first place, there is no reason why labourers employed upon government
work should be favoured with two hours less labour. I think that this system has al-
ready gone far enough in government offices, and that it should not be introduced out-
side of offices.
2nd. If the government should adopt such a system for its work, this would at
once be extended to all outside contractors. It would also undoubtedly become one of
the regulations of working hours with the industrials, and it could not be avoided,
as the government had made it its own rule — it would immediately become law with
outside work.
At the present time, industry and agriculture want no harder task than they are
having. Times are, in a way, prosperous; the labour class is very independent, and
not at all too many in number. Therefore, everybody must work hard and constantly.
Our labouring classes are under considerable expense, the agricultural class not hav-
ing progressed and not having kept up with the time, or in other words, not having
increased as fast as the industrial. All eatables are sold at very high prices, and
makes living quite expensive. This coupled with the extravagant ways of living of
our labour class makes it obligatory for everyone to earn quite a lot of money, and
if the hours are shortened, it will certainly not improve matters, but will throw a
very large amount of increased cost in the production of all manufactured goods in
this country.
By reducing the hours of labouring 20 per cent, you are reducing their wages
20 per cent, and if that large body is given two hours a day more of leisure time, it
will necessitate so much more, to give them that much leisure time every day. There-
fore 20 per cent reduction in hours of labourers will mean between 25 per cent and
40 per cent advance on their wages, which will be an enormous load to carry for most
industries.
Another point, most industries in this country are controlled by men of a good
deal of energy, and in some cases, a great deal of pluck. The population of our
country, while increasing quite a good deal, is not doing so in keeping with the in-
crease of industry, and most of these are now looking outside of our Dominion to in-
crease their business.
The moment we begin to do an export trade, we put ourselves on par with the
world. In doing this, we must also put ourselves on par as to cost of the article,
which is going to be sold at the face of the world, and as it is understood, admitted
>and widely known that labour, in this country, is not sold at a low price at all, you
would do but very little, and it would interfere considerably with any such projects of
exporting, which are the only possibilities to permit many existing industries to still
enlarge on their present size.
I am therefore entirely opposed to the adoption of such a measure, and sincerely
hope that the House of Commons and Senate will not take action upon this Bill. I
remain, Dear Sir,
Yours truly,
GEO. E. AMYOT.
President, Dominion Corset Co.
President, GEO. E. AMYOT Brewing Co.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
509
APPENDIX No. 4
(152)
Ont
The Dominion Oilcloth Company, Limited.
Committee on ‘ An Act respecting Hours of Labour on Public Works/ Ottawa,
Montreal, January 19, 1910.
Gentlemen— We duly received your circular letter dated the 27th ult., re Bill
Ao 2i An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works/ and in reply would
Act and weT °VT°n’ 14 WOuld be a Sreat mistake for parliament to pass such an
Act, and we strongly oppose same on general principles.
e believe that such an Act would not be in the interests of either the workmen,
the government, the contractors or manufacturers, and would without doubt prevent
supphesernment USln§: g°°dS made ^ Canada on Public ™rks and for government
We also believe that it would tend to make men dissatisfied with farm and coun-
try life, which we think would be very harmful to Canada.
imr tfmf hwTt ^ beKeve,that workmen as a rule desire to have their work-
ing time limited to eight hours, and we know one manufacturer, who has his factorv
3na?r° tmU0US f’ Thu endeavoured *0 work in it three shifts of eight hours each
and after a few weeks had to change it to two shifts of twelve hours each
■ w7r W°r+kmen are employed for nine hours only, but very frequently they
have to work overtime in order to finish up the day’s work. 7 y
this ^en<SmCerely truSt that your honourable committee will not report in favour of
Yours vory truly,
THE DOMINION OIL CLOTH CO., LTD.
John Baillie,
Managing Director.
Francis Drake, Manufacturer of Carbonated Beverages.
Ho„. W. L. Mac™* Kma, NEW GliS“W' N'S" J ““ry 21" 191°-
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Hon. Sir,— The undersigned beg to approach you re the ‘ Eight-hour Bay Bill ’
senseWebndt0wnp0tf S-?306 °urselves 011 record as being opposed to labour in any
and tW f tbC Bjn 1WOuld cauSG several thinSs that would work against capital
and the government, and also against the very labour itself.
1st. It would prohibit the employer and also employee that work more than eight
Hours per day from sharing in government business.
2nd. It would not permit any establishment to work part of the staff for ten hours
on orders for private parties and private corporations, and a portion of its staff on
government orders.
3rd. The ultimate outcome would be that there would be less keen competition for
government orders and prices would have a tendency to go up and therefore the govern-
ment would pay a higher price for its work.
4th. The employee desirous of getting a step higher through extra work and effort
would be robbed of this chance, and ambition would be at a discount.
5th. Again the question of help would be doubly accentuated, viz.: the shortage
of help, which has even in the past, caused a curtailment of output, where would it
leave the manufacturer if 25 per cent of the time was cut out ?
6th. Tbe shorter day would naturally mean increased cost of production which
would consequently mean advance in price charged by the jobber, the retailer and
consumer, and therein would accrue increase in cost of living.
510
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
We therefore trust you will give this matter very careful consideration, weighing
the interest of capital, viz. : — the manufacturer, and at the same time the interest of
labour not organized, which aggregates 90 per cent, and organized only 10 per cent.
The employee should, if he so desires, be allowed to work the length of time he pleased.
Thanking you for any attention you may bestow on this.
Yours respectfully,
FRANCIS DRAKE.
(151)
Duclos & Payan, Tanners.
St. Hyacinthe, P.Q., January 19, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your letter regarding above Bill was duly received and we would like
to express our opinion as opposed to the reduction in hours of labour for government
work. We believe that this would be only the beginning of a movement for an eight-
hour day in all lines.
We should be opposed to an eight-hour day on general principles; the reduction
in work would enhance the cost of all manufactured articles; would restrict to a
great extent all production in a country which is in great want of all forms of labour.
In a new country such as ours there is work for all and more than there are hands
to do it, so that increased productiveness is wanted; not a decrease such as shorter
hours would mean,
Respectfully yours,
DUCLOS & PAYAN.
(350)
Dunlop Tire and Rubber Goods Company, Limited.
Toronto, January 23, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir, — We wish to decidedly protest against the passing of a compulsory
eight-hour day Bill.
This' company supplies the Dominion Government with some portion of its sup-
plies, and from time to time tenders and receives orders from the Public Works De-
partment for rubber goods, of various varieties.
It would be an utter impossibility for us to so arrange our staff that such por-
tions of our work could be done by men only employed eight hours in the day, be-
cause the labour of each employee of the company would, to a more or less extent
figure in the manufacture of certain lines of goods now supplied the government.
We can quite understand that it would be possible to apply such an Act to out-
door construction work, but it would be impossible with indoor processes where the
compulsory ceasing of work at a certain hour would mean the ruin of a great amount
of material.
We express the hope that the committee will report adversely on the Bill in ques-
tion.
Very truly yours,
DUNLOP TIRE & RUBBER GOODS CO., LTD.
J. WESTREN,,
Manager,
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
511
APPENDIX No. 4
(211)
J. R. Eaton & Sons, Wholesale Dealers in Builders’ Supplies.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, °RILL^ January 18’ 1910‘
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill Ho. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
pulso^Eig^W dayBm? aTwe* lTd^nJlTo? °f ^T'
est and the country at large. detrimental to our own mter-
We hope your committee will report against this Bill.
Yours truly,
J. R. EATON & SONS.
(360)
A. J. H. Eckardt, 107 Niagara Street.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Toronto, .January 25, 1910.
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
tionP^V^ W1-ite y?U tLeSe few Hnes t0 inform you that the above men-
oned Bill would be objectionable to every manufacturer in Canada, and in fact every
employee so far as we are concerned. We known our general employees desire to work
0l!^s a day becadse they are paid by the hour and they are looking for ten hours
very defrimentarto^the^ SWd J’Udge- th&t SUC}1 a law as you sP^k of would be
y detrimental to the farming community and also the manufacturing interests of
Ma'minuTe & The first'tf' ^ fvernment entertaining talking about it
a “mute The first thing an employee of ours asks is ‘ how many hours a day do
Ind K W6/aid 61ght’ he WOUld n0t Want t0 work if he could get ten hours
nd putting manufacturers in a position where they cannot work employees any longer
than eight hours a day m doing government work, is ridiculous in my mind. Then
again you would not have any competition for government work. It would cost th°
government more to do their work and of course the people have to pay for it It
does not affect the rich and wealthy people. The mass of the people would have tD
pay the shot, the farmer especially. So far as I can see the thing is all wrong and
should not be entertained at all. The average man is better working ten hours a day
eight eiglt 10UrS beCaUS6 he °ften spends in the two hours what he has earned in the
Yours truly,
A. J. H. ECKARDT.
(184)
The Eclipse Whitexvear Company, Limited.
tt w Toronto, January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,— We learn, that the compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill is again before
the House, of Commons, and wish to give you our reason for protesting most stronglv
against this becoming law.
In our factory we are working nine hours a day for five days of the week, and
four hours on Saturday, making in all forty-nine hours for the six days. We cannot
possibly get through our work, with less working time than forty-nine hours a week.
In fact, frequently we are urged to work over time, but are are doing our best to
512
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
keep the hours at the present high standard. No complaint from one year’s end to
another is raised by any one working during these hours, and we think it would be
an exceeding hardship to be compelled to cut one working hour a day off five days of
the week under penalty of being unable to contract for any work, to which the govern-
ment of Canada is a party. One thing is certain it would necessitate our working on
Saturdays for eight hours instead of only four hours the whole year round, as at
present, and the present method is infinitely more to be desired by our workers, than
the other would be.
There are many other reasons why we think the Bill unfair, but for the above
reason alone, we think it should not become law.
G. JAMES BEER.
(359)
The E. B. Eddy Company, Limited.
Hull, Que., January 25, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Sir, — Re ‘ Bill respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.’ As large
manufacturers in Canada, we beg leave to protest against the passage of this Bill, be-
lieving that such passage will have a disastrous effect on Canadian industries gener-
ally, for the following, among other reasons, which seem to be sufficient not only to jus-
tify, but to make it the imperative duty of the special committee, to bring in an
adverse report on the expediency of this measure.
The passing of such an Act and its enforcement would prohibit every employer
and every employee who wants to work more than eight hours per day, from sharing in
government business.
It would prevent large employers of labour from contracting for even a small
government job, because from the very nature of the Bill, no employee of such em-
ployer, whether engaged in government work or not, would be permitted to work more
than eight hours per day.
Because a Bill enforcing such conditions and imposing such consequences on em-
ployers, especially those engaged in large and varied works, would make competition
for government orders less keen. Prices would surely go up to a greater extent than
the reduction of the hours of labour would warrant, and the work done would have to
be paid for by the government at very much higher figures.
Because as soon as industrial depression is overcome, there would at once be a
shortage of labour, and a reduction in the hours of labour would mean that this short-
age would be accentuated.
Because a shorter day’s work would mean increased cost of production involving
a material advance in prices charged to the jobber, the retailer, the consumer, and
would add a further general increase to the already increased heavy cost of living.
Because the shorter hours of labour in cities would attract more men from agri-
culture and farm work, consequently the retaining of sufficient agricultural labour
would be even more difficult than it is at present.
Because organized labour, so called, represents only about eight per cent of the
labour vote of this country, and if this attempt on the part of organized labour to
reduce the industrial day to eight hours is successful in Canada, unless it is also suc-
cessful in other industrial countries, it means that Canadian producers and manufac-
turers would be quite unable to meet foreign competition, outside of or even within
the Dominion of Canada.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
513
APPENDIX No. 4
„ ,1Fm?ly’ the provislons of this Bill appear to be in restraint of trade prohibiting
°°ntra0tS betWe6" thC CmI,lwr “d relation to
tion,^LtrrUemahteref°re’ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ f°reg°ing your favourable considera-
Yours truly.
THE E. B. EDDY CO., LTD.
W. H. Rowley,
President.
(109)
P. W. Ellis & Company, limited, Wholesale Jewellers and Silversmiths.
to q T . Toronto, January 8, 1910.
jjear bm-in our judgment, such a Bill would be very dangerous indeed and
«ratoe" ? fet reIa,i“,S belTCe“ empl0JOT “”d -P'ojee. Eor Ulus
tanersnonr? T *r n . 7oemPl°yeeS ™rk 55 hours per ™<*. >"d in another
cb 52 hours. In the United States, in similar factories hours of labour are 60
ours, wien our men work 52 hours and 55 hours per week respectively against 60
hours of our competitors in the country to the south of us.
Were such a Bill to become law, it would prevent our company from tendering
onrPorUonTfeolrWne ’ ^ ^ ** W°Uld be Quite impossible for *s to have
fellow men were^ “ntr*04 worki}lg 4§ Ws per week, while their
of vnur onm At • g ours resP6ctively. It will appeal to the members
out the dZ See\ng 6 C0ndltl0n that would be created, when workmen through-
service ner T 1 UP7 gov1ernment work, are only required to do eight hours’
ii P y’ and a }’ 011 otber classes of work, a greater number of hours. This
cannot too" ‘5 * T^T"- andi ™t that would surely lead to difficulties, and we
Sok of our " the dangCT °f SUCh a Bm bdng Pkced UP°n tke Statute
Yours truly,
P. W. ELLIS & CO.
P. W. Ellis,
P TBSzd&7lt
Emerson & Fisher, Limited, Hardware.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, ST' t0m’ N3- tmm* *>’ 19m
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
T<7stand tha* a Bil1 ^ now before the Canadian House of Com-
mons urging that eight hours should be the limit of the working days for labour em-
ployed upon government work for orders. ° y °r ab0Ur em
We beg to express the opinion that legislation of this kind would be exceedingly
wnT :nd “r- ? would be very hard indeed f°r many
Pl^n at times to sell goods to the government for work on contract, to discrim-
W Further W°u and other’ and woul<l lead to endless confusion and wrang-
g. Further it would be the entering wedge of such a diminution in producing
tinneLa+lW°I d preVCnt. Canadian manufacturers, in the future, from meeting competi-
tmctly ! otLer countries, and would prove such a serious handicap as would be dis-
y against the interests of both employer and employee.
hile we are favourable to anything that will minimize the burden of the labour-
g man, and help to make life easier for all concerned, and will be glad to support
"y r®ason7le means t0 that end, we feel the day is yet far distant when this country
< n attord to pass such drastic laws as this.
4—33
514
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
There are many other arguments that might be put in opposition to the proposed
plan, which are doubtless being placed before you at the present time.
Feeling satisfied that discussion of this matter will clearly show it is impracti-
cable, we are,
Yours very truly,
EMERSON & FISHER, LTD.
(252)
Employers’ Association of Toronto, Canada.
Toronto, January 12, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In answer to your favour of the 27th of December, regarding Bill
No. 21, ‘An Act respecting Hours of Labour on Public Works.’ I am instructed to
inform you that tins association, comprised of nearly all the manufacturing and em-
ploying firms in this city, desire to protest most strongly against the favourable con-
sideration of this measure.
The general complaint at the present time throughout the Dominion in connec-
tion with our industrial and agricultural requirements is that we have not sufficient
labour for the development of the country’s resources. The farmers are universally
complaining that they cannot get and keep labour at wages which their employment
can support. Exemptions of a large section of industrial workers from ordinary con-
ditions of work will make it more and more difficult for farmers to keep their labour
contented, while it will attract from the agricultural fields large increases to the urban
populations without affording corresponding opportunities of work for this class of
unskilled help.
Industrially, the proposal is extremely serious. In the face of the necessity of
labour of every description in the Dominion and without the immediate prospect of
having that necessity supplied, one-ninth of the productive powers of a large section
of the people will be arbitrarily cut off. Unrest and disquiet will most certainly re-
sult among almost every section of industrial workers. Every class which thinks
the wages and conditions of its men are being discriminated against by the condi-
tions of contract labour, will start agitations for such increases as they imagine they
should receive to compensate them for the shorter hours worked by their more favour-
ed fellows.
We oppose this Bill strongly, not as opponents of a short-hour system, but as
opposed to compulsory short-hour legislation. To safeguard the interests of their busi-
ness opportunities of work to all qualified men under the open shop system, employers
have been compelled to organize into protective associations. This legislative move
is nothing but an attempt at a legalized closed shop, which will result in a continu-
ance of the present strife by holding out the hope that certain classes of working men
cian be made the wards of government and that they may look to that source to do
for them what it is their proper providence to do for themselves, with due regard
to the rights of others and of the common law of the land.
This measure is coersive beyond what good policy would dictate to a legislative
body, even if it would prove practicable. Leaving out the cost of goods which will be
enhanced in value upwards of one-fifth, can any one conceive the expense and annoy-
ance connected with the enforcement of this measure. It is estimated that there are
upwards of 5,000 government contracts. Supposing that each needs an inspector or
detective. They would have to be paid upwards of $3 a day, or $15,000 in the aggre-
gate, or over $4,500,000 a year to enforce this Bill as its advocates would like to see
it done.
To-day the great mass of government work is done without the personal attend-
ance of an inspector. The government contracts for results and holds the contractor
responsible for the results produced. Under this Bill, is it proposed to have an in-
spector in every shop? If not how can the measure be enforced? If a contractor has
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
515
APPENDIX No. 4
^riShed f°'i "’°rId"g ,,vcrti,lie shtl11 it on hearsay! What if the violation
the snb-oontr" ctorosT"!™^1 cmitrartor'^onld'b rep°]r^ed, lmtil the contractor has paid
no, he reached eacept * 4116 S"b-“'ltra'‘»r »'dd
lessoess^f f rurnihr^ tlie £5°”““ ‘° be fa“d in i"d™W»l «rk would be the hope-
work of eight-hours m“ ? “? “^T"1 »£ and on government
lrifr;t'a:!dWaed rd-
c inery means a heavy loss to the individual and community and a creator ner-
centage than the time lost must necessarily be added to the eo<?t n-f +1 1 1 ^ i
in most cases this will exceed one-fifth. h f he S°°ds pr°dllced;
mp.A iuT!her quf 1 ti(® arises as ^ the policy to be pursued with regard to covern-
ment purchases of goods made on hsi dp in -p r •
ments* And if not ™ + u V Blltish or foreign manufacturing establish-
Can
while Dominion suppl.es are purchased abroad from houses working unlimited^ hours
thisStu™ BusT^ flndf™“dr ™ f-„rShi„e goods under a low of
ml Lil! f ,the dlStm'bance of industrial conditions which would
r»thee iZ US t0 ?e. WneIfai" 0f the COunt^- Tax payers are interested
proper governmeiit. ^work P£*ld md“’ecfly in the greatest economy consistent with
fundamental nrincinles of e^eral citizens are interested in the preservation of the
favoumd class ° " “d *re particular]y °PP°sed to legislating for a
necesTarv^^he 7a+i?laSSeS ,f“ral dtizens are labouring tbe number of hours
necessary m the furtherance of their particular business. These conditions are im
s,:Sc,y„f‘trr,itio?,of t*** and ^ ^ zzTczz z
and ^conditions' 1 h 1 77 fSenVhe exemption of this class from the hours
and conditions which competition demands, and which they are forced to meet
tration ennd°im7dS °1 ^ f f-r bey°lld the functions of governmental adminis-
tration and invade the rights of private citizens. It would seek to fix the hours of
ork in private employment where the subject matter of labour, although being made
for the government, is a chattel belonging exclusively to the firm or corporation not
/’ m 7 77 °f Produetlon’ but after As completion and until it is delivered
and accepted by the government. The rejection of the goods by the government after
completion would force goods produced under these regulations to compete with these
manufactured under ordinary conditions on the open market to the decent of Z
sidered^^lTfJT1* ?f *his ProPositi°* should be most carefully con-
nart of th Ranches, when we believe that there would be no hesitation on the
part oi the committee m rejecting this most ill-advised measure.
On behalf of the association, I have the -honour to remain,
• Yours very respectfully,
JAMES G. MERRICK,
(200} Secretary.
S. H. Ewing & Sons, Coffees, Spices, Corks, &c.
tt ™ T Montreal, January 18, 1910.
Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
Ottawa, Out.
Dear Sir— We protest against the attempt to bring in an eight-hour Bill for
Canada We are roasters of coffee, different kinds of nuts, &c. It takes us from an
4— 33J
516
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
hour and a half to an hour and three-quarters to get up our fires in the morning.
During certain seasons of the year, we find it almost impossible to get t roug our
work in an ordinary day, and if we should finally he forced to cut our wor mg ime
down for the day two (2) hours it would be a very serious matter for us.
We are practically in a position where we cannot increase our equipment to meet
these rush conditions, as there are certain times of the year, (notably from the 1st
January to about the 1st March) when we do not run our plant more than three-
quarters of its capacity. As a matter of fact we are equipped right up to the limit of
our premises, therefore any change in the working hours would be from our stand-
point a very serious matter indeed.
We therefore trust that you will throw out this Bill, and remain,
Yours very truly,
S. H. EWING & SONS.
E. and T. Fairbanks & Company, Limited, Scale Manufacturers.
Sherbrooke, Que., January 22, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — This is to say that if this Bill were to become law, then this corpora-
tion would not be a bidder on any government work. Such action would not be taken
in any sense to defeat the wish or will of the government, but simply because it would
be impracticable for us to work, say ten men eight hours a day on government work,
and ninety men under the same roof for a greater number of hours, on work that was
intended for other than the government.
I hardly think it necessary to enter into any lengthy argument, of the reason that
it appears to me to be alike injurious to the employer and the employee.
Very respectfully yours,
E. & T. FAIRBANKS & CO., LTD.
H. N. Turner,
President.
Fairbanks-Morse Canadian Manufacturing Company, Limited.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Commissioner of Labour, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — We wish to enter a protest against the Compulsory Eight-hour Bill
now before the House of Commons. From our point of view it would be impossible
to compete for government work if we were permitted to work only eight hours in our
ten-hour per day factory. We cannot differentiate between jobs with accuracy, and if
we did, it would add very much to the expense of government work, in fact we could
not afford to compete for government business.
We believe it much against the country’s interest to let anything stand in the way
of open competition for their work, and the small element represented by organized
labour, being less than 10 per cent, should not influence such a large proportion of the
country as a whole.
We hope you will use your influence against the Bill.
Yours truly,
FAIRBANKS-MORSE CANADIAN MFG. CO., LTD.
P. C. Brooks,
Manager.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
517
APPENDIX No. 4
(198)
J. Finlay & Sons Company, Manufacturers of Hubs, Spokes, &c.
„ ytt t ~\r~ ~tt~ Norwood, Ont., January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, Re Eight-hour Day Bill. We understand this Bill has been referred
to a special committee of the House of which you are chairman, for investigation and
report. We, as manufacturers who have had large experience in labour and business
matters, beg to protest against the passing of this Bill. In our business here all our
men are well satisfied with their present hours of labour. Under the Act, if passed, it
would prevent us and our employees from sharing in all government business.
_ Once we have fully recovered from the present industrial depression there will
again be a shortage of help. A reduction in the hours of labour would mean that this
shortage would he tremendously accentuated.
It would he utterly impracticable for any establishment to work one portion of its
staff eight hours a day on government orders and the rest of the staff ten hours a day
on orders for private parties and private corporations.
As a natural consequence competition for government orders would be less keen ;
prices would go up and all work would have to be paid for by the government at a
higher figure.
The shorter hours of labour in town and city workshops have proved a wonderfully
strong attraction in influencing men to leave the farm. If these hours are now reduced
to eight per day, hired help on the farm will be more difficult than ever to secure and
retain.
It would place a discount on ambition. The inherent right of the individual to
raise himself above the level of his fellows by extra work or effort would be denied
him.
A shorter work day would mean an increased cost of production, which in turn
would mean a material advance in the price charged by the jobber, the retailer and the
consumer, and consequently a general increase in the cost of living.
We are in an agricultural district and in close touch with the farming community,
the writer having been Liberal representative for this riding in the last parliament as
well as having had an experience of forty-five years in business dealings with farmers
an business men and we know how such a Bill would hamper the developments of
Canadian industry. Everyone knows how hard it is to-day for farmers in eastern Can-
ada especially, to secure help and if these conditions were made harder, it would he
the means of further reducing the number of our best farmers.
We earnestly request that your committee will report adversely on this Bill.
Yours sincerely,
J. FINLAY & SONS CO.
John Finlay.
(320)
J. Ford & Company, Manufacturers of News, Wrapping and Match Box Papers.
Portneuf Station, P.Q., January 20, 1910.
Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir, — We note that the Eight-hour Day Bill has been brought before the
House again this session, and that it has been referred to a Special Committee, to re-
port thereon, and of which you are chairman.
We have objected to this Bill, through our member M. S. Delisle, each session
that it has been brought up, and we again protest against its becoming law ; and trust
that your committee after investigation of its tenure will report thereon adversely.
518
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
As manufacturers employing a number of men both in our mills and outside, it
would disarrange the system now in vogue all through the country, and cause dis-
satisfaction among all classes of employees, as well as annoyance to the employer,
Yours truly,
J. FORD & CO
(196)
J. M. Fortier, Limited, Manufacturers of Cigars, &c.
Montreal, January 18, 1910.
Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill Mo. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Out.
Dear Sir, — Regarding the compulsory eight-hour day Bill, I wish to register
with you my protest against this Bill, as it will put the manufacturers in an inferior
position to our foreign competitors especially in export business, which we are at-
tempting to do now. The reasons are too numerous for me to enumerate here, but
you as a business man must work more than eight-hours per day, and all successful
men are compelled to do so if they are prosperous, and I do not see why the govern-
ment should stop them.
I sincerely hope you will see your way clear to throw this Bill out, as it is harmful
to the nation.
Very truly yours,
J. M. FORTIER.
(123)
(Translation)
Foundry of Plessisville (Vulcan Turbines, Engines and Boilers).
Plessisville, P.Q., January 11, 1910.
Sir, — In answer to your circular of the 27th December, 1909, in reference to Bill
No. 21, allow me to tell you that we are emphatically opposed to such legislation. We
remain, Your devoted servants,
WM. R. MICHAUD.
(122)
Frost & Wood Company, Limited, Agricultural Implements.
Smith's Falls, January 11, 1910.
Dear Sir, — We have received your communication dated the 27th, of December,
asking for the views of this company in relation to Bill No. 21, ‘ An Act respecting
Hours of Labour on Public Works,’ and would say in reply, that as the president of
this company is Chairman of the Committee of Immigration and Labour of the
Senate, and as the Bill will probably come before him and his committee providing
it passes the House of Commons, we will leave the matter entirely in his hands to
furnish such information as you ask, and his views will represent the views of our
company. Yours truly,
THE FROST & WOOD COMPANY, Limited,
FRANCIS T. FROST,
(137) President.
(Translation.)
C. Galibert & Son Company, Tanners.
Montreal, January 11, 1910.
Sir, — We have received your letter in which you manifest the desire of obtaining
an expression of our views on the Bill respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
Works. In our opinion, should an eight -hour day law on all public works be enacted.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
519
APPENDIX No. 4
and come into operation, that principle would soon be extended to all kinds of indi-
vidual contracts in the Dominion, which would not only prove prejudicial to our
national industry, but also to the interests of the working classes. Indeed, the enact-
ment of such legislation would seriously impede our domestic industry which, under
the ten-hour system, has been a great deal of trouble in competiting with foreign
countries. The moment that it became confined to the eight-hour day, it would be
forced to reduce proportionately the rate of wages, in order to restore the equilibrium
or else what would be still more disastrous, to close its doors.
E GALIBERT,
(212)
The Galt Knitting Company, Limited.
ti tt w r u GalTj 0nt-' January 18, 1910
Ihe Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King.
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear SiR,-In regard to the Eight-Hour Bill, now about to be brought up in
parliament, we wish to enter our protest against what we consider to be a very unfair
move on the part of organized labour.
It makes it practically impossible for a manufacturer to operate one portion of
his plant on a basis of eight hours, and the other on a basis of ten hours and will
be the means of putting up prices, in addition to the increased cost of production and
a general increase in the cost of living.
Manufacturers, during the past two years, have had their own troubles owin«- to
the general depression, and an added burden such as this Bill would place upon them
should be avoided.
(250)
We are, dear sir.
Yours respectfully,
C. R. H. WARHOCK,
President.
Gananoque Bolt Company, Limited.
Gananoque, Ont.,
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill Ho. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
January 19, 1910.
Dear Sir— We wish to put ourselves on record with you as strongly protesting
against the passage of the above Bill Ho. 21, as being in our opinion uneconomic and
detrimental to the best interests of our growing country. If Canada is to fulfil her
destiny, we believe it will be necessary for her to set an example for the world in the
matter of industry and thrift. We are convinced the passage of a Bill such as Ho
21, which would in any way restrict individual effort and ambition, would be a
national calamity.
(252) (3]9f
Yours very truly.
F. B. COWAH,
Manager.
The Georgian Bay Milling and Power Company, Limited.
Meaford, Ont., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Hon. Sir, — We wish to protest against Bill Ho. 21, now before a special committee
in the House.
520
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
This Bill, if passed, in present form, will make it very difficult indeed for flour
millers to take government contracts.
The committee will readily understand that our business cannot he run upon an
eight-hour day system. The effect upon our business of the passing of such a Bill
would he almost revolutionary, and we also must consider our farmer iriends in the
matter, who, at the present time have difficulty enough in their procuring of labour,
and should not be handicapped in any way.
The passing of this Bill, although at the present time only dealing with government
contracts, will mean later on, labour of all kinds, in a young and growing country like
ours, trade conditions of all kinds should be as unfettered as possible.
We trust your committee will see their way clear to throw the Bill out at the
present time.
Organized labour, representing as it does such a small part of the total supply,
should not attempt to dictate to such a large majority of labourers their hours of
labour.
Yours respectfully,
THE GEORGIAN BAY MILLING AND POWER CO., LTD.
W. T. Moore,
Seretary Treasurer.
(106)
H. and F. Giddings & Company, Manufacturers of Chairs, Baby Carriages, &c.
Granby, Que, January 6, 1910.
Dear Sir, — We have your favour of the 27th ult., inclosing copy of Bill No. 21,
respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works. We see no reason ourselves why
this Bill should pass, or why employees of public works should ask for shorter hours
than industrial institutions.
Should this law go into effect, it would have a dangerous influence on employers
of labour in this country.
Yours truly,
H. & E. GIDDINGS & CO.,
Per H. G.
(233)
H. E. Gidley & Company, Manufacturers of Launches, Row Boats, Canoes, &c.
Penetanguishene, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — We believe the question of eight hours a day is again coming before
the House, and we are very anxious that this Bill should be defeated.
Skilled labour is and has been so scarce that it has been almost impossible to get,
which has caused a great deal of trouble in filling and delivering contracts at a given
time; and if the Eight-hour Bill is passed at the present state of labour, it will be
impossible to do the work that is in demand. Unskilled labour means a greater cost
of production as well as inferior articles; and it will be impossible to arrange our
labour to have eight-hour per day men working for the government, and men working
ten hours in the factory.
We sincerely trust that this Bill will be quashed.
Yours very truly,
H. E. GIDLEY & CO.
Per H. E. Gidley.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
521
APPENDIX No. 4
(3S41
Gilley Bros., Limited.
New Westminster, B.O., January 31, 1910.
Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
Ilcuse of Commons, Ottawa.
^ k' R' We, the undersigned, do hereby protest strongly against the Eight-
hour Bn], as we work ten hours a day and have several contracts with the Dominion
Government for rock, coal, &c., and we do not see how we could possibly hold our
contracts, as it would be impossible for us, or anyone else to work part of our crew
™ * 8 St01Jf qUaJ,ry, Ioading r°ck for the government at eight hours a day, and the
same men the next day on another job and work them ten hours a day.
Some of our men we pay by the hour, and if they only worked eight hours and
and* toL^co ^ 311 ^ dayS’ ^ WOuld n0t earn enou^h to PaY for their board
1 tlll.S.WOuId n0t be in the interest of this great Canada of ours, especial-
y rtlSh r°lumbia> as m a new country where wages and everything else is high, it
will bring the cost of production up to a pretty stiff figure. Two hours off ten, means
just z 5 per cent of an increase.
. Trusting y°ur government will give this your very careful consideration, we re-
main,
GILLEY BROS., LTD.,
W. R. GILLEY,
Managing Director.
(295)
The Goldie & McCulloch Company, Limited, Engines, Boilers, &c.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Ont.
Galt, Ont., January 20, 1910.
Sir,— We understand that a compulsory eight-hour Bill has been introduced by
Mr. Verville, and that it has been referred to a special committee for investigation
and report.
We desire to protest against the passing of this Bill as it would be impossible for
us to work eight-hours a day on orders which the government may favour us with and
ten hours a day on our other work. The only way we could do this would be to build
and operate a separate factory to take care of such government work or run our whole
plant eight-hours a day. To build and operate a separate plant for government work
only would materially increase the cost of manufacture, and prices to the government
would be correspondingly higher. To operate our whole plant eight hours per day
would increase the cost of production to such an extent, that we would not be able to
compete with others -working under more favourable conditions, and the ultimate re-
sult would be the closing of our works, and a large number of men out of employment.
There is no demand for an eight-hour day in this city, in fact we believe that
most of the workmen of Galt would prefer the hours to remain as they are, i.e., fifty-
five hours per week or ten hours per day for five days and five hours on Saturday.
We trust that your committee will report adversely to the Bill.
We have the honour to be,
THE GOLDIE & McCULLOCH CO., Limited,
522
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(341)
Gilmcmr Bros. & Company, Importers and Manufacturers.
Montreal, January 22, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa ,Ont.
Dear Sir,— We understand an effort is being made to put through parliament the
enforcement of the eight-hour day. For many reasons we trust this will not be
successful, but to single out one particular reason we draw your attention to this one.
We are interested in the manufacture of edge tools — our opposition comes from the
United States, England and Germany and in each of these countries small tool
workers work ten hours. The ultimate object of the eight-hour movement is ten
hours pay for eight hours work. This being the case, how can we compete with a
direct handicap of 20 per cent in wages alone — add to this overhead charges which
would have to be distributed over eight hours instead of ten. We have, it is true, a
protection in* duty, but this would be more than wiped out, for instance a Sheffield
tool worker’s day is ten hours (and wages less than in Canada) therefore the duty
of 20 per cent is at once eliminated, not taking into account the disadvantage of
over-head charges on the short day.
We understand the Bill is to apply to government labour only, but if the govern-
ment establishes the rule, very soon all will be obliged to follow. We could multiply
examples applying to undertakings in which we are interested, but one will suffice.
Trusting the manufacturer’s side will be properly looked after,
We remain, yours truly,
GILMOUR BEOS. & CO.,
(303)
Gilson Manufacturing Company, Limited, Foundry and Machine Works.
Guelph, Ont., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — Referring to Bill No. 21, beg to say that we trust your committee
will report this deal adversely.
We believe that this Bill does not receive the support of the better class of
working men who are ambitious to rise, and know this can only be gratified by doing
good work and plenty of it. This kind of legislation is generally favoured by the
walking delegate who wants to make it appear he is doing something for labour and
not getting his allowance for nothing. The walking delegate is not a benefit to labour
as you know — quite the contrary.
Yours very truly,
GILSON MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.
(165) Joseph Gosselin, Contractor.
Levis, P.Q., January 19, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I am completely opposed to the eight-hour day labour for the contracts
of the government; for when I will have a contract for the government, and another
for other parties, it will be impossible for me to have the ten-hour day on my other
contracts. I dare to hope that the government will refuse this demand, for the general
interest of all the contractors, and even in the interests of the employees, for to work
ten-hours in a day of twenty-four hours, will not be too much to ask of a man.
Believe me, yours truly,
JOSEPH GOSSELIN,
Contractor.
COMMITTEE RE RILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
523
APPENDIX No. 4
(154)
The A. Gravel Lumber Company, Limited.
Etchemin Bridge, P.Q., January 19, 1910.
Dear Sir —Referring to your circular letter of Monday, December 27, 1909, with
regard to the passing of an Act affecting the hours of labour in this country, we beg
to state that we are emphatically opposed to the eight-hour day ; and that the passing of
such an Act would be a calamity for the country at large, we consider.
Consequently, you can enter our most energetic protest against the Compulsory
Eight-hour Day Bill now before the House.
Yours truly,
, . A. S. GRAVEL.
(159)
The Great West Saddlery Company, Limited.
Winnipeg, Man., January 18, 1910.
• DE™R;7^e y0ur circular letter Of the 2t7h ult., desiring to have our
views of Bill No. 21, An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.’
in reply would say it is a well known fact that in Canada there is to-day not
enough labourers to go around. More especially does this apply to the western portion
oi Canada; we cannot get enough labourers here to supply the demand of the coun-
iy. lerefore, it cannot be said that those desiring situations cannot get them. In
Europe this is often the case, and so it may be thought by some desirable to shorten
the hours of labour, so that each labourer will have the same opportunity of being
employed for a reasonable number of hours each day. In this country that argument
does not apply, and if the House passed this Bill it will only be ‘ the thin end of the
wedge which will mean that all manufacturers will have to adopt the same idea.
That will mean that all products of labour will have to be advanced in price in
proportion to the extra cost of labour. In Canada the labourer or artisan of to-day is
often the contractor or manufacturer of to-morrow. But in all the history of Canada,
you cannot point out one case where a man has achieved that sucecss if he is compelled
to work only eight hours a day. Men working those short hours become subject to the
rules of the union boss, and never attain financial success. Our view is that men
should be free to exercise their own idea of what number of hours they must work.
Every able-bodied and well-thinking man wants to put in as many hours as possible,
and there should be no law to prevent him from doing so.
There are a great many arguments one could bring up to show that this law
would be a great detriment to the working man, the manufacturer, the contractor and
the entire people of Canada. Such laws should not be passed and we wish to enter
our humble protest against this Bill being passed in the House of Commons.
Yours truly,
THE GREAT WEST SADDLERY CO.
E. E. Hutchings,
President.
(237)
The B. Greening Wire Company, Limited.
Hamilton, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — Compulsory Eight-hour Day Bill. This proposed Bill is so far-reach-
rng in its effects that we cannot but view with alarm its possible passage.
Our objection to the Bill as presented to your committee is that the line of goods
524 COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— E OURS OF LAB OCR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
■we usually supply to the government is made on very expensive machinery, and it
would hot pay us to compete for government orders if the time of one shift was eight
hours per day. We should without doubt also have trouble wtih our workmen if their
time was cut to the short day, and the other part if our works was favoured with a full
day’s work.
For these reasons we hope the Bill as presented to your committee will not be ap-
proved.
Yours truly,
THE B. GREENING WIRE CO., LTD.
S. O. Greening,
President.
(114)
William & J. G. Greey, Manufacturers of all kinds of Chilled Iron Rolls.
Toronto, January 10, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Regarding Bill No. 21 ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on
Public Works,’ woidd say that we consider it most undesirable that the government
should limit the hours of labour on public contracts to eight hours a day.
We do not believe it to be either in the interests of workmen themselves nor em-
ployers of labour nor in the interest of the country at large.
If the government want to ensure that the men working on public buildings shall
not work excessively long hours they might limit the hours of labour to ten hours a
day.
We understand that it is not general practice to work in factories or other places
longer than ten hours a day. Government work being limited to certain hours and
the general trade probably working other hours creates an anomalous condition of af-
fairs in the labour market which is good neither for the employer nor the employee^
Personally we have failed to see the benefit that is created to the labour classes
from short hours. We believe that too much idle time is a far greater injury than
where the time is properly employed, and a man is happier and better at work if not
excessive and we believe that the shortening of the hours of labour is being carried
too far. Sincerely yours,
WM. & J. G. GREEY.
(390)
The Griffin & Richmond Company, Limited, Printers.
Hamilton, Ont., March 2, 1910.
Mr. Y. Clouthier,
Clerk of Special Committee of House of Commons,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir, — In reply to yoru favour of February 17, 1910, we beg to express the
belief that the legislation proposed in Bill No. 21, ‘ An Act respecting Hours of
Labour on Public Works,’ is not to the advantage of the people of this country and we
wish to name a few of many reasons why it should not pass in its present shape,
premising that it would, and is probably intended to, affect all labour.
1. It is now difficult to get labour to cultivate the farms because of short-hours
and high wages in towns and cities, and the loud cry about high prices for farm pro-
duce would become louder.
2. The eight-hour day has been the rule in our line of business for nearly five
years and our experience is that the men do less work per hour than when they were
working nine hours per day, the percentage of lost time being much greater.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
525
APPENDIX No. 4
3. The employees are not, in the majority of cases, benefitted by having the ex-
tra spare time, and in many cases are much the worse on account of their way of
using the time.
4. The restrictions are even stronger than in the regulations of many of the
labour unions which enforce an eight-hour day, in that the unions allow overtime
when paid for at a higher rate.
Believing that the whole tendency of such legislation is to raise the present high
cost of living and to retard the progress and prosperity of the country.
We remain,
Yours truly,
THE GRIFFIN & RICHMOND CO., Limited.
(227)
Guertin Printing Company, Limited.
Montreal, January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa,
Dear Sir, — We take the liberty to register our protest against the above Bill. It
is not time now to shorten the hours of our help when labour is already scarce and
wages are going up all the time, on account of the increased cost of living.
We have the honour to be
Yours very truly,
GUERTIN PRINTING COMPANY, Limited.
(387)
Montreal, February 26, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In answer to your favour of February 17, re Bill No. 21, would say
that I am not in favour of it, and entirely fail to see the necessity for such legisla-
tion at present.
As far as I know, there is work in this country for everybody who wants to
work, be he a man with a trade or a labourer; in fact, most all lines axe running short
of hands, and if such is the case, why increase the scarcity of labour by reducing
the hours and thereby increase the cost of production of necessities of life when every-
thing is already too high?
If there is any great demand for an eight-hour day, the excuse for it is certainly
not because more men would find work but rather because men would like to work
less, and it is a question whether this should be encouraged by a law to this effect.
The above are a few of the reasons why I am not in sympathy with the movement
and I hope your committee will see its way clear to switch off such legislation until
the necessity is more urgent.
Yours very respectfully,
V. GUERTIN.
(104)
Guerney Scale Company.
Hamilton, Ont., January 3, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In the past we have had contracts from the government for the supply
of postal scales, and if under this Bill it would be necessary for the men, working on
these scales, to work only eight hours, it would not be advisable for us to take such
a contract, as the men would not be satisfied to lose two hours pay when a man along-
side of them on other work would put in ten hours, and it would disorganize the shop
to have any of the men quit before, or start later in the day than their fellows.
526
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
It is not heavy work and there is not the slightest necessity for bringing the
working hours down to eight hours. We close our factory Saturday afternoons and
we have found that when we are particularly busy the men prefer to work longer
than ten hours on the first five working days of the week, instead of working Saturday
afternoon, and a law that would compel them not to be free to make such working
hours for a day, as would give them the best satisfaction, would not be to their
advantage nor meet with their approval, and the disadvantages of such a Bill as the
one proposed, are much greater than any possible advantage either to the men or
their employers.
Yours truly,
J. K. KIDMAN.
(346)
The Gutta Percha and Rubber Manufacturing Company of Toronto, Limited.
Toronto, Ont.,
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
January 21, 1910.
Dear Sir, — We inclose herewith copy of our letter of this date to V. Clouthier,
clerk of the special committee in regard to Bill No. 21. We find from the circular
that the committee was to meet to-day; therefore address this letter to you as the
letter to Mr. Clouthier may have arrived too late.
Yours faithfully,
C. N. CANDEE.
(347)
January 21, 1910.
V. Clouthier, Esq.,
Clerk of Special Committee re Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Re Bill No. 21 , Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.
Dear Sir, — Answering your circular, dated December 27, we would say that the
Bill in question, if it became law and were enforced, would, if we understand it
correctly, prohibit our tendering on government contracts for goods in our lines of
manufacture.
In the operation of our factories, some of the employees are paid by the year,
others by the month, week or hour, and others by the stages of manufacture, the work
upon them has to be done by all or nearly all of these different classes of employees
and none of them are begun and finished by any one of the classes, so it would be
practically impossible for us to undertake that none of the people working on our
goods shall be permitted or required to work more than eight hours per day.
A very large portion of our production is of goods made to special order which
cannot be regularly stocked and which frequently have to be completed within speci-
fied time limits, and any law which restricted the hours of labour thereon to eight
would result in a great hardship to our consumers and to our operatives themselves.
This would apply to such work as we do on government orders as well as to our other
customers. We are in sympathy with all reasonable and practicable measures for the
betterment of the labouring classes and the conditions under which they work. Our
regular factory hours are reasonable and are approved of by the operatives them-
selves, and when, as sometimes happens, it is necessary to extend the working hours,
extra remuneration is given therefor, usually at the rate of fifty per cent increase on
regular time rates. This alone has the effect of reducing overtime work to the greatest
possible extent, as it increases our cost of production just that much; still we are
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
527
APPENDIX No. 4
obliged occasionally to run certain departments or the entire factory overtime in
order to complete contracts and keep engagements, because it is a practical impossi-
bility to obtain or take on extra help for such occasions, the work being of a kind
which requires more or less skill and experience, and temporary help having such skill
and experience cannot be obtained.
There are many other reasons why the proposed Bill is unworkable as applied to
our particular industry and many reasons why the enforcement of its conditions would
cause hardships to the purchasers of our products as well as to the operatives in our
factories.
Yours faithfully,
THE GUTTA PERCHA & RUBBER MFG CO., OF TORONTO, LTD.
(273)
The S. Hadley Lumber Company, Limited.
Chatham, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,— We have noticed that the Bill for ‘ Compulsory Eight-hour Day ’ on
all government work has been brought up again by Mr. Verville, and if not presuming
too much would like to protest against the submission of this Bill, believing that it
would not be a benefit to the people of this country.
We think that every employer and every employee who works more than eight
hours per day would be prohibited from any government business, therefore, it would
not be practicable to work a portion of their staff 8 hours a day on government busi-
ness, and the other portion 10 hours a day for orders for private parties, as this would
then enforce the 8-hour rule.
This naturally would' result in the government not being able to get proper compe-
tition on its work, thereby enforcing a higher price for government work than for any
other similar work. We hardly think it would be fair for the government to put
in force a law of this kind would deter those who are ambitious and desire to
woik 10 hours per day which is the general practice in this country, and in this way
make it so that organized labour, which represents a very small percentage of the
labour vote, therefore would be permitted to impose these conditions.
We think if the eight-hour day should be made the law of this country for certain
work that it might hamper those who employ labour on the farm, where it is necessary
at certain season of the year to work much longer. We firmly believe that the law of
supply and demand of the country should govern conditions of this kind, and that it
would be unwise for the government to impose any regulations such as are suggested
at the present time.
We submit this with every courtesy, and trust that the Bill will be reported
against.
We have the honour to be,
Yours truly,
THE S. HADLEY LUMBER CO., LTD.
W. A. Hadley,
Secretary.
(148)
The Hamilton Bridge Works Company, Limited.
Hamilton, Ont., January 17, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your communcation, dated December 27, 1909, with reference to Bill
No. 21, ‘ An Act respecting Hours of Labour on Public Works ’ was duly received, and
beg to thank the committee for giving us an opportunity of protesting against same.
This we do most strenuously.
528
COMMITTEE RE DILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
In explanation, we beg to state our works run ten hours per day and frequently
fifteen hours to get out contracts urgently required by many customers, being princi-
pally the various railway companies, large contracting firms and industrial plants.
You will readily see we could not work eight hours on government work and ten hours
on other work.
Again, it would have the effect of reducing ambition in our employees, as the indi-
vidual would be denied the privilege of raising himself over his fellows employees by
working extra time. Furthermore, we would have to meet competition from countries
where ten and even eleven-hour day is in vogue.
We cannot protest too strongly against this measure which would severely hamper
us and force us out of the field for whatever government work comes up from time to
time.
Yours very truly,
THE HAMILTON BRIDGE WORKS CO., LTD.
W. B. Grant,
(280) Secretary Treasurer.
The Hamilton Cotton Company.
Hamilton, Ont., January 20, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Honourable Sir, — We understand a Bill has been brought in by Mr. Yerville,
making it compulsory to work only eight hours a day, and that one of the provisions
of this Bill is that on work supplied to the Canadian Government the people employ-
ed on such work must work only eight hours a day. We wish most emphatically to
protest against the passage of this Bill.
First, on the ground that it is quite impossible for mills in this country to run
eight hours a day and compete with mills in other countries that are running any-
where from 55 to 62 hours per week. As far as cotton goods are concerned, it would
be a very serious blow to* the industry in this country.
Secondly, as far as goods supplied to the government are concerned, it is quite im-
possible, when our plants are running 57 hours per week, that when we should hap-
pen to be doing any work for the government, that the individuals employed on this
work should work only eight hours a day. The result would be of course thatl we
could not possibly make any tenders for government work, nor could anybody else in
Canada do so either. Therefore the Bill must fail in its purpose as the government
would be obliged to buy their goods outside of this country, where of course they
could get no guarantee as to the hours of labour worked, therefore as far as we can
see the Bill would fail of its purpose as far as enforcing eight hours a day of labour
and would only have the result of putting the government business in the handls
of foreigners in place of Canadians. We therefore must most strongly express our
hopes that this Bill may not be allowed to become law.
Yours very truly,
HAMILTON COTTON CO.
(246)
The Hamilton Steel and Iron Company, Limited.
Hamilton, January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, We wish to protest against the passing of the Eight-hour Day Bill
now before the House. The passing of this Bill would make it impossible for us to
undertake any government work. Our operations are of a continuous nature. Two
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
529
APPENDIX No. 4
shifts of workmen are necessary to carry on this work, one shift each clay and night
It would be impossible for us to regulate the time of product produced for govern-
ment work, and as our systems of our operations nro the same as in practice in other
blast furnaces in Canada and other parts of the world, this same trouble would also
apply to them. We are confident that the passing of such an iniquitious Bill would
reduce the competition for government work, and thereby increase to a very large
extent the cost to the government of such work. At the present time the cost of
living is increasing to such an extent that the government should favour Bills that
go rather to reduce this cost than increase it. We would be pleased to add further
to this protest if necessary.
Yours truly,
H. II. ARDINK,
Secretary and Treasurer.
(3121
Union Blend Tea, Harry W. de Forest, Limited.
tt w T m ~it St‘ John' KB-’ January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir -We notice that the Eight-hour Day Bill is to be brought before your
agdnst theaBiir “ empl°yer °f lab°Ur 1 take this liberty of expressing our views
If the working man does not care to labour more than eight hours a day, he has
tie privilege of putting up a position where such hours are in vogue, but in our own
case where we frequently have rush orders, and our goods must be prepared in a cer-
cm time to catch the steamers sailing to foreign ports, it would simply be ruinous to
be bound by an eight-hour system, and we would ask the question, ‘ Why should the
government hang a millstone around the neck of an ambitious man, who by work and
work alone, desises to forge ahead ? ’
Respectfully yours,
HARRY W. deFOREST,
President.
(383)
E. H. Heaps Company, Limited, Manufacturers of Lumber and Shingles.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour and Commerce,
Ottawa.
Vancouver, B.C., January 29, 1910.
Dear Sir, Re Eight-hour day Bill. We have recently received a circular letter
irom a special committee, of which we understand you are the chairman, asking for
our opinion as to the proposed Bill.
We would point out that the industry we represent has to compete with American
lumber, there being no tariff protection in this market for the lumber trade of this
country. Most of the American mills work from ten to eleven hours, and if an eight-
hour day became general in our trade, it would seriosuly affect the ability of Canadian
lumber manufacturers to compete in the home or foreign markets.
We think that if Canadian manufacturers are to build up an export trade, that it
it would be detrimental to the interests of the country to interfere witn the hours of
labour.
4—34
530
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ho. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
We have just received a circular from London showing that the importations of
Canadian lumber into the United Kingdom are decreasing year by year, and those
from Russia are increasing. No doubt, this is entirely a question of prices, the
Russians with their cheaper labour, being able to supply lumber at much lower prices
than -we can.
Personally, the writer would be in favour of an eight-hour day, but in practice
we believe it would be against the interests of the whole country.
Por many years, we have been in the habit of working an hour less on Saturday, ^
and we find our output of lumber on that day is always much less, although our men
have often contended that they could do as much in nine hours as in ten. This may
be true to some extent in hand work, but when machinery is employed, the output of
the machine is so much per hour, and ever hour taken off the day’s work, lessens the
output and increases the cost of production
Yours very truly,
E. H. HEAPS & CO., LTD.
E. TI. Heaps,
President.
(265)
Helderleigh Nurseries and Fruit Farms.
Winona, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — I understand there is a Bill before the House providing that in every
contract to which the government of Canada is a party, which may involve the employ-
ment of labourers, workmen, or mechanics, there shall be in it a stipulation that eight
hours shall constitute a day’s work, and that under only very exceptional circumstances
shall longer hours be allowed to be worked.
I am sure, sir, you must realize that this would work most serious consequences
to the business interests of this country. It must be conceded by every one that in a
new country like this, labour is the scarcest commodity. Every part of the country is
crying out a greater portion of the year for more help, more labourers and more
mechanics — more workmen of all kinds. This is natural in a country growing as
rapidly as Canada is growing. Under these circumstances, would it not be insanity
to reduce the working force of the country one-fifth ? It would simply paralyze this
country, and if the government forces eight hours upon all the workmen employed in
their works, it will almost compel all other interest to do likewise. Any factory or
any contractor engaged for a portion of his time, or with a portion of his staff, upon
government work, would find hiself in a very impossible position, namely, to employ
part of his staff at eight hours a day, and the remainder at ten hours a day, and more-
over, I do not think it is at all in the interest of the workmen themselves. Every work-
man in this country ought to have, and most of them have, an ambition to rise and to
do so requires to exert all their energies. To fritter away their time for two hours a
Hay on pleasure, which might be employed profitably in business, would be a terrific
waste for them, unless employers were compelled to pay the same wages for eight hours
as they pay for ten hours, and if this should be the case, owing to the scarcity of help,
which, of course, is the aim of those urging forward this Bill, then Canada would be
so handicapped in its competition with other nations that it would entirely destroy
its export business in any line of goods where labour constitutes a considerable portion
of the expense
What would farmers, already handicapped by the extreme shortake of help, do
under such circumstances? The attractions of the city, great as they are now, would
become greater. That is, provided workmen were to get for eight hours what they now
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 531
APPENDIX No. 4
get for ten. Thousands of acres of land in Ontario are not now worked to their full
capacity for lack of help, and under such conditions the farms of Ontario would almost
require to be abandoned, as the farmers find it difficult enough under present condi-
tions to make a living, with the competition from newer sections of this country and
the new fields that are opened up in other countries in the world.
I hope, sir, that you, as a member of the government, will use your influence to
prevent any such calamity from falling upon this country.
Yours truly,
E. D. SMITH
(321)
Hewson Woollen Mills, Limited.
TT Amherst, Nova Scotia, January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie Kino,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir, We are making perhaps the highest class goods in Canada and have
been operating full time and continuously since 1902, yet our stockholders have re-
ceived on an average of less than 3 per cent a year. We write this in confidence to
show the narrow margin of profit in the business.
Yours truly,
HEWSON WOOLEN MILLS, LTD.
(322)
Amherst, Nova Scotia, January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, As the eight-hour Bill before parliament is one which we feel in-
terests us vitally, we hope you will pardon us for expressing our views on the matter.
We realize that it only applies to concerns who are manufacturing for the gov-
ernment, but where so many industries at some time during the year are making
goods for government consumption, we feel that the Bill, if passed, would soon be en-
larged so as to cover all industries
In this town employment is not always uniform. There are parts of the year
when factories are busy, labour is in demand, and employees are only too glad to work
full time. At other seasons large numbers of men are sometimes laid off or put on
short time. This is essentially a manufacturing community but we venture to say,
that there are few, if any, of the several thousand employees in the factories that are
not anxious to work full time, whenever they are permitted to do so. Some ask us to
be allowed to work over time. Our employees are nearly all operatives of machines
which will turn out just so many yards of cloth or knitted fabric per hour, and if
they were idle after eight hours, the production would be cut down fully 16 to 18
per cent, while bond interest, insurance, water rates, salaries and other such fixed
charges would be run on just the same. To pay the wage for a 93-hour day for eight
hours work would be suicidal, we believe, to most of our local industries, so we would
have to pay wages in proportion to the time employees actually worked, which would
mean a large cut in their receipts, and inability in many cases to make ends meet.
This would be warmly resented by all our employees. The other alternative is for
the manufacturers to accept the reduced production, the larger percentage of fixed
charges to out-put, and a larger wage scale, and raise the prices of the products to
the consumer. This is quite out of the question. The margin of profit in our own
line is so near the vanishing point, and the influx of imported cloths so great (Can-
ada takes J of Great Britain’s total textile out-put) that the necessary advance in
price would put us out of the race and eventually compel us to draw our fires. If the
4^-343
532
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOR R
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
wage earner realized it, it is the captains of industry who take their funds from the
bank and venture them in factories, who are his best friends, and there should be a
spirit of co-operation to make manufacturing a success in our new country with its
keen competition, rather than to discourage capitalists from launching industries.
The government doubtless bears in mind that the employers are not a few capi-
talists alone with such large resources as that the receiving of a dividend from their
industries is a small matter, but that the stock and bonds of most of our companies
are distributed widely among the plain people who feel the pinch if they do not re-
ceive any returns. We have eighty stockholders.
Our products' in Canada are in competition with those manufactured throughout
the world, and it is easy to see that if our wages are forced upward in this way, it
is a most severe if not fatal handicap.
We sincerely hope that your investigation of this matter will result in a report
against the advisability of placing this law on your statute-books.
Yours truly,
E. E. HEWSON,
Vice President.
(372)
The Hinton Electric Company, Limited.
Vancouver, B.C., January 25, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Sir, — As employers of labour and contractors, we notice that Mr. Verville has
again brought forward his Eight-Hour Day Bill. We have a copy of the Bill before
us, and we beg to protest against its passage in its present shape. The Bill would
seriously interfere with some of the different branches of our trade, as the men in
different branches work different hours. Labour is very expensive in this province —
in fact it has been so high as to almost preclude the possibility of manufacturing to
any extent; and in the lighter branches of our business nine hours will not be too
many for the men who are paid by the hour. Owing to the high price of labour pre-
vailing, there is a great deal of surplus labour in some branches in this province, and
they are anxious to get work. We think that any interference on the lines of the
Eight-Hour Day Bill on government work would seriously jeopardize many interests,
and we beg leave to protest against this Bill.
Yours truly,
GEO. C. HINTON.
(356)
The Hiram L. Piper Company, Limited.
Montreal, January 25, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir, — The proposed Bill No. 21, to compel all manufacturers of material
furnished the various departments controlled by the government to cut the working
day to eight hours for any work done for them is certainly not practical unless the
government are prepared to pay 25 per cent more for time on goods manufactured for
them than would be charged for the same article to any one else.
Our men are perfectly satisfied to work fifty-five hours per week, ten hours for
five days and five hours on Saturday.
If the government are prepared to pay the value of ten hours labour for eight,
then they are not doing their duty to the taxpayer.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
533
APPENDIX No. 4
One set of men working on government work and putting in only eight hours per
day would demoralize a whole shop and give the employer no end of trouble, a„d?I
manufacturers have enough of that without looking for it
The overhead would cost just the same and therefore a larger percentage would
t^al^a^e ^ ^ °f pr°duCtion’ aud the consumer have to bear the addi
We hope your committee will take these facts into consideration
adversely upon the proposed Bill.
Yours respectfully,
IT. L. PIPER.
and report
(318)
Hiram Walker & Sons, Limited, Distillers.
lion. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Walkerville, January 20, 1910.
•u ^,EAR ‘^IRj are inf°rmed that the Eight-Hour Bill, introduced by Mr. Ver-
viiie, has been referred to a special committee, of which you are the chairman, for
investigation and report. As it is altogether likely that you will welcome the \iews
o employers of labour on this question, we do not hesitate to inform you that we are
entirely opposed to legislation of this kind. It is true that the present Bill applies
to government contracts only, but it is, of course, only an entering wedge, which will,
if fostered, ultimately spread to work done for all classes of the community.
We have been employers of labour for many years, and our relations with our
people have always been of the best, and we have never yet had any indication that
the shortening of hours would produce better results either for them or for us. We
feel that such a law would not really be in the interests of the better class of work-
men, as preventing any individual from improving his position by extra work, and
by his perseverance and willingness making his services indispensable to his employers.
e feel that the shorter hours will result in increased cost of production and as a
consequence increased cost of living, which at the present time is a serious problem.
Prices paid by the government under the suggested law would, we think, be in-
creased as a natural sequence, for the reason that there would be fewer bidders upon
work that is to be hampered by a stipulation of this kind; and it would be question-
able wisdom to favour anything which would contribute to larger expenditures on that
account.
We have no doubt but that your committee will give to the question every con-
sideration, and we believe that your investigations will prove the unadvisability of
reporting favourably upon the measure before you.
Yours very truly,
HIRAM WALKER & SONS, LTD.
(100)
The Howell Lithographic Company, Limited.
Hamilton, Ont., December 29, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I beg to say that our association is decidedly opposed to the passing
of this Bill, as it would completely demoralize all our factories and make such a con-
fusion that we would simply have to do government work alone, or none at all. Un-
der this Act, a simple plan or illustration for a government pamphlet would have to
be made under separate rules and the making of maps, stationery, stamps, or any
poster or pamphlet work would so confuse and upset our factory that it would be im-
possible to do anything of the kind.
534
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ho. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Looking at this Act in a wider sense, it seems to me that the ultimate result
would be that Canada would rapidly lose its manufacturers, that it magnificent na-
tural resources would be undeveloped, and that it would soon become simply an agri-
cultural country, because if the Government were to have a number of hours as a
day’s work for government work, that must regulate the number of hours other em-
ployees would work, and as other countries with whom we are daily competing, work
nearer ten hours a day and at a lower wage scale than Canada pays, they would do
the manufacturing for us. A good illustration of that fact happened in this city
a couple of years ago, when our council decided that 20 cents an hour was the price
to be paid its labourers. Immediately all employers had to pay the same scale.
Very soon, however, the poor, and even the average workmen, were dismissed and only
the very best men kept on, until our town became full of fairly good workmen look-
ing for employment, and it was not long before they were willing to take what they
could get, so that the object in view in raising workmen’s wages was not gained.
So far as this business is concerned, our chief competitors are the United States
and Germany, and owing to the erratic valuation of the customs office, the endeavour
to keep abreast of the times with our machinery, and turn out work creditable to the
country, makes it almost a hopeless task, and were the government to impose an ad-
ditional tax on us, as would be the case were this Bill mades law, it would practically
put us out of business, as it would be impossible to pay one man the same money for
eight hours labour that the other had to work ten for.
Yours truly,
J. P. HOWALL,
President of the Canadian Lithographers’ Association.
(276) Imperial Extract Company, Fine Essential Oils.
Toronto January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — With reference to the ‘ compulsory Eight-hour Day Bill ’ which is to
,be investigated and reported on by your committee, wish to say we are strongly
against this measure. There are many reasons which might be advanced by us for
this opinion, but wish to state two principal ones.
1st. We believe it would greatly upset and be a serious hindrance to practically
all manufacturers in business with the government.
2nd. Canadian firms living up to these terms would be liable to unequal compe-
tition from foreign houses who might not be so particular about adhering to the terms
of contract relating to labour.
Hoping your committee will bring in a report unfavourable to this Bill, we re-
main,
Yours truly,
E. W. SHIERIFF.
(243)
Ingersoll Packing Company, Limited, Pork Packers and Cheese Exporters.
Ingersoll, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee, on Bill Ho. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Compulsory Eight-hour Day Bill.
Dear Sir, — We wish to put in a strong protest against this Bill and hope your
committee will report thereon adversely. In the first place, we think it would ser-
iously conflict not only with government work but with other work as well and be a
difficult thing to work satisfactorily. Yours truly,
O. S. WILSON.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
535
APPENDIX No. 4
(104) International Harvester Company of Canada, limited.
Hamilton, Ont., January 3, 1910.
Hear SiR,—Our operations do not directly bring us into this field. We are not
engaged m a line of business through which we might at some future date hope to
sorve the government in the sense intended by this Act, and therefore it would not
directly affect us. It would, however, indirectly affect us since we are large em-
ployers of labour. If the government should adopt legally an eight-hour day to govern
on all government work, it would lead eventually to a request for the same hours of
service m connection with private enterprises. We believe this would be an injustice
to Canada, and would not be in harmony with the wishes of the majority of labouring
men. We feel if the matter was left to a vote of our employees, that they would vote
almost solidly for a ten-hour day, since they would certainly realize that they could
not expect to receive the same wage for an eight-hour day that they now receive for
a ten-hour day. An eight-hour day may be desirable in older and more developed
countries, but in a new country like Canada, where there is so much pioneering to
be done, and where there is so much expansion in commercial lines to take care of,
and so few people relatively to do the work, an Act of this kind would certainly result
in retarding the development of the country, and would eventually work a hardship
to all.
We should, therefore, like to be recorded as opposing the measure for the reasons
stated.
Yours very truly.
A. E. McKINSTRY,
8 up erintenden t.
(301)
International Varnish Company, Limited.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Toronto, January 20, 1910.
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,— Referring to the proposed legislation, Compulsory Eight-Hour Day
Law, respectfully submit the following: —
A shorter day would only mean a shorter pay envelope. Labour could not expect
to be relieved from its share of the burden of increased cost of production.
Some men are ambitious to rise above the ‘ dead level.’ This cannot be accom-
plished by legislation, and should not be discouraged by law.
Depriving the country of one-ninth to one-fifth of its present physical energy
could only mean the increased cost of living to the individual in the same ratio.
We are in sympathy with all progress that tends to really help the men who work
with their hands, because they are the real producers of all wealth.
Canada, however, should profit by the mistakes of other countries in enactin'’-
compulsory labour legislation. Yours very truly,
JAMES E. MOLE,
Manager.
(286)
James Jolley & Sons, Limited, Wholesale Manufacturers of Harness, &c,
Hamilton, January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — We learn that you have under consideration the Eight-Hour Day
536
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
During the past few years we have been having a great deal of difficulty in get-
ting sufficient skilled labour to carry on our business. At the present time we have
about 45 men and we need about 25 more.
Now, if a Bill of this kind comes into effect you can easily imagine what a posi-
tion it would put a business such as ours in. It would not only increase the cost of
production, but it would make the question of skilled labour a greater one than it is
at the present time.
We lodge this protest as we feel that the Bill itself is not only disabling the
interests of the workmen, but also the employee.
Yours truly,
j. Mackenzie,
Secretary-Treasurer.
(311)
James Pender & Company, Limited, Manufacturers of Wire, Wire Nails, &c.
St. John, N.B., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — We wish to enter our protest against the passing of the Eight-Hour
Labour Bill for government contracts. In manufacturing operations it would be
utterly impossible for manufacturers to bid on government contracts where they were
prohibited from using workmen more than eight hours per day. In practise it would
be impossible to separate the manufacture of government goods from others, and the
result would be that in the majority of cases the government would not get any ten-
ders for supplies made in this way and consequently would have to pay much more
for them.
Canada is not yet ready for an eight-hour day. If this labour party were to advo-
cate a universal day of nine hours they might accomplish something, but to try and
get an eight-hour day instead of ten is too radical a step, as with the development
required in Canada it could not be accomplished speedily enough by working only
eight hours per day.
We would, therefore urge that your committee in charge of Bill No. 21 report
adversely on same.
Thanking you in advance, we remain,
Yours truly,
JAMES PENDEE,
Managing Director.
1305)
John Bertram & Sons Company, Limited, Manufacturers of Machine Tools.
Dundas, Ont , January 24, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Sir, — Be Bill No. 21. Should this Bill become law it would, in our judgment, be
detrimental, both to the Canadian government and to Canadian machinery manufac-
turers for the following reasons: —
1. While the Bill refers particularly to government contracts, it would, if carried,
compel machinery manufacturers either to forego all government contracts, or run
their works entirely on an eight-hour basis, as it would be impracticable to work eight
hours per day on government work, and 10 hours per day on other contracts.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
537
APPENDIX No. 4
American competition is so keen that under present conditions and protection,
it is difficult to successfully compete with their prices, and as no provision can be made
to regulate foreign, hours of labour, the increase in our prices which would necessarily
o.oUow a shortening of the hours of labour, would make selling our product against their
prices an absolute impossibility.
3. The large stocks of machinery built during the late depression on our regular
10 hours per day basis would not be available for government contracts, and long deliv-
eries required by Canadian manufacturers would seriously militate against them in
cases of urgency in government contracts.
Therefore, the government of Canada would have to buy American tools on price
and delivery, or pay more for Canadian tools and wait longer for shipment; and the
Canadian manufacturer would either have to forego government contracts or sell to
the regular trade at a loss in the face of foreign competition.
Yours very truly,
THE JOHN BERTRAM & SONS CO., LTD.
Henry Bertram,
Secretary Treasurer.
(317)
John Ing'lis Company, Limited, Engineers and Boiler Makers.
Toronto, Ont., January 20, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, We have been advised that you are chairman of Special Committee
on Bill No. 21, re Compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill, and would say that we have had
some experience in trying to run our works on special contracts involving change of
hours from 10 to 9 hours a day, which was anything but a success, and the only way we
could adjust our works to this contract was to run the whole plant nine hours, six days
a week, and as we have been in the habit of giving our men Saturday afternoons mostly
all the year round, it caused trouble and annoyance to both ourselves and our work-
men. If, when it comes to a case of eight hours a day, which will mean practically 44
hours a week, it would be simply out of the question to run our works on such a
schedule, and we would not, under any consideration, figure on any contracts with a
compulsory eight-hours clause in it, nor will we figure on any more contracts with a
nine-hours clause, as we believe the working horus per week, as they exist in Toronto
to-day, both with the men and the employers, being 54 hours per week, are satisfactory.
We trust that the manufacturers and omployors of labour in this country will have
an opportunity to discuss thoroughly with your committee, the injustice of such a
clause being placed in any contracts in this country.
Thanking you for your favourable consideration of this matter, we remain,
Yours faithfully,
THE JOHN INGLIS CO., LTD.
Wm. Inglis.
(2411
John Labatt.
London, January 19, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — I understand that as chairman of the special committee on Bill No.
21, called ‘ The Eight-hour Day Bill/ you will not object to learning wliat is thought
about it, and, with others interested, I would like to put on record some objections
which occur to me.
538
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
I consider such a law would be equally ojectionable from the employees’ standpoint
as from the employers’. The employee cannot do as he wishes as to the time he will
work, but must do what 8 per cent of his fellow-workmen dictate, whether it is agree-
able to him or not.
The bad side of unionism, namely, its denial of personal liberty to the individual
workman, and the domineering and over-bearing action of union officials can only be
increased and stengthened by any such special consideration as this Act would show.
The impossibility of adopting an eight-hour day in all industries alike, would make
exceptions and discriminations necessary, and so weaken the effect of the Act as to
make it, besides unfair to some, in time disregarded and evaded. Industries having
mechanical and chemical operations which necessarily over-run the four or eight hours,
could not arrange for an eight-hour day ; nor could contractors who had to work be-
tween tides, or during special hours when only premises or plant were available.
The interposition of fixed legal times and hours in voluntary contracts between
people, could only hamper business and lead to evasions, and agreements to circum-
vent the law, and a law not observed would be better not made.
The whole proposition seems an attempt to hamper employers with no real bene-
fit to workmen. It may secure more idle time for the workmen; time in which the
(majority would prefer to be at work. It does make a talking point for some few
demagogues who have to make a show for salary drawn, hut is bad business from an
industrial point of view.
I sincerely hope these points in connection with other objections to the proposed
measure, which are no doubt familiar to you, will receive full consideration before
the committee reports.
Yours truly,
JOHN LABATT.
(333)
John McDougall Caledonian Iron Works Company, Limited.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Montreal, January 22, 1910.
Re Eight-Hour Day Bill.
Dear Sir, — We again regret to note that Mr. Verville has brought forward an
‘ Eight-hour Day Bill,’ and we write to place ourselves on record against any such
legislation.
In our line we find, and have found for the last year or two, that British competi-
tion is very keen, and we cannot possibly afford to reduce our working hours, and
furthermore, it would prohibit us from sharing in government business, and inas-
much as we have been running our works the last year or two — the same as a great
many others — without making any headway, we trust the government will not take
any steps to hamper us in the near future with any such Bill.
Thanking you for the consideration you might give this, we remain,
Yours very truly,
JNO. C. RUSSELL,
General Manager.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
539
APPENDIX No. 4
(178)
John McPherson Company, Limited, High Grade Boots and Shoes.
Hamilton, January IS, 1910
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Re Eight-Hour Day Bill.
Dear Sir, As employers of labour, we do not wish to see the eight-hour Bill
passed. .
If adopted, Canada could not compete with United States and other countries
in manufacturing of any lines, as the manufacturer would have to pay as much for
eight hours labour as other countries do for ten and eleven hours.
Those trades working nine houns are now paid considerable advance over what
they were paid for ten hours a few years ago. We find a very large percentage of our
hands would be anxious to work Saturday afternoon, but are prevented by the few.
The half holiday Saturday is very jgood in summer, but from our observation, a
curse in winter.
If the hours are reduced to eight hours, it would mean a reduction of 20 per
cent in our output; and if our country is to go ahead we must increase our output
instead of reducing it.
We find it very difficult to get extra hands, and in the name of common sense
don t cripple us more by reducing our working hours. If you reduce the working
hour 20 per cent, you will increase the labour cost of making shoes 20 per cent, and
we find the labour cost high enough now; what with the high labour cost and the
high price of hides, we have the prices of shoes to the highest point. Let the older
countries in manufacturing art, such as England, United States and Germany adopt
the eight-hour Bill first, and Canada can gracefully follow. Adopting it in Canada
first would be like the ‘ tail wagging the dog,’ instead of the dog ‘ wagging the tail.’
Yours truly,
W. S. DUFEIELD,
Secretary-Treasurer.
(275)
Joseph P. Cleal, Mechanical Expert.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Toronto, January 19, 1910
Dear Sir, — It has been brought to my attention that Mr. Verville has again in-
troduced his eight-hour day Bill and that it has been referred to special committee
for investigation and report.
I want to register an emphatic protest against this Bill. About three years
ago the machinists of Toronto went on strike for a 50-hour week, all of the small
shops were forced to succumb, only the larger ones being able to resist their demand.
I happened to be one of the latter and have been struggling along for the last year
and a half trying to split even, building an American company’s product here in Can-
ada competing against Americans working piece work rates, and ten hours a day or
59 hours per week, my shop running 50 hours per week. I have been obliged to give
the work up and personally I think it is time to call a halt, and if Canadian manufac-
turers are to have an opportunity it must be on an equal footing with those in the
United States at least.
540
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ao. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VI!., A. 1910
The Bill under consideration is an entering wedge for a universal eight-hour
fight in Canada. It makes open competition on government contracts impossible
thus raising the price of the work done, increase taxation unduly and there can be
little reason why nine-tenths of the tax payers should be compelled to work more
than ten hours in order that those doing government work might be paid a full rate
for eight hours work. It is about time to stop the tail from wagging the dog. It may
be that no attention will be paid to this kick, but as a live Britisher I am going to
exercise my right to kick if it happens to be all the satisfaction I can get out of it.
Yours very truly,
JOS. P. CLEAL.
(261)
Kerr & Coombes Foundry Company, Limited.
Hamilton, Ont., January 19, 1910.
ITon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir, We have been informed that you honourable committee is investigat-
ing and considering a Compulsory Eight-hour Day Bill, and we as a manufacturing
concern deem such a Bill, if passed, a most unsatisfactory one to most manufacturers.
I aking our own business, for instance, that of a foundry, it would be an impossible
thing to have an eight-hour a day and a ten-hour a day gang.
In case we were awarded a contract by the government, it would mean that we
would have to cut off two hours a day from the bulk of our employees which would
seriosuly handicap us in our regular work, consequenlty we should have to put in a
much higher prices, about 20 per cent for any government, work and this we contend
would be a matter of very poor business for the government and for the general public
who would have to pay the Bill. We feel that it would be a bad precedent to establish
such a Bill for it would mean practically in the long run a general eight-hour day,
which we do not think would be best for the general public.
We trust your committee will give this vital matter your most earnest considera-
tion.
Yours faithfully,
KERR & COOMBES FOUNDRY CO., LTD. •
George A. Coombes,
Secretary.
(205)
Kinleith Paper Company, Limited.
Toronto, January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,— Will you permit us to enter our protest against the passing of a Com-
pulsory Eight-hour Bay Bill through the House of Commons.
In so far as paper mills are concerned, a law. of this character would be impracti-
cable and unworkable. A paper mill runs night and day with two shifts.
Permit us to state the condition of affairs in a Mill with a government order on
the machines.
All the beaters and engines are filled with the special stock used for this contract.
At the expiration of such eight hours, it would be necessary to shut down the machine
until it was time for the next shift to come on. This, as anyone at all acquainted
with work in paper mills knows, would be ruinous. In fact, no mill in Canada
COMMITTEE RE BILL N o. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
541
APPENDIX No. 4
with this restriction would tender on a government contract, as outside of the necessity
or mcreasmg he cost to the government, it would disorganize the entire mill and in
Iroduce a spirit of discord among the help.
Following this government contract right through the mill
Some of the cutters are filled with government paper. When the eignt hours are
“de0"1 * l,K klto' ™“ld - ^fes'edTn “d
The only way we can see in which this law might work out would be for the gov-
ernment to take the entire output of a paper mill and be willing to bear the extra colt
entailed by the shorter hours of labour. e . tra cost
Z”10? 7 "ritin£m,i!1 “ Britain or the United States, so far as
,e h O'" Oil on an eight-hour basis, and if such were made obligatory in Canada
England ^ lmp“S‘ble to comI>ete with the paper mills of the United States and of
We beg most respectfully to submit these few, as among many considerations why
we trust that no such Bill may pass the Commons.
We have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servants,
THE KHSTLEITH PAPER CO., LTD.
W. P. Gundy,
Vice President.
(363)
Knight Brothers Company, Limited, Eclipse Planing Mills.
Burks Falls, Oxt., January 22, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir Be Compulsory Eight-hour Day Bill. We understand Mr Verville in
the interests of organized labour, has again brought forward the eight-hour day Bill
We feel that the passing of such legislation will conflict very much with the commer-
passed S °f 16 C°Ulltry’ and Submit a few reasons WV such a Bill should not be
It would prohibit every employer and every employee who works more than eight
nours a day irom sharing m government business.
_ It would place a discount on ambition. The inherent right of the individual to
ranse himself above the level of his fellows by extra work or effort would be denied
Once we have fully recovered from the present depression, there will again be a
shortage of help. A reduction in the hours of labour would mean that this shortage
would be tremendously accentuated.
A shorter working day would mean an increased cost of production which in turn
would mean a material advance in the price charged the jobber, the retailer and the
consumer, and consequently a general increase in the cost of living.
The shorter hours of labour in town and city workshops have proved a wonder-
fully strong attraction in influencing men to leave the farm. If these hours are now
reduced to eight per day help for the farm will be more difficult than ever to secure and
retain.
It would be utterly impracticable for any establishment to work one portion of its
stafl eight hours . a day on government orders and the rest of its staff ten hours a day
on orders for private parties and private corporations.
542
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
As a natural consequence competition for government orders would be less keen,
price would go up, and all work would have to be paid for by the government at a
higher figure.
Organized labour which is said to represent only eight per cent of the labour
vote should not be allowed to impose conditions which would hamper the development
of Canadian industry.
Thanking you in advance for your consideration of the above, we remain,
Yours truly,
HENRY KNIGHT.
President.
P.S. — Another very important point. We consider this measure encroaches too
much on personal liberty. It is almost as personal as prescribing what a man shall
eat or what he shall wear; or what he shall believe. We believe that one’s liberty
should not lie interfered with until he acts contrary to true principle. If one wants
to work eight hours only he should be free to do so. But we believe that legislation
tending to compel such limits to the hours of labour will result in enormous difficulty,
disorder, and general loss to the country.
H. KNIGHT.
(253)
R. Laidlaw Lumber Company, Limited.
Toronto, January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee, Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir, — I am writing to add a word of protest against that portion of the
Bill which calls for ‘ Compulsory Eight-hour Day.’ With the steady decline in the
(efficiency of labour, we should demand a compulsory twelve hour day or fourteen
hour day to even up, in order to keep the cost of production where it belongs. Na-
turally the result of this rule, so far as government contracts are concerned,1 wij.ll
have its affect on our general labour throughout the country to the detriment of our
manufacturers and producers generally. I earnestly hope that the Bill will not pass
in its present form. It is difficult to see the argument or logic in favour of such
action in Canada. We have a severe winter season in our climate with short days
and in many lines of work we are required to crowd into the summer months the
work of the year. There might be some logic in such a rule if applied to a more tem-
perate climate where conditions were even all the year.
With best regards.
Yours very truly,
W. C. LAIDLAW.
(197) .
Laing Packing and Provision Company, Limited.
Montreal, January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee, Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — Referring, to the compulsory eight-hour day Bill. We beg to protest
against this Bill, on the ground that it would disorganize labour, advance prices of
goods, and prove hurtful to the workingmen themselves, as well as to trade generally.
We trust that the committee will report adversely on this Bill.
Yours sincerely,
PETER LAING.
President.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— H O'UR, S' OF LABOUR
543
APPENDIX No. 4
(358)
The Subsidiary Companies of the Lake Superior Corporation.
TT ^ T ,r Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., January 25, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Ont.
Sir, Keferring to Bill No. 21 House of Commons or the Eight Hour Hay Bill
we beg to protest against the passage of the Bill for the following reasons
T3-u i! lho.ugil.the fl}1 applies only to government contracts, the supporters of the
Bill have in view the general application of the principle of the shortened day to
all industries and this ns inimical to the best interests of the public at large. Even
at present there is a shortage of labour in many industries throughout Canada, and
from all indications this shortage will increase in the near future, and a reduction in
the hours ot labour each day would make the matter still worse. The shortened day
as applied to any industry would necessitate the employment of more men to sustain
the output which would increase the cost of production, and consequently also the
price of the product to the public. If the eight-hour day were made general in Can-
ada and applicable to all industries one effect would be to handicap Canadian indus-
tries in competition with similar industries in other countries.
2. The eight-hour day applying to government contracts only, would lessen com-
petition for government work because no manufacturer could maintain in his works
an eight-hour day side by side with a ten-hour day, and he must maintain the ten-
iour day m his general contracts in order to compete. Even in contracts for work
and labour only, a contractor with the government would have to increase his prices
on the basis of an eight-hour day, which would increase the total price to be paid by
the country and consequently the great mass of workmen who have to work a longer
day would have to contribute towards the increased tax occasioned by the short day
enjoyed by the select few of their fellow workmen who are fortunate enough to be
employed on government works.
. The promoters of this Bill have therefore in view an end which if attained will
be injurious, and it should be the policy of parliament, we submit, to prevent the first
step towards that end.
Yours very truly,
W. 0. FRANZ,
General Manager.
(190)
Lamontagne, Limited, Manufacturers of Harness, &c.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Montreal, Que., January 18, 1910.
Sir— We beg to write you regarding ‘ An Act respecting the Eight hours of Labour
on Public Works/ known as Bill No. 21, and for which we have received your letter of
inquiry dated January 12.
As we are opposed to the passing of any legislation affecting presently the hours
of labour in this country, we beg to give you hereunder a few reasons supporting the
basis of our protest as to why the Bill should not be passed.
1st. We consider it woul prohibit every employer or employee who is organized to
work more than eight hours per day, from sharing in government business.
2nd. It would not be practicable for any establishment, our, for example, to work
at the same time on government orders and on individual or private corporation
orders, and unless we have a special staff for each separate contract which would disor-
ganize our industry.
544
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
3rd. As a natural consequence, competition for government orders would be less
keen and prices would go up on all work done for the government.
4th. It would start a movement in al the organized labour to bring forward an
eight-hour day Bill in every industry and any labour, and we consider that our country
is not ready to rest. Under existing conditions, it takes all our energy to compete with
our neighbours, the Americans, notwithstanding the actual tariff.
5th. It would place a discount on ambition. The inherent right of individual
to raise himself above the level of his fellows by extra work or effort would be denied
him.
6th. Once we have fully recovered from the present industrial depression, there
will again be a shortage of help. A reduction in the hours of labour would mean that
this shortage would be tremendously accentuated. We are actually in constant touch
with the English Bureau of Information to secure proper skilled labour and we can-
not manage to fulfil our requirements.
7th. A shorter working day would mean an increased cost of production, which
in turn would mean a material advance in prices charged to jobbers, retailers and con-
sumers, consequently a sure increase in the cost of living and without any higher
wages. The short working day has a tendency to reduce the salaries.
8th. The shorter hours of labour in town and city workshop have proved a wonder-
fully strong attraction in influencing men to leave the farm. If these hours are now
reduced to eight per day, hired help for the farm will still be more difficult to secure
and retain. Eemembor that the government is before a problem in the northwest for
Ihe harvesting. As business men you will appreciate the importance of blocking a
move that would only embarrass the farmers.
9tli. This Bill is brought forward by organized labour which represents only 8 per
cent of the labour vote, and this small percentage should not be allowed to impose con-
ditions which would paralyze the development of the Canadian industry without bene-
fiting any special class.
We might further say that it would be an encouragement to idleness..
We would, however, suggest an amendment to this Bill by which it would be
understood and enforced, not only on government orders or where the government of
Canada is a party to any contract, but for the whole workers of the Dominion in every
industry, in fact in every line of commerce, to enforce a law of eight hours per day
during the short days of the year, that is November, December, January and Febru-
ary, and add to the long days of the year that would be lost on the short ones. We
consider that the amount of fuel and light spent during these short days would be
largely reimbursed in work as aforesaid, notwithstanding the extra fatigue occasioned
to the workers by artificial light. . ,
We humbly submit the above to the committee studying the Bill in question, and
we would express the hope that said committee report thereon in accordance.
Meanwhile, we have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servants,
LAMONTAGNE LIMITED.
S. D. JOUBERT,
President.
E. Leonard & Sons. Manufacturers of Engines and Boilers.
London, January 18, 1910.
Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, M. P.,
Chairman Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — Our attention has been called to the above Bill for reduction of
hours of labour. We fully endorse the clauses of protest made by the Canadian
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — 110URS OF LABOUR
545
APPENDIX No. 4
Manufacturers’ Association, especially clause 7. This country wants farmers’ sons to
remain on the farm as they are the backbone of our agricultural success, educated
lor such employment and producers of wealth from the soil.
This eight-hour agitation is the result of trade unions, which are a very small
percentage of the industrial population. We will venture to say that they do not re-
labour t 10 ^ °f ^ ClaSS supported V income of ten hours’ day
It would mean the abandonment of all chances of Canada competing with foreign
countries in machinery of all kinds where 10 and 12 hours per day are brought into
competition. &
Hoping the committee will report unfavourably to the House, I remain,
Yours truly,
E. LEONARD & SONS.
(234)
Lippert Furniture Company, Limited.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ont.
Berlin, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Re the Compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill No. 21.
Dear Sir,— We are advised that the above Bill will shortly be brought up before
your special committee for consideration, and after going over the items contained
m the aforesaid Bill, find that should same become law, that it would be very detri-
mental to all business concerns, as well as to all employers of labour. As we would
w'a^s be directly affected by this we wish to enter our serious protest against
tins Bill. As our representative of this riding we trust you will give this matter your
tamest attention, and if you see fit, to oppose this Bill not only on behalf of our-
selves but of all business establishments in general.
Should this Bill become law, it would prohibit every employer and every em-
ployee who works more than eight hours a day, from sharing in the government busi-
ness It would also seriously handicap all manufacturers, as, skilled labour as it is
at the present time is very scarce. This would mean that this shortage would be
tremendously accentuated, should there be any reduction made in the hours of labour.
Besides a shorter working-day would mean an increased cost of production, which in
itself would lead to a general increase in the cost of living.
Trusting the foregoing will make matters clear to you and that you will give
this your earnest consideration
Yours very truly,
IT. A. LIPPERT,
Secretary.
(229)
Lowndes Company, Limited, Manufacturers of Men’s Fine Tailored Garments.
Toronto, January 19, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Re Eight-Hour Day Bill.
Dear Sir, — We do not wish to take up a lot of your time in discussing this mat-
ter,. but beg to call your attention to our position in the Mens’ Clothing Manufac-
turing.
4—35
546
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ro. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
At the present time we are working our factory nine hours a day, five days in
the week and four hours on Saturday, making a total of forty-nine hours per week.
Our most serious competition in high grade men’s clothing comes from the United
States. The chief clothing centres there are New York, Rochester and Chicago. In
New York the clothing factories work fifty-five hours per week, in Rochester they
work fifty-two hours per week and in Chicago they vary from fifty-two to fifty-five
hours; so that you will see that using the same class of help and only working forty-
nine hours per week, we are eeven now slightly handicapped, hut should we be forced
to still lower hours, without the United States following suit, we would, in a short
time he in a serious condition.
We beg to remain,
Respectfully yours,
C. B. LOWNDES,
President.
(167)
McColl Brothers & Company, Lubricating and Fine Burning Oils.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Toronto, January 18, 1910.
Re Bill No. 21.
Dear Sir, — Regarding the eight-hour day Bill introduced by the labour party,
we would appreciale it if when this comes before you, that the matter should be
thoroughly gone into. In our instance it would be practically impossible to limit
our works to eight hours a day, without largely increasing the cost of production, and
it would practically hamper our works, and put us in the position that we would not
be able to apply for tenders^ for government work. In addition to this it would be to
the general disadvantage of the country at large, and it should not be considered ser-
iously for a moment.
Yours truly,
J. W. McCOLL
(201)
F. C. McCordick, Manufacturer of Tanned and Rawhide Lace Leathers.
St. Catharines, Ont., January 18, 1910
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
My Dear Sir, — Referring to the Compulsory Eight-hour Day Bill which has been
introduced by Mr. Yerville, I wish to protest against the passing of such an arbitrary
law as against the best interests of the community. In the Niagara district there is a
probability of some large government works and if such were carried on under an
eight-hour law, the manufacturers, fruit growers and other farming industries would
have greater difficulty than ever in procuring labour. At the present time the fruit
growers must work from daylight until dark to harvest their fruits, or suffer great
Tosses. A man’s value to the community is what he earns, and if the hours of labour
are shortened, his earning power is curtailed.
Trusting these views will be giv.en your best consideration, I have the honour
Lo be,
Your obedient servant,
F. C. McCORDICK.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
547
APPENDIX No. 4
(351)
Macdonald & Company, Limited, Importers of Cast and Wrought Iron Pipe.
tt ttt T ,r Tr Halifax, N.S., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, ^ ’
Chairman Special Committee on Bill No. 21.
Hon. Sir We employ from seventy to one hundred hands.
We work nine hours per day, so would be barred from tendering on government
work as it would be impracticable to work eight-hour and nine-hour men together.
There' is no surplus of skilled labour in ordinary times, and when times are good
there is a shortage here.
An eight-hour system must enhance cost of our products.
We favour a nine-hour day But are against putting the individual worker under
compulsion of any kind. He should be free to work.
Consequently are against the Bill No. 21 now in committee.
Yours faithfully,
MACDONALD & CO., LTD.
Rod Macdonald,
Secretary .
(141) •
Macdonald Manufacturing Company, Limited. Lithographers on Tin and Iron.
Toronto, Ont., January 14, 1910.
Dear Sir,— Replying to your circular letter dated December 27, dealing with this
Bill, would say that we presume that the rule adopted on private works in respect to
hours of labour are adopted by government contractors when doing similar work for
the government. It only seems fair that this should be the case.
i The government, however, through its various departments, is the purchaser of
almost every conceivable commodity made in foreign countries as well as in Canada.
It would be impossible to control the number of hours per day that should be done
upon such commodities, as the law could not extend outside of Canada, and it would
not be possible for mills or factories in Canada to adapt themselves, for the purpose of
a small government order, to eight hours a day, if they were working ten hours a day
regularly.
Neither is it a psactical question in Canada to reduce the hours of labour by 20
per cent, thus increasing the cost of commodities as well as living, which is now
already excessive. Such a course, if adopted generally, would lead to tremendous in-
crease in cost, inasmuch as expensive plants and machinery would be lying idle for two
hours longer in the twenty-four.
It is a kind of legislation which is not in effect in countries with which Canada
competes for supremacy in its own market, and would likely have the result of destroy-
ing manufacturing industries in Canada, and consequently throwing out of employ-
ment and bringing destitution where prosperity prevails.
Besides this unless it is the intention to make eight hours a day apply to all kinds
of labour, including farm labour, the result would be to further deplete the help avail-
able for farm purposes where, indefinite hours of labour are in effect according to the
necessities of the season, it being the motto of the farmer to ‘ make hay while the sun
shines. Farm labourers would flock to the cities under the impression that we only
worked eight hours a day instead of longer hours on the farm. This is not a desirable
condition of affairs to look forward to in a couni ry where there is so much land to be
tilled, and where it is necessary to encourage people to stay on the land. I remain.
Yours faithfully,
MACDONALD MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.
R. Austin
4 — 35J
548
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(242)
R. McDougall Company, Limited, Manufacturers.
Galt, January 19, 1910
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie Kino.
Ottawa, Ont-
Re Bill No. 21.
Dear Sir, — We note that the Eight-Hour Day Bill has again been brought to the
fore, and we, as manufacturers, wish to protest against such an arrangement, as we
are satisfied that the matter has only to be looked into when it will be seen that such
a condition of affairs is not for this country. We occasionally do work for the gov-
ernment, that is, we build machine tools which are used in government work shops.
If this Bill is good for anything it would of course, be applicable to such conditions,
and We think you can readily see the confusion caused in any shop by part of the
employees being on eight hours and part on ten hours. We might also say that in
the course of a few months there will in all probability be a shortage of labour a(S
was the case a few years ago, and that a ten hour day will be none too long for the
current business of the country. In many lines of business, labour is the important
item of cost, and owing to the high rate of living we do not think that workmen
could afford to work only eight hours per day at present rates of pay, and an advance
in the rate would mean more advance to the cost of goods produced and this might
mean loss of the market where competition was with a ten-hour da,v.
We sincerely trust that your committee will report this Bill adversely and in the
meantime, we are.
Yours truly,
AND. J. OLIVER,
Secretary Manager
(173)
The McIntosh Granite Company, Limited.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King.
Minister of Labour,
Toronto, January 18, 1910
Chairman Special Committee on Bill No. 21.
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — We desire to protest most strongly against the Compulsory Eight
hour Day Bill brought forward by Mr. Verville.
We employ on an average 55 men the year round, they now work nine hours
for five days a week, and four and a half hours on the sixth day, and they are unani-
mous in desiring to continue this.
As a rule in our business it is difficult to secure enough good men to keep up
with our orders. The attitude of the unions in limiting the number of apprentices
(and the few who are taken on, are not taught the business as formerly) is making
it more difficult all the time to get good mechanics, therefore we think this Bill for
shortening the working day should be thrown out.
Yours respectfully,
D. TAYLOR McINTOSH,
Secre tary-Treasurer.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
549
APPENDIX No. 4
(113)
Maclver & Mooney, Lumber Manufacturers and Dealers.
Scotstown, Que., January 10, 1910.
Re Legislation affecting Hours of Labour.
Dear Sir,* We see no reason why they should not be permitted to work more
than eight hours, as such a clause would interfere not only with the rights of the
labouring man, but also with those of his employer.
Yours truly,
M. J. MOONEY,
President A.G.C.L.
(195)
J. C. McLaren Belting Company, Limited.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Montreal, January 18, 1910.
Dear Sir, — We have read with a great deal of interest the ‘ Eight-hour Day Bill,’
and would be very sorry to see its enactment.
The reasons that could be advanced against it are so far reaching and numerous,
it would be difficult to say just how detrimental it would prove, not only to employ-
ers of labour but very directly to labour itself.
We sincerely hope your committee will see it in this light and report upon it in
accordance.
Yours very truly,
F. A. JOHNSON,
Managing Director.
(202)
Malcolm & Souter Furniture Company, Limited.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ont.
Hamilton, Ont., January 18, 1910.
Dear Sir, — We understand you are chairman of a special committee at present
about to consider the advisabilty of legalizing the eight-hour day on government con-
tracts.
As manufacturers in close touch with business conditions in this country, we wish
to express our disapproval of this movement.
Many objections can be cited against it, but the chief one, in our opinion, is that
it will add considerably to the cost of government, already a large item. It would ulti-
mately result in the eight-hour day being extended to all classes of labour in this
country. That this will tend to increase the cost of living you must admit, and at a
time when prices are advancing anyway.
We lijpe your committee will accord this proposed Bill very careful consideration,
and that the result will be an adverse report on it from your committee.
Yours truly,
MALCOLM & SOUTER FURNITURE CO., LTD.
550
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOR R
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(339) Manitoba Bridge and Iron Works, Limited.
Winnipeg, Man., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ont.
Hon. Sir, — We observe that you are chairman of the Special Committee of Bill
No. 21, regarding compulsory eight-hour day for all persons having any connections
with work to he done for the government of Canada.
This company desires to enter an earnest protest against any such grossly unjust
measure being allowed to become law, as it would practically prohibit us from being
able to do any work ultimately intended for government use, and the same would apply
to all manufactures similarly situated, doing a mixed business of all kinds of iron and
steel work. It would be an impossible matter for us to have some of our men working
eight hours per day and the balance ten. Take a piece of work in the lathe, for instance,
the man operating the lathe would come in at eight o’clock, an hour later the shops had
opened, an.d leave an hour before they closed. It would not pay to take the work out of
the lathe, as the setting up and centreing of the work is a considerable portion of the
cost, and it would greatly enhance it. In this climate where the days in summer are
long and correspondingly shoit in winter, and owing to the severity of the latter season,
practically all our year’s business has to be done in the summer and our shops are
nearly idle in winter. It would be impossible to pay interest on the investment if our
output was restricted during the part of the year that we are sure to he busy to eight
hours per day. The interest goes on day and night, the cost of power, taxes, insurance,
management, accounting, supervision and depreciation; in fact the whole overload re-
mains the same. The result would simply be that we would be prohbited from doing
any work, even as sub-contractors, in which the government was interested.
The Bill is being advocated by a very small section of the labourers of Canada,
and no other trust or combine has so much contributed to the increase in the cost of
living in this country as the labour trust. Therefore, these continued attempts to
restrict the output of shops, to force shorter hours of labour and higher wages, and in
every way curtail production, has been the chief cause, in our opinion, of the enhanced
cost of living. This Bill is designed to go further in this respect. If they can force
this on government work, it will be followed by a series of strikes throughout the
country to enforce it in other lines of work. We firmly believe that the small number
of persons who are agitating for the enactment of this Bill, do not represent more than
8 or 10 per cent of the labourers and mechanics of this country and that the freedom
of the other 90 per cent, who are willing and anxious to work more than eight hours
per day, should not be restricted on account of the noise made by a few. This country
is too young and too vigorous to have its energies and growth artificially restrained in
this matter. We protest strongly against the whole principle of the Bill, and hope
that it may be rejected by your committee.
We have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servants,
THE MANITOBA BRIDGE AND IRON WORKS, LTD.
Thos. R. Deacon,
Manager.
(342) The Manitoba Windmill & Pulp Co., Ltd.
Brandon, Man., J anuary 20, 1910.
The Hon, W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Can.
Dear Sir, — With reference to Bill No. 21, which is now before the Dominion
Parliament, with refrence to a compulsory eight-hour day for mechanics and working
men in factories, we would like to put ourselves on record as being utterly opposed to
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
551
APPENDIX No. 4
this Bill. If such a Bill goes into force throughout the Dominion, it will practically
mean that Canadian manufacturers are up against a serious proposition with respect
to competition from our American friends, who at the present time are entrenched with
much larger factories, and even with their present facilities are able to produce goods
cheaper then the Canadian manufacturers. Should this Bill pass the House, it will
further add to the impossibility of Canadian manufacturers meeting this competition,
which at the best of times is hard to combat with.
We most sincerely hope you will use your best efforts to bring the manufacturers’
point of view to bear on this when this Bill comes before the House for final con-
sideration. Please understand that we are bitterly opposed to the passing of this
Bill.
Yours truly,
THE MANITOBA WINDMILL & PUMP CO., LTD.
G. B. Williamson,
. .Manager and Treasurer.
(325)
Marsh & Henthorne and others, Manufacturers of Belleville
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Out.
Dear Sir, — The manufacturers of Belleville are desirous of opposing the passage
of Bill No. 21, which provides for an eight-hour day on all contracts for government
work or requirements, and beg to submit for your consideration the following reasons
why this Bill should not become law.
(1) pt would prohibit every employer and every employee who works more than
eight hours per day from sharing in government business.
(3) It would be utterly impracticable for any establishment to work one portion
of its staff eight hours a day on government orders and the rest of its staff ten hours
a day on orders for private parties and private corporations.
(3) As a natural consequence competition for government orders would be less
keen; prices would go up, and all work would have to be paid for by the government at
a higher figure.
(4) It would place a discount on ambition. The inherent right of the individual
to raise himself above the level of his fellow by extra work or effort would be denied
him.
(5) Once we have fully recovered from the present industrial depression, there
will again be a shortage of help. A reduction in the hours of labour would mean that
this shortage would be tremendously accentuated.
(6) _A shorter working day would mean an increased cost of production, which
in turn would mean a material advance in the price charged the jobber, the retailer
and the consumer, and consequently a general increase in the cost of living.
(7) The shorter hours of labour in town and city workshops have proved a wonder-
ful attraction in influencing men to leave the farm. If these hours are now reduced
to eight hours per day, hired help for the farm will be more difficult than ever to secure
and retain. As business men you will appreciate the importance of blocking a move
that would only embarrass the farmer.
(8) Organized labour, which is said to represent only 8 per cent of the labour vote,
should not be allowed to impose conditions which would hamper the development of
Canadian industry.
552
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
^ e hope that your committee may favourably consider the above arguments and
report adversely on the Bill when it comes before you.
We have the honour to remain,
Your obedient servants,
MARSH & HENTHORN, LTD.
L. W. Marsh,
Managing Director.
BELLEVILLE IRON AND HORSESHOE CO., LTD.
R. J. Smith,
Vice-president and General Manager.
BELLEVILLE CANNING . CO.
R. B. Morden,
A Partner.
BRASS & STEEL GOODS, LTD.
H. C. Hunt,
Managing Director and Secretary
THE HOLTON LUMBER CO., LTD.
G. H. Holton,
BELLEVILLE FRUIT AND VINEGAR CO., LTD.
Henry Taylor,
Secretary Treasurer.
THE DEACON SHIRT CO.
T. S. Deacon,
Secretary Treasurer.
TICKELL & LAW CO.,
Furniture and Casket Manufacturers.
W. W. CHOWN CO., LTD.
R. C. CHOWN,
Vice President.
JAMES ST. CHARLES OMNIBUS CO. .
James St. Charles,
Manager.
WALKER FOUNDRY.
J. Hurley.
R. J. GRAHAM.
CARLAW MILLING CO.
GEO. WALTERS & CO.
CITY WOOLLEN MILLS.
Wm. Lott,
Proprietor.
FINNEGAN CARRIAGE & WAGGON CO.
W. E. Finnegan.
DOMINION BEDDING CO.
W. S. Smith,
Proprietor.
STANDARD GAS HOLDER & BOILER CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD.
J. A. Marsh,
Secretary Treasurer.
BELLEVILLE HARDWARE CO., LTD.
W. C. Springer,
Managing Director.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
553-
APPENDIX No. 4
(269)
Wm. A. Marsh Company, Limited, Manufacturers of Fine Shoes.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Quebec, January 19, 1910.
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear SiR,—In regard to the Compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill, which we have
carefully considered, we beheve it would prove to he the thin edge of the wedge and
ultimately apply to and affect all industries. So far as the shoe industry is con-
cornered, it would never stand the increased cost of production, would bear too heavily
tTnTteHhStaTeTUI^errand^bnn# ^ increase in thc export of shoes from the
ted States into Canada. For these and other strong reasons that might be men-
protest against ,he **• an,) llope th‘l yoi,t committee ""
Your obedient servants,
ROBERT STANLEY,
Secretary-Treasurer
(256)
Maritime Nail Company, Limited.
tt W T if "xt ST' JohNj N-B-> January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Hon. Sir, We notice that this Eight-Hour Day Bill has been considered by the
House in somewhat more serious manner than heretofore, and that same has been
referred to a committee, of which you are the chairman.
There are a number of reasons from a broad standpoint why this Bill is im-
practicable.
In the first p^ce this Bill is brought forward by an organization which is only
about eight per cent of the total labour vote, to say nothing of the balance of voters
a great majority of whom are not in favour of this Bill, and as they are taxpayers’
is it right that they should be taxed for the increased cost of the material which the
government purchases.
The 20 per cent in reduction in the working hours per day, means considerable
additional cost to the present price.
„ ^s production is the basis on which the manufacturer must distribute his over-
nead cost, the overhead cost would be 20 per cent higher if this Bill goes through.
We sincerely trust that this committee will give this Bill their careful attention,
and look at it from the standpoint of the manufacturer and farmer as well as organized
labour, and we cannot help but feel that the report would be adverse to the Bill
Yours respectfully,
S. E. ELKIN,
General Manager
(231)
Martin-Senour Company, Limited, Paint Makers.
Montreal, January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — Our attention has recently been drawn to the provisions of Bill No.
21, fostered by Mr. Yerville, and a careful study of the conditions of this Bill should
it become a law, makes it very plain that it would be a hardship to manufacturers and
554
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
employers of labour throughout the Dominion. The present condition of the labour
market is severe enough without burdening employers with an Act of this kind.
Aside from the question of labour supply there is also the question that would involve
considerable difficulty and annoyance with employers and labourers working on govern-
ment contracts, a shorter working day would necessarily lower the producing power
of Canadian manufacturers and increase the cost of production, and as skilled labour
in Canada is very limted, we believe we have voiced the sentiments of many other
manufacturers that a law of this kind would not only be a detriment to the manu-
facturing industry of Canada, but would prove a hardship to many individual manu-
facturers. We are unalterably opposed to the provisions of this Bill, and we urge upon
you to exercise your influence to defeat this measure should it come to a vote.
A reply would be greatly appreciated.
Yours very truly,
W. H. YORKE,
Manager.
(203)
The Mason & Risch Piano Company, Limited.
Toronto, January 18, 1910.
lion. W. L. Mackenzie Iving,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — We learn with very much concern that an Eight-hour Day Bill has
been brought in on behalf of organized labour through its representative, Mr. Yer-
ville.
The passing of such a Bill would in our opinion lead to very serious results as
it would prevent any firm and its employees who work more than eight hours per
day from sharing in government contracts.
From the government point of view it would mean that competition would be less
keen, prices would go up, and all work would have to be paid for by the government
at increased figures.
It has been with the greatest of difficulty that manufacturing industries have
during the past year been able to secure sufficient skilled help to meet their demands,
and a reduction in the hours of labour would involve very heavy losses. We earnestly
ask your committee to consider the provisions of this Bill very carefully, as such
consideration will, we are confident, result in your reporting adversely on it.
Yours very truly,
HENRY H. MASON,
Secretary-Treasurer.
(266)
David Maxwell & Sons, Manufacturers of Farm Implements.
St. Marys, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — Our attention has been drawn to the Compulsory Eight-hour Day
Bill, which is now before the House of Commons and we beg to submit our objec-
tions to this Bill becoming law.
This Bill would prevent any manufacturer whose hours exceeded eight, to enter-
tain any government contracts as it is an impossibility to divide up the factory so
that a portion of the mechanics who might be engaged on government contract work
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR 555
APPENDIX No. 4
could work eight . hours per day, and the balance for a longer period. The result
would be a lessening of competition for government contracts with the consequence,
that the prices required to be paid would be much higher than under regular condi-
tions as it would mean an increased cost for production.
We trust that the proposed Bill will not become law.
Yours truly,
DAVID MAXWELL & SONS.
(326)
Massey-Harris Company, Limited, Farm Implements.
Toronto, January IS, 1910.
Dear Sir, We are in receipt of your favour of 27th December, in which you
ask for our opinion as to the effect of the passing of Bill No. 21, ‘ An Act respecting
the Hours of Labour on Public Works.’
Shortly, we would say, that it would appear to us, that it would be prejudicial
to the best interests of Canada, making it practically impossible for any company to
tender for government work and at the same time conduct their business so as to be
in a position to compete on other than government contracts. The government might
be willing to pay the higher price, that would of necessity be demanded for govern-
ment work under such a condition, but private enterprises would never concede this,
and firms tendering would be under the necessity of trying to work part of their
staff for eight hours, and part for ten hours, or else drop one or other of the two
classes of business. We know of companies who have attempted to do part of their
work on an eight hour basis and part on a ten hour, and it has always failed, arid
our experience with the handling of men makes us sure that it always will.
In these days the improvement in machinery, each year, is practically equal to the
advance of a decade formerly. All these improvements mean very much heavier in-
vestment on the part of manufacturers in machinery, and at the same time lighter
labour for the men employed. If machinery is to be employed but one-third of each
twenty-four hours, it is, of course, going to increase the investment in machinery and
plant quite largely.
In our own particular case, we would not be directly interested, in that we are
not at all likely to be tendering for government work, but we, and all other manu-
facturers, will be seriously affected nevertheless by such a stipulation on the part
of the government, because of the influence upon our employees of such legislation
and the influence of seeing men in a nearby factory working eight hours. It would
be difficult, if not useless, to try to get the average workman to appreciate the fact,
although it would be a fact, that the firm whose employees were working but eight
hours were able to do so and jet along only because they had a government contract!,
and the government, were willing to pay a bonus for their work over ordinary con-
sumers.
Another important consideration from the standpoint of our company, is, that
we do a large export business. To do this we have to compete with factories in other
countries who work on a basis of ten hours per day, and frequently twelve hours. I11
these days of keen competition, it is not possible to concede very much, in the way
of an advantage to your competitors and be successful, and there could be no ques-
tion of the tremendous handicap a firm would be under, who were trying to compete
on an eight-hour basis with another company that was able to use its plant for ten,
and even twelve, as is quite common in several countries in Europe.
We do not think that the government should for a moment consider doing some-
thing that would, in its actual working out, apply to a comparatively small number
of men, but, at the same time, would be very far reaching in its influence and effect,
and which would be the thin end of the wedge of an endeavour to force manufacturers
556
COMMITTEE RE BILL Eo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
generally into a situation which, almost unanimously we believe, would he considered
by them as impracticable and well nigh fatal to their success.
Another reason we would urge is, that the bulk of the people, who would have
to pay for the public works, are people who would find it utterly impossible to restrict
themselves to eight hours a day. This is especially true of the ' agriculturist, who,
as we are situated in Canada, would have to pay the larger proportion of the extra
cost of public works. Every one knows that farmers of necessity work long hours,
and it cannot be expected that they, or others who work twelve hours, or more, per
day, would have sympathy with an eight hour day.
We might suggest other reasons against the adoption of this Act, but the above
are some of the important ones that immediately suggest themselves to us in the con-
sideration of it.
Yours truly,
THOS. FINDLEY,
Assistant General Manager.
(238)
Metallic Roofing Company of Canada, Limited.
Toronto, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — Without entering into any lengthy details, we desire to enter our pro-
test as strongly as possible against the passing of Bill No. 21, which would work a very
serious injury indeed not only to the manufacturers, but to many other interests in
different parts of the Dominion.
Yours truly,
THE METALLIC ROOFING CO. OF CANADA, LTD.
J. 0. Thorn,
Managing Director-.
(239)
Moffat Stove Company, Limited.
Weston, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir, — We notice that organized labour, through its represntative, Mr. Ver-
ville, is again bringing forward its Eight-Hour Day Bill, and that the same has been
referred to a special committee, of which you have the honour to be chairman.
In common with all other stove manufacturers, we have passed through two lean
year, and it would be some time yet before the stove business is back again to its con-
dition in 1907.
Eight hours per day on government contracts practically means the same on pri-
vate contracts, and the stove manufacturers have enough troubles to fight against with-
out adding another to the list.
In our experience the labour unions or labour trust, as at present constituted,
have shown themselves to be utterly untrustworhy, tyrannical and irresponsible, and
appear to think themselves above the law. They represent only a very small percent-
age of the workmen of our Dominion.
At the present time there are only three or four leading Canadian stove foundries
which employ union labour, and we fail to see why their representations should have
any effect on the government.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOUR 8 OF LABOUR
557
APPENDIX No. 4
The writer has just come back from a trip through a number of United States
stove factories, and find that we have machinery and appliances equal to our United
States competitors ; that we are paying our workmen as high, and in some cases higher
wages, and that our moulders in particular are producing less work.
If the labour union were in earnest they would do a little constructive work and
help to place ourselves in a position where we could compete with United States fac-
tories.
Are you aware that it costs the Canadian stove manufacturers at least 10 per
cent more for raw materials than our United States competitors, and that all the nickel
and asbestos we use is originally exported from Canada to United States and from
there back to Canada with duty and freight added ?
A consideration of subj'ects like these would be of more interest not only to the
Canadian stove trade but to the workmen whom we emplov.
Yours truly,
MOFFAT STOVE CO., LTD.,
H. L. Moffat,
(249)
Secretary.
Montreal Carriage Leather Company, Limited.
Montreal, Que., January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ont.
respectfully beg to enter our protest against the passing of the Compul-
sory Eight-hour Day Bill, as we feel confident that it will prove detrimental to the
manufacturer and also to the mechanic as well.
The cost of production jvill be seriously enhanced, which will reflect on the con-
sumer and also on the mechanic, and mean a general increase in the cost of living,
also it will be next to impossible to compete in the foreign markets. It will also mean
less wages earned for labour in factories paid by the hour; should this Bill pass, the
cost on any government contracts placed will undouutedly be considerably increased.
We have yet to hear of any agitation from our employees demanding shorter hours,
and we doubt very much if the majority of labour employed are desirous of seeing the
Eight-hour Day Bill come into force.
We trust and hope that your committee will come to the conclusion that it is
in the interest of trade or the working man to have the present hours of labour cur-
tailed.
Yours respectfully,
MONTREAL CARRIAGE LEATHER CO., LTD.
J. Alex. Stevenson.
(366)
Montreal Lithographing Company, Limited.
Montreal, January 24, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir, — As we understand that you are chairman of the special committee on
Bill No. 21, ‘An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works/ we here-
with beg to submit a few objections for your consideration.
In the first place it seems to us that all employers of labour whose factories run
on an average of more than eight hours per day, would be debarred from participating
m any government contract, it would result in the narrowing down ©f competition
558
COMMITTEE RE BILL Flo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
for government contracts to such an extent, that the tendency would he to jump the
prices of all government work. It would prohibit all firms who now share, to how-
ever slight an extent, in government business from accepting orders from the govern-
ment, as it would be absolutely impossible for such establishments to have that por-
tion of their staff who happen to be engaged on such orders, working eight hours per
day during the time they were so engaged, while the balance of the staff were working
a longer period and have the same employees revert to the regular working hours of
the factory at such times as they were not actually engaged on government work.
The scarcity of skilled labour in many branches of business is already so pro-
nounced that to adopt an eight-hour day basis for all work would be simply impossible.
The result would only tend to lessen the output so essential to the general prosperity
of the business community.
Yours truly,
JAS. JEPHCOTT.
(136)
Montreal Rolling Mills Company.
Montreal, January 13, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I beg to thank you for giving me the opportunity of perusing Bill
"No. 21, ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.’
I judge that the object in view is that the labourer, or workman, or mechanic,
shall obtain, on the work done under a contract for the government, full compen-
sation for the eight hours of time equal to what he secured on the same class of
work under other contracts, and working ten hours. The result of this would be, oi
course, that for all government work, the government, in comparison with the cost to
other contractors, would be paying 20 per cent more on the labour necessary to pro-
duce the product. The difficulty, however, that I see, is in the carrying out of the
proposed conditions.
Take the manufacturer of a steel rail. This commences with the ore and lime-
stone, and by this Bill would the eight-hour day be obligatory as regards the labour
in making the pig iron, which is a continuous process, that goes to the steel furnaces,
which is also what might be termed a continuous process, and from there into the
ingot, and from the ingot to the blooming mill, and from the bloom that is there
produced, rolled into the steel rail purchased by the government? Is it the intention
of the promoters of this Bill, in the processes leading up to the finished article, which
work is done in the same establishment and under the one roof, that in these various
proceeding processes, there should be no workman or labourer or mechanic in the em-
ploy of the said contractor permitted or required to work more than eight hours per
day? If so, I would consider that it is an impracticable proposition.
In the works that I am interested in, there is a large proportion of work that is
done by piecework, and you will find cases where the ability of the mechanic allows
him to work a less given number of hours to accomplish certain results, than it take0
another mechanic to accomplish a like result, and the latter would feel it a hardship
if he was compelled to curtail his efforts to secure the monetary return that goes to
another workman.
With a stipulation in a contract such as is suggested by this Bill, the honest
contractor would be at a disadvantage, for the reason that he would obligate himself
to carry it out and not permit or require any labourer, workman, or mechanic to work
more than eight hours in any one calendar day, while thise who are not as straight
might carry out the wording of the contract and not allow or permit any man to work
on this government contract more than eight hours a day, but would change his
machine (whatever it might be) for the remaining two hours on to some other work
for some other purpose and for some other contractor.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
559
APPENDIX No. 4
Coming back now to the first proposition, if the answer be ‘ Yes/ how is it possible
for the manufacturer of shovels or spades or picks or drills or bolts or nuts, who, for
his purpose as a manufacturer of these and other varied lines of finished products
buys his sheets of steel for his shovels, or his bar of steeel for his picks, drills, &c. to
be in a position to know whether that bar of steel or bar of iron, or sheet of steel or
sheet of iron, was produced by labourers, mechanics and workmen who were only per-
mitted to work eight hours per day? If it was not compulsory for the producers of
the articles that I have now named to substantiate this, what a handicap it would be
to the manufacturer who produces from a further back process, to be obliged that in
the production of the finished article, when all the processes are under one roof, thev
be produced by labourers, workmen, or mechanics in an eight-hour day
So far as the government is concerned, for work that they are doing themselves,
they aie the employers, like other manufacturers, and can, of course, legislate with
their said employees whether the day be one of eight, nine or ten hours.
I beg to remain, yours truly,
WM. McMASTER.
(128)
Montreal Steel Works, Limited.
. Montreal, January 13, 1910.
ear biRy v\ e think this should be withdrawn for the following reasons : —
1st. Owing to our climatic conditions, a great deal of government work cannot
be carried on to advantage in the winter, and there is consequently a great deal of un-
emp oyment during the winter months. It is, therefore, most necessary that longer
hours should be worked in the summer in order to take full advantage of that season,
thus enabling working men to earn more money during the summer months to offset
t le enforced idleness during the winter. They are well able to work extra hours owing
to the long rest they have had in the winter months.
... ^ie e;ght-hour law is enforced in the government contracts, an attempt
wilt then be made to enforce it upon all employers of labour. This would bo a serious
handicap to Canadian manufacturers who have to compete with foreigners in practi-
cally everything that is manufactured here.
3. Contractors doing rush work for the government would be very much hampered
i ey aie so restricted with the hours of labour, as they will be continually running
to the authorities to get permission to work longer hours in order that they may
complete the work which is so urgently required. A long delay will ensue before these
permissions will be granted, thus causing a further loss of time.
Yours truly,
C. IT. GODFREY
Vice-President and Treasurer
(316)
Montreal Street Railway Company.
Montreal
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill Mo. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
January 20, 1910.
Pie: Compusory Eight-hour Day Bill.
Dear Sir, — In connection with the above Bill I am authorized to say that we pro-
test against the same for the following reasons : —
. 1- H would be utterly impracticable for any establishment to work one portion
of its staff eight hours a day on government orders and the rest of its staff ten hours
a day on orders for private parties and private corporations.
560
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
2. It would place a discount on ambition. The inherent right of the individual
to raise himself above the level of his fellows by extra work or effort would be denied
him.
3. Once we have fully recovered from the present industrial depression there
will again be a shortage of help. A reduction on the hours of labour would mean
that this shortage would be tremendously accentuated.
4. A shorter working day would mean an increased cost of production, which in
turn would mean a material advance in the price charged the jobber, the retailer and
the consumer, and consequently a general increase in the cost of living.
5. Organized labour which is said to represent only eight per cent of the labour
vote should not be allowed to impose conditions which would hamper the development
of Canadian industry.
Yours very truly,
PATRICK DUFEE,
Secretary
(304)
Montreal Watch Case Company, Limited.
Montreal, January 21, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie Kino.
Minister of Labour,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Can.
Sir, — I am in receipt to-day of an extract fijpm a Bill that is being now submit-
ted to your committee for its consideration. I would humbly call your attention to
the fact, that if any compulsory limitation is enacted with reference to the working
hours of labour, it will affect a number of businesses which includes the one I repre-
sent, viz. ‘The Montreal Watch Case Company, Limited.’ As we are in keen compe-
tition with English '.and American manufacturing houses, who have been in exis-
tence for many years and are thoroughly equipped, organized, and in a position to
sell goods at a very close profit, and who are not restricted by any limitations as to the
number of hours their employees shall work per day. I believe Canadian manufac-
ture would be at a great disadvantage in competition with them. I would suggest
a clause in the proposed Act that would overcome this objection so far as our class
of business is concerned namely, ‘ Payment per hour.’ This arrangement is not only
fair and just but leaves it optional with the employee as to the number of hours he
will work each day. My experience from this system, thoroughly demonstrates, that
the employees’ ideas as to the number of hours of labour a man should give in the
course of a day, becomes more or less elastic, as he is the sole judge.
Yours obediently.
WM. J. HOWARD,
President.
(248)
Munderloh & Company, Electrical Supplies and Fixtures.
Montreal, Que., January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — With reference to the proposed Compulsory Eight-hour Day Bill, we
earnestly trust that your committee will not report favourably on this Bill, for should
it go through it would be impossible for us or any other concern operating more than
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
561
APPENDIX No. 4
eight hours per day to share in government business, and as our working day is longer
than eight hours, we, along with many others, would feel the severity of this measure
We beg to remain,
Yours respectfully,
MUNDERLOH & CO.. LTD.
J. B.
(168)
The National Breweries, Limited.
Quebec, December 29, 1909.
i?yAB i^111'’ un^ers^an^ why one employed on a government contract
should fee placed m a different position than others; the general idea is that the govern-
ment, even under present conditions, get much less value for a dollar than anv one
else.
^ With the immense public works to be undertaken for the next few years by the
Canadian government, we consider the proposed eight-hour clause would be most detri-
mental, in fact all energies should be pushed to the limit if we desire to develop our
vast country and possessions.
Yours very truly,
BOSWELL & BRO.
(284)
National Rubber Company of Canada.
Montreal, January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir, We note that an Act is being sought to force a compulsory eight -hour
day on government work. In our estimation this will be most unfair, especially in our
trade and in allied businesses and the clothing trade in general. The business is one
in which we have alternative periods of a great quantity of work, and at other times,
practically nothing. When we are rushed in this way it is absolutely obligatory
for us to be able to cope with the work, to allow our hands (who are nearly all piece-
workers) to work overtime, and did we not allow this we would have endless objections
from them and great loss to ourselves. For these reasons wre wish to record our strong-
est objection to the Bill in question.
Yours truly.
A. W. KENDALL.
(259)
National Table Company, Limited,
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Llouse of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Owen Sound, January 19, 1910.
Dear Sir, — We beg to place before you our protest against the passing of Bill No.
21, which is coming up before the House of Commons in the course of a few days, and
we beg to express the hope that your committee will report adversely on this Bill.
There are several strong reasons why this Bill should not pass. Many of these reasons
4—36
562
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
will be presented to your committee by men who are experienced in labour and business
matters, and we express the hope that the committee will recognize that public opinion
is very largely against the passing of an Act, such as is proposed in Bill No. 21.
Yours truly,
W. MERRITTON.
(352)
New Brunswick Pulp and Paper Company, Limited.
Millerton, N.B., January 20, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Dear Sir, — We are advised that Mr. Yerville has again brought forward the pro-
posed Eight-hour Day Bill, and as we are of opinion that this Bill will not be in the in-
terests of this country, or to the interests of manufacturers, we are writing to very
strongly protest against it.
In regard to the pulp and paper manufacture, the writer has had a wide experi-
ence in Scandinavia, United States, Newfoundland, England and Canada, and can
say unhesitatingly that such a Bill will impose additional burdens on us in Canada
which the industry cannot bear.
The protection we have from the government barely compensates for the increased
cost of machinery, labour, fuel and chemicals in this country, and any increase in the
cost of labour, which would necessarily take place were this Bill to become law, would
further be against the manufacturer.
We are quite in agreement with the paragraphs against the Bill as outlined by
the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association.
Yours truly,
JAMES BEVERIDGE,
President.
(179)
W. P. Niles, Grower of Seed Peas and Beans
Wellington, Ont., January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — I sincerely hope that the committee on Bill No. 21 will not report
favourably, believing it would be most detrimental to industries throughout the coun-
try, and especially so in my own case.
Yours very truly,
W. P. NILES.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
563
APPENDIX No. 4
(1 751
The Nordheimer Piano and Music Company, limited.
Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ont.
Toronto, January 18, 1910.
Dear Sir, Referring to the Bill for the ‘ Compulsory Eight-hour Day,’ being
adopted, we desire to enter our earnest protest against the same, as being in every
way a serious disadvantage to the manufacturer. We are not enlarging upon the de-
tails of the objectionable features, as we understand that this will be very fully com-
municated to you by the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association and others.
Yours truly,
THE NORDHEIMER PIANO & MUSIC CO., Limited.
(174)
Ontario Iron and Steel Company, Limited.
Toronto, Ont., January 18, 1910.
t he Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
The Chairman, Special Committee, Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Sir, As makers of steel castings and other material which enters largely into
government work, we must protest against that clause of Bill No. 21, which restricts
the makers of material and supplies to be furnished to the government of Canada to
an eight-hour day. Our business is of such a nature that it is almost impossible to
restrict the hours of labour. Sometimes it requires a period of eight hours to make
a heat in our foundry and other times twelve hours, in consequence of which we pay
our workmen so much per hour and they stay on the job until the heat has been cast.
It is, therefore, impracticable for us to restrict our hours of labour to eight.
These remarks apply with equal force, to all steel foundries in the business. If
this clause were allowed to remain in this Bill, it would mean that the Dominion
government could not use steel castings in their work, which would prove of serious
detriment to them. Even under present conditions we find it very difficult to secure
sufficient skilled labour to operate our foundry and are to-day running short-handed.
A reduction of 20 per cent in the men’s pay, which would be the effect of reducing
the hours of labour 20 per cent, would create considerable hardship at this time, and
cause our men to leave us to work in the United States factories where they could
earn a full day’s pay.
We trust your committee will very carefully consider the proposed legislation,
and that the effect of your consideration will be to have this clause struck out.
Yours truly,
W. W. NEAR.
President.
(20D
Ontario Paper Box Manufacturing Company.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa.
ToRONTo/January 18, 1910.
Re Eight-hour Day Bill.
Dear Sir, — If by any chance the above Bill were passed it would make a bad
state of affairs worse in our line of business, as experienced help is very hard to gat
and shorter hours would lessen our output.
4-3 6 J
564
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Along with the members
a compulsory eight-hour day.
of the Manufacturers’ Association I add my protest to
I am yours respectfully.
GEORGE B. REED.
(120)
A. B. Ormsby, Limited, Metal Workers.
Toronto, January 11, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In reference to Bill Ho. 21, we feel, so far as we are concerned that
an eight-hour day is altogether too short a day. You take building in our line,
especially in the west where the summer season is short, it is absolutely necessary to
work ten hours a day in order to make any headway with our work. When there are
a number of men, and two hours a day is chopped off each one, it makes a great dif-
ference in the season’s work. A ten-hour day with the option of making it eight or
nine by arbitration between the employer and employees would, we feel, work most
satisfactorily.
Yours very truly,
J. A. FINDLEY,
Treasurer.
(135)
Oshawa Canning Company and Others.
Oshawa, Ont., January 12, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Re Bill No. 21, entitled ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour
on Public Works.’
We, the undersigned, manufacturers and contractors of the town of Oshawa, giv-
ing employment to approximately twenty-five hundred men, view with serious alarm
the proposal to enact such legislation into government contracts.
At the present time, several of our industries are endeavouring to establish trade
with foreign countries, where the competition of all nations of the world has to be
met on an equal basis, and we feel that if such a law were enacted it would throw
into serious disruption the industrial activities of the country. It is very difficult to
obtain skilled labour, and any curtailment of product resulting from the shortening
of hours of labour would be seriously felt.
Further, we are strongly of the opinion that a government should not seek to
curtail or limit the privilege which every citizen owing allegiance to the British flag
holds dear, viz. the right to make agreements between man and man respecting the
hours of labour, as well as in all other matters pertaining to the growth and develop-
ment of our country. No serious abuses have been established as between employer
and employee under our present working system, for which there are not at the pre-
sent time adequate enactments, and they have been allowed to enter into such arrange-
ments as between themselves as were deemed best for the proper conduct of their
respective businesses without legislation of this nature.
We hold, that until some pressing need for legislation of this kind is shown, no
government would be justified in taking such drastic action as that proposed by Bill
No. 21. We are of the opinion that it would ultimately work incalculable injury,
and retard the growth of our young country, which at the present time needs every
encouragement that it may legitimately hope for, in order to enable it to take its
place among the older nations of the world.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
565
APPENDIX No. 4
We believe the introduction of such a principle into government contracts
would be viewed with distinct disfavour by a great majority of Canadian citiaens,
especially those employed in agricultural pursuits, lumbering and manufacturing.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
OSHAWA CANNING CO., LTD.,
M. F. Smith, Manager.
MATTHEW GUY,
Atty. F. M. Guy.
R. H. James, Contractor.
WILLIAMS PIANO CO., LTD.,
F. Bull, President.
OSHAWA INTERIOR FITTINGS CO.,
W. J. Trick.
ROBERT MOON & CO.
JOSEPH HALL MACHINE WORKS.
McLaughlin carriage co„ ltd.,
R. McLaughlin, President.
McLaughlin motor car co., ltd..
Geo. McLaughlin.
OSHAWA STEAM & GAS FITTINGS CO., LTD.,
M. Cowan, President
ONTARIO MALLEABLE IRON CO.,
Jno. Coran, President.
ROBSON LEATHER CO., LTD.
Chas. Robson, President.
SCHOFIELD WOOLLEN CO., LTD.,
J. Schofield, President.
PEDLAR METAL ROOFING CO.,
P. E. J. Stephenson.
(315)
Oxford Foundry and Machine Company.
Oxford, N.S., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,— We see that there is another Compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill before
the House, and that a committee has been formed to investigate, of which you are
chairman. We wish to protest against this Bill. In the first place, we conti act for
government work, and could not allow one part of our men to work eight houis and ’-be
other ten. It would create friction amongst our employees, and would be the cause of
strikes and everything that goes with it. In this way we would not be able to contract
for government work without raising the prices. Eight-hour days would increase all
prices, that is, unless the rate per hour is kept as it is now, which is not the desire of
the agitators.
Yours cordially,
C. McNEILL.
566
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
(262)
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Page Wire Fence Company of Ontario, Limited.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Walkerville, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Dear Sir,— We have become familiar with the provisions of Bill No. 21, Compul-
sory Eight-hour Day Bill, and also knowing that you are chairman of the Special Com-
mittee of this Bill, we take the liberty of expressing the hope that your committee will
make an adverse report thereon, If such a Bill were law, it would seem to us th&it it
would lead to a great amount of trouble and embarrassment for many manufacturing
concerns, and prove to be an injury to many interests which at present might not think
the proposal a serious one.
Yours very truly,
MERTON CHURCH,
Secretary Treasurer.
(163)
Parry Sound Lumber Company, Limited.
Toronto, Ont., January 20, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Replying to your communication of December 31, respecting Bill No.
21, 1 An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works,’ we, as lumber manufac-
turers, with mills at Parry Sound, and also connected with a large box factory at To-
ronto, and as employers of a very large number of men, are decidedly opposed to this
Bill for the following reasons: —
(a) We do not think it will work in a practical way to either the benefit of the
employer or of the man employed.
(h) It will prevent us from being in a position to supply timber for government
works, such as docks, canals, &c., as it would be perfectly impossible for us to keep two
sets of men in our mill, one working eight hours on government contracts, and another
lot on ten hours supplying timber and lumber for the home and foreign markets.
This, you can easily see, would operate to prevent us from engaging men on this busi-
ness.
(c) It would certainly follow that a shorter working day would mean increased
cost of production, and if we were compelled to manufacture all our products on an
eight-hour day, it would make them too dear to compete with countries where such
onerous conditions do not exist, and where labour is procurable at cheaper rates than
prevail in this country.
( d ) We understand that the only people asking for this Bill are organized labour
which we believe only represents at the most ten per cent of all labour employed in
Canada; and in our opinion, the price is too dear for the accommodation of this ten
per cent.
(e) So far as our workmen are concerned, or for that matter, workmen engaged
in the lumber business in any part of Canada, where lumber mills are operated, we feel
sure that few, if any of them, will want the working season curtailed in any such way.
Any one who studies the subject, even superficially, will find out that our sawing season
is short enough now, and most mill men have all the idle time they want in the winter
time when few, if any, of the large mills are running, without adding to it.
Respectfully submitted.
Truly yours,
W. B. TINDALL,
Secretary Treasurer.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
567
APPENDIX No. 4
(131)
Paton Manufacturing- Company of Sherbrooke.
Montreal, January 13, 1910.
Sir,— I beg to submit the following statement
1. This company manufactures woollen goods in the city of Sherbrooke, and has
from time to time received orders for military clothes for the Militia Department,
and this is our only direct interest in the proposed Act respecting the Hours of
Labour on Public Works.’ It is not, however, clear to us that the intention is to
make the Bill applicable to this description of contracts.
2. But, should the Act be made applicable to our business, it would prevent our
tendering for such works, and we do not think that either in Great Britain or any
other country could manufacturers be found willing to carry out such contracts under
restriction of the hours of labour to eight hours per day.
3. Woollen manufacturing is carried on in all mills under the system of day
wages and piece work, and men and women, boys and girls are employed, and are of
all ages, from 14 years to 7 0 years; but the latter age only in a few cases, and usually
old hands that have been in continuous service for about thirty years.
4. In determining our working hours, we have also to decide the scale of wages,
and we have particularly to consider those employees who work at piece rates. That
the rates are fair and so regarded is evidenced by the ability of the company to secure
workers in a competitive market.
5. That this company in an entirely voluntary manner reduced the working hours
in November, 1907, from 60 hours to 57 hours per week, arranged as follows: — 7 a.m.
to 12 noon; 1 p.m. to 6.15 p.m., for five days per week, and on Saturdays, 7 a.m. to
12.45 p.m., and this reduction was given without reduction in the day labour rates
per day, but it necessarily involved the piece workers in enforced shorter time.
A reduction below 57 hours per week is unnecessary, and would prejudice the
pieee workers to an extent that they could not afford to submit and the company on
its part is now under a scale of wages that involves $30,000 per annum higher scale
than ten years ago, in addition to shorter time.
6. The workpeople of this company, we believe, are contented with the hours of
labour, and the reduction in working hours, not having been asked for, warrants this
opinion. Our directors, however, thought the move would afford their employees some
comfort in their domestic life as well as shorter hours of labour.
7. We consider it unnecessary that the Act should be made to apply in respect to
government contracts for woollen goods, besides we coidd not exist at all if such were
done, except in the event of our being granted a prohibitory tariff rate.
We are opposed to the eight-hour day, and believe if enacted, will do much harm.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
JOHN TUKNBULL,
President and Managing Director
(124)
(Translation)
The N. Pauze & Fils Company.
Montreal, January 11, 1910.
Sir, — We are in receipt of your circular dated December 2i, 1909, concerning
Bill No. 21. We understand that the object of this legislation is to take away from
the day labourers and the workingmen employed on government contracts which are
carried on by day-labour the right of working more than eight hours a day, except
in cases of extraordinary emergency caused by fire or flood.
568
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
In our opinion, this is a most singular proposition to say the least of it, and un-
less it be meant to serve the schemes of agitators of the working classes, we do not
see what purpose it can serve, but we know very well that the workingmen of this
country do not want such change.
For the last twenty-five years, our experience has been invariably the same, in
fact our working men always complain that they cannot work ten hours a day in the
fall of the year and in the winter; we have employed as many as 330 work people in
our shops and never did they ask for a reduction of hours; on the contrary, such re-
duction has invariably been looked upon as a mishap.
Why should it be different on public works and government construction works
done by day-labour? Have not our legislators their hands full enough attending to
matters concerning the progress of the country, without loitering on the way to enact
restrictive laws like that one?
We should like to receive notice of the date fixed for the hearing of verbal evi-
dence
Your humble servants,
FRANK PAUZE,
Manager.
(2321
P. Payette & Company, Foundry and Machine Shops.
lion. Mackenzie Kim?.
House of Commons, Ottawa, Canada.
Penetanguishene, January 19, 1910.
Dear Sir, We understand that there is now before the House a Compulsory
Eight-Hour Day Bill, which is being given special investigation. Now, we sincerely
trust that the committee will see fit to report adversely on this Bill, for reasons too
numerous to mention, but a few of which we will endeavour to set forth herewith.
(1) We consider that the cost of government labour would be increased by 20 per
cent, or in other words it would take 20 per cent longer time to accomplish the same
work.
(2) As we are all aware, farmers and mechanics of all classes, work 10 hours per
day, and we cannot see why we should pay goverment labourers for an eight-hour day,
while these farmers’ and mechanics’ working day averages from ten to twelve hours.
(3) Now, we might say that in our twenty-five years of experience, of building
and constructing, we have tried the eight-hour day in comparison with the ten-hour,
and at the same ratio of wages, have found the eight-hour plan would mean a material
increase in the cost of production.
(4) It would prevent private corporations from competing in government work,
for this reason, that if a private corporation took a government contract, parts of his
stall would be working on the eight-hour day plan, and the other part on the ten-hour
day plan, and this would cause discontent amongst the staff, which in the end, would
finally prevent this private corporation from competing for this government work, as it
would mean less competition and therefore higher prices for government contracts.
(5) Now, we all know, that in this country, we have long winters and short sum-
mers, and there is always a large portion of the work that cannot be done in the winter,
which has, therefore, to be rushed during the short summer season, and it stands to
reason, that if we are going to cut down this working period by 20 per cent, it will
mean a considerable detriment to the progress of this country.
We have the honour to remain,
Your obedient servants,
P. PAYETTE & CO.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
569
APPENDIX No. 4
(274)
J. Bruce Payne, Limited, Importers of Havana Tobacco and Cigars.
ri T Granby, P.Q January 19, 1910.
lion. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Deak Sir,— R e Bill No 21. This country is altogether too young, we have too
great a luture before us, and life is too short for us to consider that we can make pro-
gress as business men or as a nation by working only eight hours per day
Personally I work on an average of 12 hours per day for the past 23 years, al-
though the employees m my factory work only 55 hours in the week, as we do not work
featuraay aiternoons.
During the depression in our business we have only worked eight hours per day,
and for nearly a year worked nine hours per day, but our employees were very glad to
get back to ten hours.
On an eight-hour day the men are inclined to get into bad habits, too much leisure
time on their hands, that they do not know how to dispose of, and I consider that as a
nation we would he taking a step backwards if your committee even recommended this
Bill.
I trust, therefore, that it will be killed in committee.
Yours truly,
J. BRUCE PAYNE,
President.
Penmans Limited, Knit Underwear and Hosiery.
Paris, Ont., January J3, 1910.
. Dear Sir, We wish to put ourselves on record as being totally opposed at this
period to any legislation looking towards an eight -hour day for either government work
or other requirement, since we feel that in this country at this time, and probably
for many years to come, the scarcity of labour is such, in a great many cases, that the
shortening of the hours of work would very materially reduce the productiveness of the
plants required to be operated to supply the needs of the country.
The Bill, if put on the statute-books, would cause any such goods required by the
government to be made in the mill operated on an eight-hour day plan; and as we be-
lieve it is the wish of not only the government but the people of Canada to have goods
required by the government manufactured in their own country, it would preclude the
possibility, of this being done.
In the line of industry in which this company is engaged, the hours which are at
present being operated in Canada, are shorter than those in Germany, England or the
United States. In Massachusetts, in the textile industry, the hours are 58 per week;
in New York state, 59; while few if any manufacturers in Canada, unless those work-
ing in a very small way, are working at hours as long as those mentioned. We our-
selves work 5G hours per week.
Yours truly,
R. THOMSON,
General Manager.
(226)
Perrin Plow and Stove Company, Limited.
Smith's Falls, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — We understand that a Bill is being introduced in the House
to make it legal for an eight-hour day on government work. It goes without
saying that this Bill is intended simply as a beginning of an agitation to make eight
570
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VI!., A. 1910
hours the legal day for all businesses. We submit that if the principle of the Bill is
correct, as it relates to government work, it should have the broadest possible appli-
cation. There is no reason why a man working at government work should have a
shorter day than on any other employment. Government work, as a rule, is not so
strenuous that it takes more vitality than employment in factories, and if there is to
be a discrimination between the employment on government work and on other work,
it is going to be very detrimental to business in general. We submit that on the
general principle, that if hours are regulated they should affect all callings except
those which require special application or involve special risk, and that any Bill
which legislates for one class as against another while the form of occupation is
practically the same, is not in harmony with the principles that should govern
Canadian legislation. We sincerely hope that your committee will report unfavour-
ably on the Bill.
Yours very truly,
E. E. OLIVER,
(2i7)
J. Henry Peters Company, Textile Smallwares.
Toronto, January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,— On behalf of the trade manufacturing smallware textiles, I desire to
lodge my protest against Bill No. 21.
I employ nearly 200 workpeople, mostly skilled, and earning good wages — higher
than those prevailing in United States factories in which I am interested, as well as
generally in this trade.
Their working hours average 48J per week here, as against 54 to 60 in the United
States.
Most of the operators are on piece work and they earn their good wages without
undue exertion.
My business, unlike that of most concerns looking for government business, turns
out a multitude of various kinds of small items, from shoe laces to gilt trimmings for
uniforms. The Canadian government is not, as yet, a large customer, but might
become one at any time, same as the United States government places large orders
for the navy and army (cap ribbons, cords, braids, &c.)
Now, inasmuch as a factory like mine operates hundreds of different machines
and has its working hours arranged to suit its general requirements, it is unreasonable
to expect it to change its system for the purpose of being able to collect any bills it
may have against the government. I answer ‘ Most assuredly not.’
As result, if the government required any of our goods, it would have to get them
from a dealer and pay from 33J to 60 per cent more than necessary.
As an active manufacturer for a great many years and conversant with general
manufacturing industries on this continent, permit me to advance my conviction that
no government can successfully go beyond restricting hours of labour in the open air,
and the result if as drastic a measure as the one proposed, when applied to a wide
range of industries carried on under roofs and our manufacturers, own premises, will
simply mean elimination of general and keen competition.
I remain, dear sir,
Yours most respectfully.
J. HENRY PETERS.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
571
APPENDIX No. 4
(289)
The Phoenix Bridge and Iron Works, Limited.
Montreal, January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,—! It has been brought to our attention that the government propose in-
troducing a Bill known as the ‘ Compulsory Eight-hour Bill/ which is to govern gov-
ernment contracts.
\\ e wish to enter our strongest protest against this measure, as we deem same
unfan- both to the employer and employee. In the first place it would practically pro-
inbit our firm from tendering on government contracts, we work ten hours a day as a
general rule and could not discriminate between ordinary work and government work,
as it would be impossible to run two separate gangs of men, one working eight hours
and the other working ten hours. Then again, we think it very unfair to the men as
they would simply lose their pay for two hours each day, and allowing that the aver-
age wage of a structural steel man is 25 cents per hour, this would mean a loss of
50 cents per day.
We feel quite sure that if this Bill becomes law, that it will very materially re-
duce the number of tenders that the government will receive when they have work to
oiler, besides which it will materially increase the price.
We trust that these facts will be carefully considered and hope most sincerely,
for all concerned, that the Bill will never become law.
Yours faithfully,
J. P. HOWARD,
Manager.
(W2)
Poison Iron Works, Limited.
Toronto, January 19, 1910.
Dear Sir,— We were duly in receipt of your letter inclosing copy of Bill No. 21,
An Act respecting Hours of Labour on Public Works/ and in reply would now sub-
mit to you the following reasons why we consider this Bill should not become law.
1. In connection with the shipbuilding trade, we are directly in competition with
the old country shipbuilders who have much longer hours and lower wages than Can-
adian shipbuilding firms are paying.
We would draw your attention to the fact that nearly all recent steamers pur-
chased by the Dominion government have been bought from the old country as they
can be built there much cheaper than in Canada. With the increased cost of labour
here and the fair-wage clause under which Canadian contractors have^to work on gov-
ernment contracts, if to this is added an eight-hour day, it will practically mean that
no boats will be built in Canada at all. If the government intende to hamper the ship-
building industry in this way, all shipyards in Canada might as well be closed,
2. As we are at present working our shops ten hours a day, and have to do so
to satisfactorily meet present competition, and as it would disorganize the entire run-
ning system of our works to have a portion of the workmen on less time than
others, providing the proposed Act were put in force, we would not be prepared to
tender on government work; in other words we could not take on any boiler, engine,
tank work, &c., for government contracts which would necessitate our working an
eight-hour day.
We trust therefore, that this matter will be seriously considered by the govern-
ment and that the proposed Act will not be put in force.
Yours truly,
A. H. JEFFREY.
Secretary.
572
COMMITTEE RE BILL A7o. 21— HOVER OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(161)
(Translation.)
J. & S. Pouliot & Frere, Tanners and Curriers.
Quebec, January 19, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In answer to your circular of December 27, 1909, we deem it our duty
to protest emphatically against the adoption of a law providing for an eight-hour day
on government works, when most workingmen prefer receiving the salary of a ten-
hour day. Leaders, organizers of strikes, are the only ones who ask for such a change,
to make a show of zeal. For our own part, we should be sadly disappointed and it
would be an egregious blunder on the part of the Laurier government, were such a
law enacted, because, there is no doubt that should the eight-hour day be adopted on
government works, we shall be compelled to adopt it also, and we should thus be placed
in a position of marked inferiority, having to face competition from the neighbouring
country which is already ahead of us.
Your humble servant,
J. S. POULIOT,
President Tanners Association.
(155)
(Translation.)
Proteau & Carignan, Brewers.
Quebec, January 26, 1910.
Re Bill No. 21.
Sir, — You will, I hope, pardon me for not having replied sooner to your circular
of December 27, my only excuse being my absence from Quebec.
We wish to inform you that in our opinion this eight-hour Bill seems a strange
legislation; we are totally opposed to it, as it would tend to create difficulties; one
portion of the staff employed on public works working eight hours a day, while another
portion of employees in the same shop working for another firm would work nine and
ten hours. From more than one standpoint, we think this Bill should not be adopted.
Yours truly,
PEOTEAU & CAEIGNAN.
(345)
Queen City Oil Company, Limited.
Toronto, January 22, 1910.
Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,— Deferring to Bill No. 21, the Eight-hour Day Bill; the writer wishes
to respectfully express his conviction that both from a private and public standpoint,
the proposed Bill is gravely objectionable, both in principle and detail.
Legislation should have an equitable regard for the interests of all classes which
may be concerned. Government contracts and supplies, paid for by the taxes of the
public, should be equally open, without discrimination, to all who desire to tender.
The principle of the Bill is to deny any enjoyment of government business to the
employee or employer who works over eight hours per day.
Its principle, if carried to a logical conclusion, would debar practically every
farmer in Canada from furnishing the government or its agencies with supplies.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
573
APPENDIX No. 4
It would prevent the majority of manufacturers and their employees from parti-
cipating in government contracts and supplies. Aside from the question of partici-
pation in government business, the indirect effect on many lines of industry would be
injurious, particularly so to the average farmer who is already finding such great dif-
ficulty in procuring and retaining labour for the farms that will give him a fair
of .fet^.ng ^llS work done at tlie proper season. I feel sure that you would
find that if this Bill were to become law, when once understood, it would raise a
storm of protest from the whole farming community.
^ While there are undoubtedly some lines of labour in which eight hours is a good
days work, yet nevertheless to impose a hard and fast limit by legislation on all
classes would be to hamper the development, not only of agriculture, but nearly all
kinds of Canadian industry and would rp-act in the end to the detriment of the vast
majority of working men.
It would be impossible to carry out the terms of the Bill with reasonable safety
to the government treasury, and its agents, as it would be impossible for the officers,
agents, and employees of the government, who pay, or authorize payments, to be ab-
solutely certain as to full compliance with the Act on the part of contractors. The
result would certainly be a vast number of illegal payments from the public treasury.
Parliament cannot afford to put such an unfair, illogical and unworkable measure
among the statutes of Canada.
Respectfully submitted,
Yours very truly,
A. L. ROGERS.
(207)
A. E. Rea & Company, Limited, Manufacturers and Importers.
Toronto, January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Honourable Sir, — We understand Bill No. 21, Compulsory Eight-hour Day Bill,
is coming before the House of Commons on the 21st inst., and we also understand,
you, as Chairman of the Special Committee, have been instructed to make a thorough
investigation and submit your report.
Now we do not think it necessary to write you our views on this matter, as we
consider a man of your ability can only look at this in one light, and throw the mat-
iter out. Further, it is unfair from every standpoint you look at, and has a great
many disadvantages, and we request that you do not give this Bill your support.
Yours respectfully,
R. J. LAW,
Secretary.
(164)
Rideau Manufacturing Company.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Ottawa, January 20, 1910.
Dear Sir, Regarding- the Compulsory Eight-hour Day Bill which is at present
before the committee of which your are chairman, I would as one vitally affected by
the above, like to place for you the predicament our firm will be in if this Bill should
come in force. As you may know we are manufacturers of ladies clothing, mens’
shirts, &c., of which some of our output is sold to the Canadian government. If we
574
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ro. 21— B OCRS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
are compelled to manufacture under the eight-hour law, it will completely disor-
ganize our factory, as all our departments work nine hours a day. If our operators
on shirts are only working eight hours and our employees on ladies-wear are working
nine, it would result immediately in internal strife which would disorganize our
factory or compel us to have same hours for both. In our ladies department we are
competing with all classes of Jews and sweat shops which are working night and day;
we find it hard even now to meet these people on equal footing, and if we are com-
pelled to shorten our hours it will mean that we have either to raise our prices or go
out of busienss, as we cannot raise our price there is only one thing for us to do,
either close down our ladies’ or men’s department.
The present situation in Ottawa, and it seems universal throughout the country,
is the lack of skilled labour; we have never yet been able to get the full extent of
business from our factory owing to the scarcity of trained help. I am sure that if
the government would place technical schools throughout the country and supply the
demand for all classes of manufacturers, it would then be more feasible to bring the
eight-hour day in force. The trouble now is that the skilled labour is dictating to the
employers, as they know that they control the situation. The day that there is an
overflow of labour, you will find that they will not be wanting an eight-hour but a
ten-hour day.
I am sure that there are several manufacturers in the same predicament as we
are and no doubt they are voicing their sentiments against such a Bill.
Yours sincerely,
E. HOWARD ROSS.
(194)
Riordon Paper Mills, Limited.
Montreal, Que., January 18, 1910.
lion. W. L. Mackenzie King, M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — We note that an Eight-hour Day Bill is coming up before your Special
Committee in a few days and that this Bill makes it compulsory that the working day
must not be more than eight hours on any government work.
We think that this Bill is of great importance, because it is almost sure to have
the effect of making the eight-hour day compulsory to a very great proportion of con-
tractors and manufacturers, or else narrowing down very much the list of those who
are in a position to bid on government work.
It seems to me obvious that any firm that works the eight-hour day on work they
do for the government must do so on all other work.
We think, therefore, that this Bill will have the practical effect of compelling the
eight-hour day very largely throughout Canadian industries and building trades, and
if so it will be a tremendous handicap in our competition with other nations, especially
as our wage rates are far above any other nation, except the United States, and as it
will necessitate the employment of more men when there are not enough to supply the
demand as it is.
We have always thought that the development of Canadian industries is a difficult
matter anyway, and that we should do nothing to hamper it.
We think that such movements as this should be initiated by nations that are
farther advanced in their development than we are.
We think that the passing of this Bill would be a national calamity, and we hope
that it will not pass. We remain,
Yours truly,
CARL RIORDAN,
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
575
APPENDIX No. 4
- (210)
John Ritchie Company, Limited, Manufacturers of Boots and Shoes.
.pi tt w T ,r Quebec, January 18, 1910.
I lie Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
■ + Sr^\e i?dewtailn1 that the ‘ ComPuls°ry Eight-hours Bill ’ has again been
mtioduced by Mr. Yerville, and has been referred to a Special Committee, of which
you have been appointed chairman.
, Ye would respectfully express the hope that your committee will report adversely
thereon, tor the following reasons amongst others.
While nominally applying only to government business, the Bill, if passed, would
at once increase the cost of all government work without advantage, it would further
unsettle all other labour, and would result in all labour insisting on similar hours
11ns would so increase the cost of all manufactured goods as to place manufac-
turers m this country at an unfair disadvantage in competition with other countries
wiiere the hours of labour are longer, and would greatly accentuate the present shortage
ot skilled labour in many industries.
It is our experience, acquired in dull seasons, that reduced hours of labour, beyond
the present, are only a disadvantage to the workmen rendering them more indifferent
and disinclined to work a full day, as is absolutely required by all industries to keep
in competition with outsiders.
Trusting this will have the consideration of your committee. We remain.
Yours respectfully,
A. E. DRYSDALE,
Secretary.
(343)
Robb Engineering Company, Limited.
Amherst, N.S., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Re Bill No. 21.
Dear Sir,— We wish to protest against the above Bill for the following reasons:—
1st. It would prohibit every employer and employee who works more than eight
hours per day from sharing in government business.
. 2nd- ft would be utterly impracticable for any establishment to work one portion
of its staff eight hours per day on government orders, and the rest of its staff ten
hours per day on other business.
3rd. The result would have the effect of enforcing an eight-hour day for all in-
dustries which are either engaged in government business or turning out any product
which is used in government contracts. Canada as a young and growing country
could not stand a law of this kind at the present time as it would place her in a dis-
advantageous position both in regard to production for internal use as well as for
export.
4th. There would be less chance for competition in government work and prices
would advance.
5th. A shorter working day would mean either increased cost of production and
cost of living, or decreased income to workmen.
6th. Shortage of labour, which is already serious in Canada, would be increased.
576
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ro. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
7th. A shorter working day in many industries, such as lumbering, farm work
and other industries depending on climatic conditions, would be greatly injured.
8th. Organized labour is said to represent only eight per cent of the labour vote,
and if this is true, it should not be allowed to impose conditions which would impair
the development of Canadian industries.
Yours truly,
D. W. ROBB,
President.
(292)
Robert Mitchell Co., Limited, Manufacturers of Gas and Electric Light Fixtures.
Montreal, January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill Ho. 21,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — We understand that the eight-hour day Bill is again up for discussion,
and will be considered by your committee this week.
As manufacturers employing about 200 men, we desire to say, that we hope suffi-
cient evidence will be given to convince your committee, that it will be against the
interest of the whole country to have such a measure pass. As it is we have not yet
felt the full benefit of returning prosperity, still we cannot secure sufficient help in
some of our departments to do the work that is offered, and yet the working class takes
every means to prevent the importation of the required assistance — reducing the work-
ing hours one-fifth would scarcely mend matters. Reduced working hours will be
against the interest of the worker himself, for wages being now at a very high level,
cannot be advanced sufficiently to offset the loss of two hours per day, without further
increasing the cost of manufactures to such an extent that other markets will under-
sell us, taking away the workers earning power.
The country is already suffering from scarcity of farm help, and if an eight-hour
day were inaugurated, the trouble would be further accentuated. The experience of
nearly all manufacturers at present is scarcity of men, and too short working hours
owing to Saturday afternoon being cut off.
Other reasons could be given, but knowing that you will have many letters on the
same subject we refrain from writing at greater length.
Yours truly,
W. V. SHAW.
(224)
0. E. Robinson & Company, Exporters of Green and Dried Fruits.
Ingersoll, January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — Be Bill No. 21. We note you are Chairman of the Special Com-
mittee.
We desire to enter our protest against the passing of this Bill as it would put us
beyond the pale of tendering for any government work or supplying goods to any
one tendering, as we find it absolutely necessary in the conducting of our business,
to work ten and even twelve hours per day at some time in the year, and we do not
think it a fair proposition that in submitting tenders the government should not
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURV OF LABOUR
577
APPENDIX No. 4
allow every manufacturer to tender. It is also our opinion that the people who put
up the money to build factories, supply the machinery and labour, and tie money
Z We tr IT t Sam6' !hMld h™ SOm«1™'f '» l>«w they ,hT2
run. We trust that your committee will look fully into the details of this Bill and
what it would mean -to the manufacturers of this country and also to labour.
Yours very truly,
O. E. ROBINSON & CO.
(268)
Rock City Tobacco Company, Limited.
Quebec, January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King.
Chairman of Special Committee Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, O.nt.
Dear Sir, We are informed that the Eirfit-hour Bill TSTn 91 ,,411 i -c
special committee of which you are chairman. We take the liberty to Tsk you"' to
record our opposition and protest of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association and
moreover we fail to understand that the House would pass a Bill of this nature os
vt«m “ become '»w, both the government and employers would reciprocally become
victims of an unbearable situation.
«nticlratotewereml,',m »"•"* ** •"**“«<» “<• to
Yours truly,
(297) ' J- T. PICARD.
Roden Bros., Designers and Manufacturers of Sterling Silverware.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, T°R°NT°' Jamiary 2°’ 1910
Minister of Labour.
Ottawa, Can.
sorv^th^r^^Ui atteuti°u-1haS bGetn drawn t0 the Pr°P°sed government Compul-
l i’ Bnd T 16 n0t dir6CtIy interested in government contracts we
K*” T h ° hherSi ^ m°r1, and sentimental effect produced by all changes of this
character particularly to hours of labour, and specific wages, &c.
n common with manufacturers of our own, and kindred trades we suffer from
iiL'S6?1011 °f the.Umted States’ the factories there being on a basis of fifty-
nine (59) hours as against our fifty-two, and one-half (52J), with about equal wages
‘ d against Great Britain where wages are from 50 per cent to 100 per cent less than
for fimilarly qualified workmen, and while their working week is only fifty
(50) hours the great disparity of wages completely nullifies any advantage that the
nfl affords, and gives to us only the advantage of intimate, and close contact with
our market.
We would seriously fear any changes in conditions that would create a desire
tor shorter hours, and would urge the committee to give every consideration to the
widespread moral effect these interferences create with individual arrangement.
Workingmen are apt to demand a shorter hour in any trade in all innocence as
to ultimate harm, having as a basis for argument, the success of distinctly different
trades, the one being governed by foreign conditions, the other affected by local con-
ditions.
It is one of the problems of manufacturing employers to harmonize these ap-
parent discrepancies of policies, and we desire that it shall not be made more difficult,
we are,
Yours truly,
4— 37 THOS. RODEN.
578
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21—EOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(S28>
Rolph & Clark, Limited, Lithographers, Engravers, &c.
Toronto, Ont., January 19, 1910.
lion. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — Compulsory Eight-hour Day Bill. We desire to put ourselves on
record as being opposed to sueh an arbitrary measure being taken for a number of rea-
sons, amongst which are briefly enumerated the following: —
1st. We contract for certain government work, and some of this work, we under-
stand, is being done in England where the eight-hour rule does not apply, and would
therefore mean that we would be working at a distinct disadvantage in case of com-
petition.
2nd. The work which we do for the government calls for highly skilled labour, but
it is not sufficiently regular to keep these skilled mechanics constantly employed; there-
fore we occasionally have to work a certain amount of overtime to execute the work re-
quired. For this we pay our employees at the rate of time and a half and this is a dis-
tinct advantage to them. We do not do this except under special circumstances, and
when we do, it is to the advantage of our employees and at our own loss. The Eight-
hour day Bill would prohibit this.
3rd. Our staff is composed of a variety of mechanics, and it would be impossible
for us to make distinctions, so that those working on government work should only
work eight hours per day, and those on other work nine hours per day; it would not
be equitable.
4th. It is unfair to prevent men who are willing to work overtime and receive
the benefit therefrom by putting into force a law of this character.
5th. Surely the hours which are generally being worked by Canadian manufac-
turers, at the present time are not excessive, especially in view of the working hours
of those amongst the farming community.
We think that manufacturers generally are fully alive to the fact that men should
not be taxed beyond their capacity. We manufacturers feel satisfied that the matter
will be looked upon in an equitable light, and we do, not think that the committee could
possibly insist upon such a measure being put into force.
In conclusion, we might say that in our own particular business, we are suffering
from foreign competition, where long hours are the rule, and if legislation is put into
force to still further handicap us in this respect, it will surely be to the detriment of
the country at large, both to the employee and the employer.
Yours very truly,
FRANK A. ROLPII,
Managing Director.
(335)
Ross Rifle Company of Canada.
Quebec, January 22, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill No. 21.
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Sir, — We respectfully beg to hereby enter a strong protest to the adoption of the
proposed Eight-hour Day Bill, which has been referred to your special committee, for
the following special and principal reasons : —
1. At the time this company entered into its contract with the government, there
was no stipulation made with respect to the length of a working day, and this factory
was built and equipped to run ten hours per day throughout the year. A reduction in
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
579
APPENDIX No. 4
Ihis system would militate against our specified yearly output, as we would then be
physically unable to complete our regular annual product of rifles and bayonets.
n 4 t ' ! fl W be greatJy handlcaPPed in our private trade manufacture of sporting
and target rifles, inasmuch as we could not atford to run the factory during the extra
two hours per day m turning out only this branch of our work, without materially in-
creasmg our prices to the trade, thereby greatly benefiting our foreign competitors.
3. ihe majority of our employees are paid by piece-work, the remainder by the
hour, and a change to an eight-hour day would be a hardship on our men in that their
StiTr Cap,Cit|,'TI,d be reduced by twenty per cent. This would create such
dissatisfaction as would tend to force our experienced and trained help to seek employ-
ment m the United States and elsewhere.
In our opinion, there are innumerable obstacles to the successful operation of an
eight-hour day law, and m view of the above special reason we sincerely trust that
jour committee will report adversely on the proposed Bill.
We have the honour to be, sir.
Tour obedient servants,
THOMAS CRAIG,
Secretary.
(336)
St. Charles Condensing’ Company, Manufacturers of St. Charles Evaporated Cream.
TT ^ . St. Charles, III., January 20, 1910.
lion. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir— We note that the compulsory Eight-hour Day Bill has again been
rought forward by organized labour through their representative Mr. Verville, and
has been referred to a special committee for investigation, and we trust that the
honourable body will report thereon adversely.
From our standpoint, the passing of this Bill would mean the necessity of put-
ting on an eight-hour day shift, or the discontinuing of entering into competition
tor government orders, as it would be impracticable for us to work an eight-hour crew
on government business and a ten-hour crew on orders for private individuals. Were
we obliged to put on an eight-hour shift, this would mean an additional expense to us,
resulting m our being unable to quote as low a price on government orders, and
this would also tend to increase the cost of living to all individuals.
We trust after the honourable body has carefully investigated the proposed Bill,
that your decision in the matter will be the discouraging of all proposals such as this,'
which tend to hamper the development of Canadian industry.
Yours very truly,
J. W. CHEWNING,
Secretary.
(244)
St.
Lawrence Paper Bag Company.
Quebec, January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa.
Honourable Gentlemen, — We want to protest energetically against the Eight-
hour Day Bill presented by Mr. Verville, and beg to submit a few of the principal
reasons why the Bill should not be passed.
580
COMMITTEE RE BILL Xo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 191-0
1. It would prohibit every employer and every employee who works more than
eight hours per day from sharing in government business.
2. It would be utterly impracticable for any establishment to work one portion
of its staff eight hours a day cn government orders, and the rest of its staff ten
hours a day on orders for private parties, and private corporations.
3. As a natural consequence, competition for government orders would be less
keen; prices would go up, and all work would have to be paid for by the govern-
ment at a higher figure.
4. It would place a discount on ambition. The inherent right of the individual
to raise himself above the level of his fellows by extra work or effort would be denied
him.
5. Once we have fully recovered from the present industrial depression there
will again be a shortage of. help. A reduction in the hours of labour would mean that
this shortage would be tremendously accentuated.
6. A shorter working day would mean an increased cost of production, which in
turn would mean a material advance in the price charged to the jobber, the retailer
and the consumer, and consequently a general increase in the cost of living.
7. The shorter hours of labour in town and city workshops have proved a won-
derfully strong attraction in influencing men to leave the farm. If these hours are
now reduced to eight per day, hired help for the farm will be more difficult than ever
to secure and retain.
8. Organized labour which is said to represent only eight per cent of the labour
vote should not be allowed to impose conditions which would hamper the development
of Canadian industry.
We sincerely hope that you will take these reasons into consideration before tak-
ing a definite action on the matter.
Yours respectfully,
J. PIMENLERY.
(208)
St. Lawrence Saw and Steel Works Company, Limited.
Sorel, P.Q., January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Out.
Hon. Gentlemen, — In connection with the Eight-hour Hay Bill brought forward
fey Mr. Verville, we wish on behalf of the directors and shareholders of St. Lawrence
Saw and Steel Work Company, Ltd., to enter a protest against such an arbitrary law,
and hope that your committee will report thereon adversely.
A Bill like the one proposed by Mr. Verville, the Taschereau law passed the Que-
bec legislature, and the like, against the Canadian manufacturers, would help to kill
our Canadian industries.
(1) It would prohibit every employer and employee who works more than eight
hours per day from sharing in government business.
(2) It would be impracticable for any establishment to work one portion of its
staff eight hours a day on government orders, and the rest of the staff ten hours a day
on orders for private parties.
(3) As a natural consequence competition for government orders would be less
keen; prices would go up, and all work would have to be paid for by the government
at a higher figure.
(4) A reduction in the hours of labour would mean that the shortage of help
would be tremendously accentuated.
(5) A shorter working day would mean an increased cost of production, which in
turn would mean a material advance in the price charged the jobber, the retailer and
the consumer, and consequently a general increase in the cost of living.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
581
APPENDIX No. 4
(«) The shorter hours of labour in town and city workshops have proved a won
derfully strong attraction m influencing men to leave the farm. If these hours “e
now reduced to eight per day, hired help for the farm will be more difficult than ever
to secure and retain. As business men you will appreciate the importance of blocking
a move that would only embarrass the farmer. importance ot blocking
(7) Organized labour, which is said to represent only eight per cent of the
irdatlnT„dues«r"0TCd *° imP°Se C“dW~ ^ «*• ^*Pmra,
the interest of all our national industries and the government to be passed.
Yours very truly,
JOSEPH PONTBRIAND,
President.
(296)
E. Sanford Manufacturing Company, Limited.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Hamilton, Ont., January 20, 1910.
Chairman Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Re Compulsory Eight-hour Day Bill.
Dear Sir —Being advised that consideration of this Bill is to come before your
legislation6 ^ 21St m8t,» We beg to cal1 your attention to the injustice such
legislation would inflict upon contractors of government work for which contract"
have been signed extending over a considerable period of time. The basis of cost of
such work being estimated on an ordinary nine-hour day.
You can readily see that it will be impossible for contractors to fill such contracts
without serious loss if such legislation is enacted, and will doubtless result in such con-
trac s emg surrendered and the government forced to award new contracts at the
re uce sc ledule of hours, which, of course, would mean an increased cost for produc-
tion.
In submitting tenders to the government, we have always been compelled, in view
of the competition, to reduce the cost to the minimum, and be satisfied with the small-
est possible amount of profit, as we know there is nothing more popular with the gov-
ernment than the lowest tender, but if we are to be restricted to an eight-hour day it
would be impossible for us to produce the goods at the lowest possible price. It would
also seriously interfere with our regular business, as we would not make a distinction
between those employed on our regular work and others employed on government
work. Both classes of work go through our factory at the same time, and we could
not possibly separate it, so that it would necessitate giving the eight-hour day to all
the rest of the employees, or our inducing the workers on the government contract
to work the same number of hours as others by paying them for the extra time. You
will see how impossible it would be for us in our regular business to adopt the eight-
hour day, while competitors in other cities could work nine hours, and it would appear
to us that we should have to give up government work altogether if we are to come
under such restrictions as are contained in the Bill.
Trusting your committee will not consider allowing the Bill to go to the House.
We are.
Yours truly,
G. SWEET,
Manager.
582
COMMITTEE BE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
((329)
Savoie-Guay Company, Manufacturers of Water Wheels, Gasoline Engines, &c.
Plessisville Station, P.Q., January 22, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Referring to your letter of December 27 last, re Bill No. 21, ‘An
Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works,’ copy of which Bill we have,
our views on the proposed law are not favourable to it. We deem it impossible, in
our line of business, in the event that we would have contracts from the government
to be executed by the day, to adopt the eight-hour plan, for it would be impossible to
keep a certain number of men working but eight hours a day (those we would employ
on the public works contract) and a certain number working the general schedule of
hours, ten hours per day, in the same shop, for, if we did try, those in the ten-hour
schedule would certainly strike or ask for more pay or same number of hours as the
others working on the government contract, and this would mean any amount of
inconvenience, perhaps disorder, and loss to us. We are, therefore, entirely against
such proposed law, and we trust that for above-mentioned reasons and others that
will apply to other lines of business than ours, the Bill will jnot be sanctioned.
Yours very truly,
J. ARTH. SAVOIE,
«
Secretary.
(285)
Seaman, Kent Company, Limited, Manufacturers of Hardwood Flooring, &c.
Meaford, Ont., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee, Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Re Bill No. 21, ‘ An Act respecting Hours of Labour on Public Worlcs.’
Dear Sir, — We beg to enter our protest against the passing of this Bill for the
following reasons: —
It would practically prohibit industrial concerns requiring the working of plants
for more than eight hours per day from sharing in government business.
It is necessary for our factory to work not less than ten hours per day to keep
up with our orders. We supply from time to time material to concerns under contract
with the government. Should we at any time receive these contracts direct ourselves,
it would be absolutely impossible to work one part of the staff on government orders
for eight hours, and another part of the staff for ten hours on orders for our other
customers.
Our export trade has developed into large proportions, and if the general working
hours were reduced from ten to eight hours per day, later on through the influence
of this Bill being passed, it would absolutely prohibit our continuing our export
business. The labour conditions are such that with the large increase of business
throughout the country, it is becoming more difficult to get skilled labour. Were the
working hours reduced it would so largely affect the output that our interests would
be very seriously affected. Organized labour, which represents only a small propor-
tion of the labour vote, should not be permitted to impose conditions which would
hamper the development of Canadian industry.
We wish to emphasize our opposition to this Bill for many other reasons in addi-
tion to those expressed, and we trust your committee will report adversely on same.
Respectfully submitted,
F. KENT,
Vice-President.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
583
APPENDIX No. 4
(191)
Shawinigan Carbide Company, limited.
Montreal, January 18, 1910.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Out.
Eighth DayBil? "" *«**“» Bl" 21- the 'Compulsory
This Bill is so drastic and far reaching in its principles that it would place a
tremendous handicap upon manufacturing interests.
The business in which this company is engaged is dependent upon very small
P1’°f and tShould, the Bl11 be passed, it would prohibit us and every em-
sasr works more th" eisht ws ~ -*■« -
nnrtin! 1S u.tterly *mpr^BcabIe for this company or any establishment to work one
p on of its staff eight hours a day on government orders, and the remaining por-
tion for nine hours or ten hours as we do.
As there are but two carbide companies in Canada, we would be prohibited
it we worked more than eight hours per day (as we would be obliged to do in the
exigencies of our business) from competing in government orders for carbide, and the
price would naturally go up.
The business in which we are engaged calls for continuous operations of electrical
furnaces, and it is impossible to divide our staff into three shifts of eight hours each.
f he general conditions of the Bill go beyond the limits of reasonable conditions
ot iabour. It places a discount on ambition, as all employees are tied down to the
standard of the less capable man.
Canada is engaged in such a career of growth in manufacturing, that the country
cannot afford to be handicapped by such a shortage in the hours of labour per day
It would entail a shortage of labour, an increased cost of production, an advance in
the price of staple articles, and a general increase in the cost of living.
We trust consideration will be given to this objection and that the contention of
a very small percentage of the labouring class, voicing through the agitation of but
a minimum amount of organized labour, will not persuade the government to enter
upon a course that will be inimical to the interests of the people at large.
Tours respectfully,
HOWABD CUKRAY.
Vice President.
(258)
Shurly & Derrett, Limited, Twine Mills.
Toronto, January 19, 1.010.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee Bill No. 21,
Dear Sir, — We have read over the proposed Bill, and for the following reasons
hope, that your committee will report adversely.
It is, in our opinion, a practical impossibility for any Canadian manufacturer in
our line to take government business, and truly live up to the conditions of this Bill,
as they are all working nine and ten hours per day. Our day is nine hours.
It would mean practically stopping of any portion of our factory, that happened
not to be running government work, and the laying off of those particular hands dur-
ing the few days, that this work was on, and at the same time there would be other
work in process, which could not be separated to advantage.
584
COMMITTEE RE BILL Eo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
This would mean, that all goods of our manufacture would have to be bought
outside of Canada, for, as stated above, there are no manufacturers here, in our line,
who could take a government order and work it through on eight hours, while run-
fiing their regular schedule time, which is, as stated before, nine to ten hours, with-
out a complete disorganization of their system, as well as of the working-staff.
This will, undoubtedly, apply to the imported cordage and twine, as we know of
no factory anywhere running a strictly eight-hour day.
Yours respectfully,
E. F. SHUELY,
General Manager.
(344)
T. S. Simms & Company, Limited, Manufacturers of Brushes, Brooms and Whisks.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
St. John, N.B., January 20, 1910.
Dear Sir, — We wish to place ourselves before you as being strongly opposed to the
Eight-hour Day Bill now before your honourable committee.
If this Bill is passed it will simply prohibit our taking any government work. We
are now supplying brushes for the government, and as stated above, could not run our
factory partly under one system, and partly under another, and we presume all other
brush makers would be in the same condition. Therefore, you can see what it would
mean for the supplies such as are brought from the brush and broom manufacturers, so
far as contracts were concerned.
Then again, we feel it would be the thin edge of the wedge for shorter hours
for all labour, which would very materially increase the cost of production.
We sincerely hope that you will, after due consideration, have the Bill thrown out.
Yours very truly,
H. H. EEID,
Secretary and Treasurer.
(129)
Simonds Canada Saw Company, Limited
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Montreal, Que., January 13, 1910.
Dear Sir, — We have your esteemed favour of December 27, inclosing copy of Bill
respecting Hours of Labour on Public Works, and may say that we are very much
opposed to the government putting in force an Act whereby an eight-hour day is estab-
lished.
There are a great many reasons that may be given for this, and our principal rea-
sons have no doubt been put before you by the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association,
and it is our earnest hope that the Bill will be defeated.
Yours very truly,
D. E. HAMILTON,
Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
585
APPENDIX No. 4
(142)
Simon Labrie & Sons, Producers and Exporters of Sea-moss.
(Translation.)
IsLE Verte, P.Q., January 15, 1910.
Sir, Tour lettei of December 27 was duly received, and after having examined
the question, and consulted several friends of mine and even legal gentlemen, we are
ah agreed that it is better to pay a little more wages and have the ten-hour day. That
is my opinion. I do not expect that it will in any way affect your Bill, but all the
same, 1 thank you very much for your courtesy.
Believe me, sir
Your devoted servant.
(10*A
S. LABRIE,
Smart-Turner Machine Company, Limited
Hamilton, Ont , January 4, 1910.
. DeAR S,R’— lt is 110t apparent to us what good such a Bill will produce and 't
is apparent that it will he productive of a good deal of hardship on the part of the
manufacturers or contractors. It is customary in most Canadian factories to work
ten hours per day, with a half day on Saturday, giving a total of 55 hours a week,
lou understand it is impossible to operate a factory to advantage with a portion of
the employees working eight hours a day and the balance working ten hours. It is
equally disadvantageous to work employees working eight hours on government work,
and two hours on other work, in the same day. Further, we have found that our
employees much prefer to work ten hours per day as against eight hours, on account
ot the extra hours which they have to themselves being of little real value to them,
there being nothing which they can do in this time which improves their position in
the slightest degree, while on the other hand they are short of two hours’ pay, being
paid by the hour. We know this to be an actual fact, as during certain seasons of the
year, owing to the scarcity of work we sometimes find it advisable to operate our fac-
tory on .y eight hours each day. We would furthermore point out that when working
on an eight-hour day, the men have one hour longer in bed in the morning, and one
hour on their hands between five and six; as the tea hour is invariably a little after
six, there is quite a tendency for the men to drop into the corner saloon on the way
home, and instead of spending only a few minutes there, as is customary with many
men, they have a whole hour on their hands. As the corner saloon in many cases is
the working man’s club, we believe the eight-hour day system is a direct temptation
to him— not only does he get less money, but he is placed in the way of temptation
to spend more. We know many good mechanics, whom, while they do not drink to
excess, go into the corner saloon on the way home, and have one glass of beer, arriv-
ing home in time for tea. We have found that some of these men, when they have
time on their hands, frequently take too much. We believe, therefore, that Bill 21
will accomplish no good, and will be a hardship to many.
In the event of the committee reporting favourably on the Bill, we would recom-
mend that in the eleventh line the word ‘extraordinary’ be omitted, and that after
the word ‘ flood ’ on the 12th line, the words ‘ or other cause beyond the control of the
contractor ’ be inserted. Also that before the word ‘ danger ’ in the 12th line, the
following words should be inserted ‘ when there is.’ In section 2, we think the penalty
for non-observance of the Act, is altogether too severe, as the cancellation of a con-
tyact, and refusing of the goods or material because one man had worked on one day,
eight hours and ten minutes, would be an absolute injustice.
Yours truly,
THE SMART-TURNER MACHINE CO., LTD.
586
COMMITTEE RE BILL Xo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
(279)
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
David Smith. Eng-raving and Lithographing Company.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Toronto, January 20, 1910.
Re Bill No. 21.
Dear Sir, — We notice that among the Bills, which have been taken up by the
House of Commons that the Compulsory Eight -hour Day Bill will no doubt have con-
siderable attention. We wish to place on record our objection to the passing of this
measure, which, we consider is both unfair to the employee and to the employer. In
this way: That it will partly help to give foreign competitors the advantage over
home industry specially by those countries which have long hours and low wages.
1 ou will remember, Sir, that competitors of this kind have to be taken into serious
consideration when making any changes in the present laws affecting the employment
of labour. As Canada, up to the present, has been very prosperous among the dif-
ferent branches of her commercial life, we do not wish to allow a Bill to pass without
raising objections we think tend to the undoing of Canada’s prosperity. As we are
employers of labour, we know pretty well the effect this Bill would have if we
were figuring on government work, and, as we are manufacturing lines of goods
which the government buy at present in foreign countries now, we are commencing
to make this very same product in Canada, viz., safety paper, this would to a very
great extent affect the price of same and would raise it considerably. As you know,
it is necessary for employees, before leaving the factory, to take a certain amount of
time for preparation for quitting work. It would mean that the eight hours would
be cut down to practically, in some cases, to seven and one-half (7|) and seven and
three-quarters (7f) hours, therefore the eight-hours would not be really used in the
work for which the employee would be hired, and as foreign competition is very
keen in some lines, it would be a great disadvantage to Canadian industry to have this
Bill passed, and, might in the end, cause a great many employees to be thrown out
of employment through factories being made somewhat slack by being unable to
compete with foreign competition. It would also cause men to leave the farm in order
to get shorter hours in the factories. It would necessarily cause the farmer a great
deal of inconvenience in getting help, and the farm, you know, is the back-bone of
the nation. It would also gradually work into the general business as well as gov-
ernment work, therefore, we think this is only a thin end of the wedge of making a
general eight-hour day which would cause Canadian manufacturers to be very ser-
iously inconvenienced specially when competing with foreign countries.
We hope, sir, that you and your colleagues will consider this matter over care-
fully before allowing it to become law.
We remain.
Yours truly,
HAROLD SMITH.
(176)
Frank Stanley, Manufacturer of Stanley Player and Upright Pianos.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ont.
Toronto, January 18, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In connection with the Eight-hour Bill now being brought under
discussion, I beg to voice my protest against its adoption in such an arbitrary degree,
as would seem to be indicated by the Bill in question.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF TjABOUR 587
APPENDIX No. 4
I
As a representative in such an important office regarding interests of the whole
country, you will, no doubt, appreciate having your hands strengthened by opinions
from those who would he most familiar with the labour question. It is not a selfish
view, which is expressed in the statement that the Eight-hour movement, as such is
rather advanced for the government to take up at present in an official way, and stamp
it as the definite policy of the government, in regard to all public works, but more
particularly the private contracts for government supplies.
Trusting the matter will be given the very widest discussion, and that this move-
ment will not be allowed to secure adoption while there is such a large feeling for its
being held open for a further discussion.
Yours truly.
F. STANLEY.
(385)
Stauntons, Limited, W all Paper Manufacturers.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Toronto, February 3, 1910.
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
_ ^5IK-’ understand that a special committee has been appointed, and will short-
ly discuss the advisability of adopting an eight -hour day, at least so far as government
work is concerned, and all government contracts, no matter by whom they may be ex-
ecuted.
We want to place ourselves on record as being absolutely opposed to this Bill,
We do not consider that there is any necessity for restricting the period of labour to
eight hours in Canada. There is no question but what it would raise the cost of liv-
ing beyond any advantages that there might be gained by it to the limited few. It
would make it practically impossible for Canadian manufacturers working under these
restrictions to compete with the United States and other countries working longer
hours.
In relation to our particular business, it would be a fatal blow. Even as it is,
the productive hours in a day are very much curtailed, and very limited as a whole
in a year. In the first place, we figure that there is, at least, three hours lost time on
an average on every machine, due to the frequent changes of pattern and colouring,
and then we are only able to run our mill about eight months of the year on orders,
the balance of the year is consumed in striking off samples, new styles, &c., for the
following season, during which time not a roll of stuff is printed that can be sold.
It, therefore, boils down to a productive period of six and a half hours to seven hours
per day for eight months.
Now, while we are not immediately interested in government work, yet the uni-
versal adoption of this Bill would make itself generally felt amongst the labour of
this country, and it would not be long before our employees would want to be placed
on the same footing as other trades, and in any event it would have the effect of mak-
ing it very much harder to get the help we require to work the longer hours.
We sincerely trust that your committee will report adversely on this Bill.
Yours respectfully.
G. G. STAUNTON.
588
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(260)
Stevens Company of Galt, Limited, Manufacturers of Machines and Tools.
Galt, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Out.
Hon. Sir, Referring to the Bill to make eight hours per day compulsory on any
government contracts, we desire to state that we strongly disapprove of same. We
are satisfied after giving the same every consideration, that should it become law, the
greatest confusion would follow.
There are hardly any contracts that we can call to mind that might be given, but
that a great deal of the material entering into the same, would be imported and over
this the contractor would have absolutely no control, neither would he be able to control
the bulk of what he might be able to purchase in Canada.
Apart from these two features, it would be practically impossible to have men
working on government work only eight hours per day, while the same manufacturer
is running the rest of liis force ten hours per day on other work, and besides this it
seems to us that the honest contractor who intended to carry out the contract accord-
ing to the letter and spirit of the law, would be greatly handicapped by the unscrupu-
lous contractor, who would not stand on any niceties.
We might state that we, for one, have no serious objections to the establishment
of an eight-hour day, instead of the usual ten hours, but we think this proposed law
would be a very serious mistake, in that it would very materially increase the cost of
work done for the government, and would come back on the people themselves, who
have to pay indirectly.
Therefore, in the interests of the workmen themselves, we can only figure it out,
that it will be a very unwise measure to pass.
Yours very respectfully,
J. J. STEVENS,
President.
(362)
Stevens-Hepner Company, Limited, Manufacturers of Brushes and Brooms.
Port Elgin, Ont., January '22, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour, Ottawa.
Re Compulsory Eight Hour Lau\
Dear Sir, — I understand that the above Bill has been referred to a Special Com-
mittee of the House, of which you are chairman, and I desire to enter a protest against
this Bill for the following reasons: —
We have always run our works 10 hours per day, and this has been satisfactory
to our help. We have contracted for a considerable quantity of supplies in our line
for the Militia Department, and if this Bill became law it would be practically impos-
sible for us to tender for such supplies, as the goods pass through the hands of a large
number of our employees, and we would be forced to run our factory only eight hours
while working on such contracts. Were we to do this, it would soon start an agitation
among our employees for an eight-hour day on all work. Besides we could not supply
goods at as low prices.
There is no surplus of help in this community working 10 hours per day.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
589
APPENDIX No. 4
We began a year ago the manufacture of fine hair brushes and clothes brushes in
competition with French and Japanese goods, and the establishment of an eight-hour
day would make it impossible to compete in this line. We also find that we have
strong competition from English factories in the coarser brushes, and an eight-hour
day would place a very serious handicap upon us.
A Bill providing for an eight-hour day on government work would simply be the
entering of the wedge, and Canadian manufacturers would soon find themselves face to
mce with an agitation for an eight-hour day.
I earnestly hope that your committee may not report favourably on this Bill.
Trusting that this may meet with your favourable consideration.
Your obedient servant,
H. H. STEVENS,
Managing Director.
(107)
Sutherland, Innes Company, Limited, Cooperage Stock, Box Shooks, Lumber.
Chatham, Ont., January 8, 1910.
Re Bill No. 21.
mn„D“i\T 1 If “ recfPt of y°Llr circular letter of the 27th ult., inclosing a
w7!, t 1 N°,' 21’ An Act resPectm& the Hours of Labour on Public Works ’
which I have taken up before the Canadian Cooperage Stock Manufacturers’ Asso-
ciation. We are strongly opposed to this Bill, for the following reasons:—
1. Because ten hours per day is only a reasonable day’s work for any man.
2. Because it is legislation against the freedom of the individual making it com-
pulsory for the workman to limit the hours of labour to eight hours per day when on
government work.
3. It is liable to cause all kinds of trouble with manufacturers and contractors
who are doing government work, along with other work, as their employees will either
have to be divided into eight-hour and ten-hour men, or all their men put on an ei°ht-
hour basis. b
4. It is an injury to the workmen as the employers cannot pay a fair day’s wage
for eight hours work, unless the government are willing to pay exorbitant prices for
their work, so as to enable the employers to pay their men a full day’s pay for emhc
hours’ work.
5. If the Bill be passed it is likely to cause an agitation for all workmen to be
put on the same basis, and so far as the cooperage stock business is concerned, it
already is in a bad way, on account of the admission of staves from the United States
free of duty, and if eight hours were fixed as a day’s work for all workmen in Canada,
we would be in a worse shape than we are now, when we have to compete with our $2
and up common labour, against the $1 negro labour of the south.
G. The workmen with their labour organizations are well able to take care of
themselves without the government having to legislate to help the lazy ones to the
detriment of the industrious workman who is not always watching the clock and
figuring how little he can possibly do for his pay.
I might further say, that it is the opinion of some of our members, that if such
a Bill were passed, it would have the effect of shutting out outside competition for
public building and throw the business entirely in the hands of local parties, as they
could use their men for eight hours on a public work and two hours on their general
590
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
work per day, while for public works, it would increase the cost about 30 per cent
where there was no chance of being able to utilize the services of the men for longer
than eight hours per day.
The Bill is certainly wrong in principle, and would be a serious injury to the
development of Canada.
Yours truly,
J. INNES,
President.
(306)
Sutherland Rifle Sight Company, Limited.
New Glasgow, N.S., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Out.
We hereby respectfully wish to enter our protest against the Eight-hour Day
Bill, now under consideration by your committee, and give the following reasons why
we think this Bill should not be passed: —
(1) It would prohibit any manufacturer working more than eight hours a day
to share in government business.
(2) It would be utterly impracticable for an establishment to work part of their
employees eight hours on government work, and the rest ten hours a day on work for
private parties or their own manufacture, and working all industrial establishments
on an eight-hour basis would ruin Canadian industries on account of the higher
cost of production.
(3) As a consequence of an eight -hour day law, all government work would be
from 25 per cent to 50 per cent higher than similar work done for private parties or
corporations due to lessened competition and an increased overhead expense which
will inevitably follow the granting of an eight-hour day law.
(4) When the country fully recovers from the present somewhat depressed indus-
trial condition there will be a shortage of help and an eight-hour day will accentuate
this shortage tremendously.
(5) Organized labour which only represents a very small percentage of the labour
vote should not be allowed to impose a condition on Canada which would inevitably
ruin or paralyze the development of Canadian industries and give an unfair advant-
age to foreign manufacturers.
Trusting that your committee will report adversely on this Bill, we are,
Yours sincerely,
F. W. WRIGHT,
President.
(389)
A. Talbot & Company, Fine Printers and Art Importers.
London, Ont., February 28, 1910.
Dear Sir, — We are in receipt of your communication inclosing Bill respecting
the Hours of Labour, and in reply would say that we think this would be a very unfair
Bill to pass, regarding all establishments in Canada who are not operating under the
union rules.
We might state that 85 per cent of the printing business in the city of London is
not now being operated by an eight-hour day, and if this Bill be passed, all these
establishments would be prohibited from doing any contract work for the government.
It would be a very great injustice to the army of employees in these establishments, and
no doubt what applies to the printing business in the city of London is largely so with
all lines.
COMMITTEE RE BILL Vo. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
591
APPENDIX No. 4
We trust your committee will consider carefully this matter and in lieu of the
protection which is now given to the labouring elasses in ,11 works done by the
government, they are amply protected.
Yours sincerely,
A. TALBOT & CO.
(254)
Talman Brass and Metal Company.
Hamilton, Ont., January IS, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ont.
p , ,D w ? J ^lth reference .to Bill No. 21, respecting the Hours of Labour on
Public Works, we beg leave to give you our opinion on this Bill. We operate a brass
foundry, and should we be making any government work for any of our customers who
might receive contracts it would seriously handicap us to keep this work separate so
that none of it would be done in the extra hours of our working day. Our furnaces
might be slow in melting, and our moulders might not be able to do as much one day as
hey could another, and would be in the middle of government work when they would
have to stop. Our men frequently have to work overtime to finish up the job they are
on. We feel that if this Bill was passed, that it would seriously handicap us, and cost
us considerably more to do government work than before. We would, therefore, ask
the committee to seriously consider all points in this matter, as we are satisfied' that
it will affect a great many other manufacturers in the same way as it does ourselves.
Thanking you for giving us the opportunity of voicing our opinions, we remain,
Yours truly,
A. H. TALMAN,
Manager.
(263)
T. H. Taylor Company, Limited, Millers and Manufacturers.
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour, Ottawa, Ont.
Chatham, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Hon. Sir, — We write you with reference to the Compulsory Eight-hour Day Bill.
We think the claim made by the labour organization for an Eight -hour Day Bill is just
a matter of inserting the thin edge of the wedge.
An eight-hour day may be all right if every company in the country would figure
at the same time and pay on the same basis, but the trouble is that one contractor or
one manufacturer would be probably getting his labour for eight hours, and another
man getting his for ten hours.
Labour at the present time is paid pretty well and we do not think it is necessary
for an eight-hour day at present.
Yours truly,
T. H. TAYLOR & CO., LTD.
592
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(272)
Tebbutt Shoe and Leather Company, Limited.
Three Rivers, Que., January 19, 1910.
W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,- — We desire to protest strongly against the Compulsory Eight-hour Bill
introduced by Mr. Yerville, and now before your committee. There are many good
and valid reasons why this Bill should not become law. We earnestly hope your com-
mittee will report adversely on the Bill.
Yours very sincerely,
JOHN T. TEBBUTT,
President.
(307)
Thomas Organ and Piano Company.
Woodstock, Ont., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Blouse of Commons. Ottawa, Ont.
Re Bill No. 21.
Dear Sir, — We understand that this Bill is shortly to come before the committee
of which you are chairman, and we earnestly hope you will report against its adoption.
There are many weighty reasons why you should do so. One is, that while it might be
wise to limit the number of hours in some few occupations that are exhausting and
hazardous, or where many other lives may be depending on them, railway men in cer-
tain departments for instance, that is no reason why every other business and occu-
pation must also fall into line. The immediate consequence would be that every em-
ployee working on contract work for the government, being prohibited from exceed-
ing the eight hours a day, would at once demand that his pay be increased to be equal
to that earned by the man working ten hours a day, and the government work would
be immediately advanced in price ten to thirty per cent. The law of supply and de-
mand is one that cannot be ignored, and should the supply of workmen be found inade-
quate as they have many times been, and the hours of labour are curtailed, the work
must suffer, and the country at large is the loser. That point is one, though, that is
entirely ignored by those pressing the Bill. As ratepayers, those who have to shoulder
the expenses have an equal right to see that their interests are taken into considera-
tion and no legislation should be allowed to prevent them doing so. So much for the
employee.
A manufacturer with buildings and a lot of expensive machinery expects a certain
return for his investment and should this reduction take place, his return will be re-
duced by one fifth, unless he also increases his cost price to meet the reduction, and
in that way there would be the further increased cost to be met. Further, that manu-
facturer may not only be working on government contracts, but may also be selling his
goods abroad, and competing with manufacturers in other countries. Here the rela-
tive costs immediately come into play, and the increased cost to the manufacturer at
once closes the market where he has been striving to make an outlet to increase his
business. To illustrate, we had a steady and increasing organ trade with Germany,
but the change in the tariff of that country, slightly increasing the cost of the dealer,
had the effect of effectually closing the door against us. You can therefore see that
no matter how the increased cost is arrived at, whether bv tariff or in the manufacture,
the result is the same. The markets of the world are so closely watched and figured
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
593
APPENDIX No. 4
«,:hsa”Ke%woS - dr * “** *-«-
the employer out of a market, reducing the outnuTtl0 C°nSK er‘ If hls actl0n throws
,0 be thrown out of a fob, but tbe ££
self T 'T
eut right to labour, and exceM as "32 T EterJ man has «■*
should not be pretented from exercising that righTto'im ‘f"" 00.cuI>ati»M. >'«
it would not be possible for an omnia™ -+i g ° mProve bis position. Further
some of his hands for eight hours^m/tbo bala"0"*!"01/''0?1 ,te eovernmellt to wort
pelled to out them ail down 33”^, tS'Ldhb ” ’’ He W°"kl be
his other work would go to the other 1 ’ d t le consequence would be that
might go to some other coun ry ha,S 3 IongCT da^ OT P°ssib^ *
been for years nnd at considerable^ + sh°rtemng has not taken place. We have
where in every case the comuetition • f3 lying to get a market; in foreign countries,
thin end of the wige "l *** *Ws BiU P«* !t *> »«* the
the home market alone nml US and many °ther manufacturers to supplying
Other arguments might be deducecT^ buT we^h^rTlf ^ °°St t0 the consumers here,
therefore that your committee w we think these are sufficient, and we trust
We remain, W 110 hesitatlon “ reporting against this Bill.
(182)
Your obedient servant,
JAMES DUNLOP.
Toronto Carpet Manufacturing Company, Limited.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Toronto, January 18, 1910.
Chairman Special Committee,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Re Bill No. 21 — Eight-hour Day Bill.
is fr^from’ re^msibiUt^Tn^that ^ “?’ n°+tender€r wh° has accePted a contract
comet! law -P ...v’ H*at aiW sub-contractor must abide by the Act if it be-
Xe and leaXX Xk °f * be deciid elL-
nossihieX- T 7 Wlth.t1he.facts which interest ourselves, it would be Lm-
the o-nsp ' separate our materials into what may be needed to supply an order for
labour foTplLe tort “S thr0',gh * C0I1*r“tor- Nor could wo separate the day
New TortmnK111 AT in, ‘he int”ests of labo” “ “ New England aud
Wet™*: CZrltX' ' rePeaW ** th" «* «"»»•
Yours truly,
JAMES P. MURRAY,
Dire cl or.
(118)
Toronto Paper Manufacturing Company, Limited.
Toronto, Ont., January ll, li
10.
^
I w NM* SlRXn rep1^ t0 y0Ur circular letter of December 17. Giving my opinion,
mX a Say : , Let parliament put an end to this labour agitation once and for all by
mill lg .rnne ^ours per day or fifty-four hours per week the maximum legal hours for
ii an,. ac^ujdn£= labour. For factories running twenty-four hours per day- —
e s i s oi eight hours each, or forty-eight hours per week. Nothing in the Act
4- — 38
694
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
to prevent any man from working as many hours as the circumstances may demand, as
in positions like night watchmen, elevator men, &c. The want of some standard hours
of labour, fixed by statute, is unsatisfactory as between different employers of labour
making the same line of goods. The hours of competing companies all over the Do-
minion should be fixed by the government not by the walking delegate. _ This being
made uniform, the weekly wage would be fixed or varied by the cost of living, or other
local conditions.
However, the above remarks do not specially apply to the Bill before the House.
The result of passing that Bill would be that no manufacturing concern would put in a
tender for any line of goods required by the government. All their requirements
would have to be imported from some country where eight hours is the legal day of
labour, if such could be found. No country known to me would be in a position to
supply a sheet of paper to the King’s Printer, for in continental Europe the paper mills
run as here, twenty-four hours per day, and also run on Sundays. The employees
work eighty-four hours per week. Any Canadian paper mill owner complying with
the requirement of the proposed Bill on a government order requiring a run of one or
two days or a week, would so demoralize his help for the balance of the year that he
could not compete against other paper makers in the open market. Only one result
can follow the passage of the Bill. No Canadian manufacturer would want a govern-
ment order at any price.
The effect on the labourers who earn their living on Dominion public works
would be disastrous. Nearly all of this work is out of doors, and employment only
furnished about eight months in the year. The men employed thereat should be
allowed to work as the farmer works, making the most of the daylight and mild wea-
ther against the time of enforced idleness in winter. Section 2 of the Bill might be
eliminated. There will be no contracts made under section 1 by Canadian manufac-
turers.
Yours very respectfully.
JOHN R. BARBER
For the TORONTO PAPER MEG. CO., LTD.,
Cornwall, Ont.
WM. BARBER & BROS.,
Georgetown, Ont.
CANADA COATING MILLS, LTD.,
Georgetown, Ont.
BARBER & ELLIS CO.,
Toronto, Ont.
(214)
Toronto Whip Company.
Toronto, January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa.
IIon. Sir,- — Our attention has been called to a Bill before the House of Parliament
at Ottawa, presented by Mr. Yerville on behalf of organized labour, viz. : An Eight-
hour Day Bill, against which we wish to enter our most emphatic protest, or the fol-
lowing reasons :> — _ .
We have always in the past paid our employees as high wages as our business
would justify on a nine-hour day basis, and if an eight-hour day were adopted we
would have to in justice to ourselves reduce the pay per day correspondingly, a shorter
working day would mean an increased cost of production which would mean an aa-
vance in price to the consumer and consequently an increase in cost of living.
COHM.TTEE RE BILL No. 2,-UOVRB OF LABOUR
595
APPENDIX No. 4
Organized labour, which is said to reoresent mil,
should not be allowed to impose conditions whi 1 ' t]Per Cent of the Iabour vote,
Canadian industry. We remain, W°Uld hamper the de™lopment of
Yours respectfully,
TORONTO WHIP COMPANY.
T206)
Tourville lumber Mills Company.
Montreal, January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
Ottawa, Ont.
the government towards having this Bill iW t 4 nd.',11st,ry andany action taken by
company. & rejected, will be greatly appreciated by my
Yours respectfully,
ROD. TOURVILLE.
President.
(353)
Truro Condensed Milk Company, Limited.
Truro, N.S., January, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
legato! .address y°.U brMy “ ref™“ Proposal for the
would almost ineviUl l0Ur !.ay m eonneetlon with all government contracts. Such
hours and would “\a d®mand uPon other employers of labour for similar
i.te,L,sf„ Canada d ? ha"dl°aP ">«nufacturi„g
not tonUfi *-he f”':t1 Ptachinery and various mechanical processes which can-
' .7, horned m regulating the amount of work which many labourers do it cannot
S'celr^ciat* me° T aCC°mPliSh 85 ™rt “
of on, Certam,spe?iaI circumstances, such a statement might be true, but in much
eighty J01i hor instance, the labourer employed for eight hours would simply do
s y cent what he could and would accomplish in ten.
e, in common with many other Canadian manufacturers, have for some time
«on tT'°"7g ,‘trena° 7 'l t0 ium PP “ “P»rt To succeed in Z dto
of an • P Productlon IS of the utmost importance, and we fear that the introduction
n eight-hour day, (unless it meant proportionately low wages) would very ser-
~rd our progress in developing foreign trade.
We trust that the far-reaching consequences of this measure may be fully con-
si ere , and believe that the best interests of manufacturers, as weil as the great
ajority of labourers, will be promoted by leaving the hours of labour as they are at
jji cotjnt,
Yours very truly,
4-38|
J. L. MacKAY,
Secretary.
596
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(267)
C. Turnbull Company of Galt, Limited, Manufacturers of Underclothing, &c.
Galt, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — We notice that a proposed compulsory Eight-Hour Day Bill has been
referred to a special committee of which you are chairman. We protest very strongly
against the proposed Bill for several reasons, and particularly in reference to govern-
ment contracts. We have been fortunate enough to have secured some contracts from
the government, but should this Bill become law, it would be impossible for us to
furnish goods to the government except at an advance. It would be practically im-
possible to have workmen on an eight-hour day making government work, and others
on a ten-hour day making regular stock, but if it had to be done, the eight-hour
people would have to be paid for ten hours, increasing cost to that extent. A shorter
working day would mean increased cost of production, which is high now compared
with wages in Great Britain, from whence comes our strongest competition. At pre-
sent we work 55 hours per week, and have no agitation from our work people for
shorter hours. We think it is not in the interests of either the workmen or the
general public that this Bill should pass, as it would increase the cost of all manu-
factured products which would have to be paid by the consumer.
We hope the committee will report against it.
Yours sincerely,
0. TURNBULL,
Secretary.
(199)
J. J. Turner & Sons, the Peterborough Tent and Awning Company.
„■*, Peterborough, Ont., January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,— We wish to strongly protest against the compulsory Eight-hour Day
Bill, as we do not think it is fair to manufacturers or the employers of labour to try
and bring in such a Bill and we hope that your committee will throw it out.
We remain,
Yours truly.
J. J. TURNER & SONS.
J. Fletoher Tweeddale, Lumber and General Dealer.
Perth. Victoria Co., N.B., January 29. 1910
Dear Sir,— I received your letter asking for information to ascertain what pub-
lic sentiment is Re a Bill introduced in parliament that will fix by statute the num-
ber of hours that will constitute a day’s work so far as it applies to government
W r^In reply I may say, so far as I have heard the matter discussed, everybody holds
the same opinion as myself, that is, the Bill is a mistake and uncalled for. The gov-
ernment should not be a party to, or even tolerate any attempt to shorten the hours
of labour, unless there lie a decided and universal demonstration demanding it.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
597
APPENDIX No. 4
There has been no difficulty in obtaining all the labourers ^ . •
on the public work by reason of the ten-hour day. * ** °m'erS or “Panics to carry
On the other hcind it is cl & impel tVio-e ,-*■ •
ilege to get employment on such work But the^hT & v™®1?1 °f preference °r priv-
parliament will be to set up an eight-hour ™ °f SUCh acti°n by
taken advantage of by labour organizations a* ^ .f°Ternment work that will be
labour and in this way seriously affect the • i a criterion to reduce the hours of
be given , twelve month? hoi? ' U« °f IW Bill should
Yours truly,
•T. FLETCHER TWEEDDALE,
Lumber and General Dealer.
(158)
Victoria Clothing Company.
Victoria ville, Que., January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Bill. We think^i ft against" ^he' interest &a ?P0Sed V5 the 'compulsory Eight-hour
against the manufacturers in particular. * gen6ra welfare of the people, and
Yours faithfully,
THE VICTORIA CLOTHING CO.
(146)
Victoria Machinery Depot Company, Limited.
q „ Victoria, B.C., January 13, 1910.
ere«t disfavo^ I"3 zs:ydrziulh i,eg to sw •* -
hours of labour We ore of ,b t 7 g0?r™en‘ “ regulating the
pi~ e7'rs’ as ^^“contr ,he em-
hi.. ,o7i“r:irrim?o«:n verard r
country. The difference in the f 7 countries and also from the mother
our markets are ZS ZtZZZZ
SkS"1' maChi"ery °f 811 HndS- “* ««> 4. toy, competitL 1°S we2
positfon fy: h‘.t sssira Liz&z
business. However, the. Canadian regulations allow a vessel to be built comnlet^1^
o country, she comes to our coast, participates in our coastwise trade and doe” not
pay a five cent piece of duty. We start to build, and various parts of the ™L
raw SU rC-ef t0 dr-y’ 111 °ther words’ the finished article comes in duty free and the
raw material is subjected to duty. J ’ d the
,^ThSn !gHin’ the g0Vernment calls for a tender for the construction oi a vessel for
ers feTow“?oailtgaSf f*?>USe,t7<?,erS’ S”™y S‘eamers’ flshery Paction steam-
no non* 1 for t "dcr’ for the eonstruetion of these vessels vou would hav
We w„„,d Ze r? of,labour, ‘h»y built iu the old count^ or ZE
We take it fV, ^ atn arKficaPPed \vith the eight-hour day on government work,
from Q 1 1 gF.arlted tbat when tenders are received at Ottawa, they are looked upon
. a P.Urelf pricf standpoint, and if the vessel can be built cheaper in the old coun-
try that is where she is built.
598
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Of course, on the other hand, I do not say that the eight-hour day or the seven-
hour day would make any material difference to any of the employers of labour if the
eight-hour day were universal at all the competing points. For instance, this company
is in competition with Seattle, Tacoma, Portland and San Francisco, in the docking,
repairing and building of vessels. The eight-hour day, if instituted here, would spoil
our chances of competing favourably with the hours on the American side, where they
work nine and ten hours.
From the writer’s knowledge of organized labour, we can assure you that the labour
organizations are simply trying to insert the thin edge of the wedge. If they can per-
suade the government to break the ice by restricting the hours of labour to eight hours
on all government work, it would be forced on the employers as well as on all classes
of work.
You, no doubt, would readily appreciate the state of affairs that would exist in a
shipbuilding yard where there are from eight hundred to one thousand men employed,
were they to work eight hours on all government work and on other work nine hours.
What would be the feeling of the men working on the outside work at the same rate
of pay, to see the men working on the government job knock off an hour earlier ? It
would be demoralizing.
We trust you will give the whole very special investigation before taking this
step which would so seriously injure all large concerns here.
Yours truly,
C. J. Y. SPRATT.
(183)
H. Vineberg & Company, Limited, Clothing Manufacturers.
Montreal, January 18, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of the Special Committee on Bill 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Hon. Sir, — We respectfully beg to enter our protest against the proposed Eight-
Hour Day Bill.’
In doing so, we submit that it would be ridiculous to have a law governing manu-
facturing for the government, different from that governing manufacturers or con-
tractors for the public at large. That if we adopted the Eight-Hour Day in all our
industries, we Canadians, would deal ourselves a blow that no outside enemy would
inflict upon us.
Foreign countries could then compete with us, hands down, even after paying
duties. This country is already suffering for want of labour and the consequent high
price for the same, and if the time were to be reduced to eight hours, it would simply
make competition impossible.
It is hardly necessary for us to go into details. We feel that the government is
anxious to save this country from any ruinous measures, and we respectfully suggest
a thorough investigation into this question, before plunging the country into a state
of helplessness which it would probably never recover from.
We would gladly have a representative of the government, . call here and be in-
formed of prevailing conditions.
Thanking you in advance for consideration, we remain,
H. VINEBERG & CO., LTD.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
599
APPENDIX No. 4
(145)
Vulcan Iron Works, Limited.
Winnipeg, Man., January 15, 1910.
-*-n our opinion if this Act is allowed to come into force it will be impossible
for ourselves, or any other manufacturing concern in this country, to do any work
for the Dominion government.
Youy committee must take into consideration the fact that our season in this
country is very short and it is necessary for us to work as long hours as possible.
I nder the circumstances we desire to enter our very strongest protest against any
Act of this description being put on the statute-books in Canada.
Yours truly,
JOHN McKECHNIE,
President.
(251)
Waterous Engine Works Company, Limited.
Brantford, Ont., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,— Referring to the proposed Eight-Hour Day Bill. If this Bill were to
pass in the form in which it is at present drafted, it would be, I think, a difficult
matter for any factories to accept contracts for government work, and, at the same
time, carry on work for the general public, and it would preclude, apparently, supply-
ing to the government any standard goods that are made for sale to the general
trade.
At the present time there is a great deal of manufacturing done (and it is
steadily growing) of standard articles made up in large multiples. From the reading
of the Bill, I would understand that such goods could not be supplied to the govern-
ment if they were made by labour working ten hours a day. Unless the eight-hour
day could become universal, it would seem to me as though its application in the way
proposed would be very objectionable.
I am, yours very truly,
C. H. WATEROUS,
Manager.
(380)
Westminster Iron Works.
Hew Westminster, B.C., January 26, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — As a manufacturer in a small way, I beg to enter my protest against
the passing of the above Bill. Wages are so high now in our business, that it is al-
most impossible to manufacture anything at a profit in competition with other coun-
tries; and if the working day of eight hours, became law, it would, I am afraid, put
us out of business altogether. I do not consider thi,s Bill in the interests of the
country, and trust your committee may report thereon adversely.
Yours very truly,
JOHN REID.
600
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ro. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
(302)
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
J. E. Wilkinson Company, Limited, Refiners of Gold and Silver.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee on Bill No. 21.
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Toronto, January 20, 1910.
ITon. Sir,— As manufacturers and employers, we write you in connection with the
Eight-hour Bill and protest against its adoption from the standpoint of our employees
as well as ourselves. The first question a new man asks us is ‘ what they will be paid,’
and we say so much per hour, and the second question is ‘ how many hours may they
work.’
1 here are strong reasons why this should not be enforced, but we shall simply
in a general way, state our positive opposition to it.
Yours truly,
J. E. WILKINSON.
Treasurer.
(288)
William Hamilton Company, Limited, Builders of Sawmill Machinery, &c.
Peterborough, Ont., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman, Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Sir, -We beg respectfully to enter our emphatic protest against the proposed
Compulsory Eight-hour Day Bill, for the following reasons:—
1st. It would prohibit our company from sharing in any government business, as
our employees work ten hours per day, and it would be impracticable for us to work
part of our staff eight hours per day on government work and the rest of our staff ten
hours per day on work for private parties.
-iid. W e anticipate a shortage of help in the near future, and a reduction in the
hours of labour would greatly accentuate this shortage.
3rd. A shorter working day would increase our cost of production.
4th. As organized labour only represents about 8 per cent of the labour vote, it
should not be allowed to impose conditions which would hamper manufacturing indus-
tries.
We believe that the foregoing reasons apply not only to our own company, but to
all other similar companies in Canada, and we would therefore very respectfully urge
these reasons against the passing of the Bill.
Yours truly.
J. C. SMITH,
Business Manager.
(186)
Winnett & Wellinger, Limited, Manufacturers of Fancy Leather Goods.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Toronto, January 18, 1910.
Dear Sir,— We understand that a Compulsory Eight-hour Bill is to come before
your committee, and we wish to express our protest against same. If such a Bill
should pass, it would prohibit us from tendering for any portion of the government’s
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
601
APPENDIX No. 4
crS "'0UM inCreaSe 'he C0S* °f consequently in-
^ e sincerely hope that your committee will report thereon adversely.
Yours truly,
J. H. WINNETT,
President.
(338)
Winnipeg Paint and Glass Company, Limited.
Winnipeg, Man., January 20, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman of Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir, The above mentioned Bill calling- for a compulsory eight-hour day has
come to our attention, and we beg to respectfully register a protest against any such
mil becoming law.
The great difficulty, in this part of the country at least, is to handle the amount of
work required to be done during our short building season, and we are only able to
cope with the situation by operating our factories ten hours a day, and a great deal
of overtime.
If such a Bill were to become law, it would be absolutely impossible for this com-
pany to figure on any work in which the government might be interested, as the pro-
visions ol the Bill are so drastic that it would not be safe for us to do so.
Our position and that of the other manufacturers in Winnipeg are identical and
we trust that a few discontented heads of labour unions will not be allowed to embar-
rass us in the way they seem to desire.
Yours truly,
B. W. PATERSON,
Secretary Treasurer.
(168)
Wood Bros., Leather Manufacturers.
St. Catharines, Ont., January 17, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Chairman Special Committee on Bill No. 21,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,— With reference to the Compulsory Eight-hour Bill now before your
committee for consideration, we wish to enter an emphatic protest against the Bill
and trust, in the interest of all industries in Canada, that your committee will report
adversely thereon.
Yours very truly,
WOOD BROS.
(393)
C. H. Parmelee, Esq.,
Government Printing Bureau,
Ottawa, Ont.
St. Catharines, Ont., February 2, 1910.
Dear Mr. Parmelee,— I have just received a copy of Bill No. 21, ‘ An Act respect-
ing the Hours of Labour on Public Works.’ This Bill had its first reading November
22, 1909. and a committee will take this matter up on January 21, 1910.
602
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
I do not, know whether you have consulted the minister in regard to this Bill, but
1 wish to point out to you that should this Bill go through that it will be a very serious
matter for the printing department. In the first place, the working ours o a paper
mill, all over the world, are from 12 o’clock Sunday night until 12 o clock Saturday
night, in continuous operation. These paper mills are all run on two gangs o± labour,
working twelve hours each on paper machines and beaters. Now, if this Bill should
go through, appointing the exact hours of labour in public works, you can readily see
that the same will be forced on all contracts made by the government and it would
mean that in running government contracts the different mills would have to put m
three shifts of men, adding to the cost of contract, and when not running on govern-
ment paper what is to be done with this extra shift of men, as beater men and paper
machine men are all skilled labour, earning from $2.50 as high as $5 per day, according
to the size of the mill. At present there are only two concerns in America who nave
tried the three-hour shift and it has not proved satisfactory. Now, the Printing
Bureau at Ottawa consumes a large quantity of paper and the contracts are distributed
over a great many mills, so no one mill could adopt this scheme and all other mills
would have to refuse to make contracts with the government.
I only wish to draw your attention to the above points in order that you may dis-
cuss the matter with the minister.
Hoping this finds you quite well, I remain,
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) WELLAND D. WOODRUFF,
(393a)
Lincoln Paper Mills.
Ottawa, February 5, 1910.
Hon. Charles Murphy, K.C.
Secretary of State,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Murphy,— I take the liberty of inclosing for your information, a copy
of a letter which I have received from Mr. W. D. Woodruff, of St. Catharines, in
reference to Bill No. 21. Mr. Woodruff is owner of the Lincoln mills which have one
of our contracts. His statement of the case shows what position the Canadian mills
would be placed in, so far as their relations with the Department of Public Printing
and Stationery are concerned, if the Bill were to pass in its present shape. It would
be difficult, if not impossible, to get any mill to enter into a contract for the supply
of paper. I can’t imagine, however, that the Bill in its present form will ever become
law.
Yours faithfully,
C. H. PARMELEE,
King’s Printer and Controller of Stationery.
(‘0<) MARINE.
Dominion Marine Association.
Kingston, Ont., December 21, 1909.
Dear Sir, Replying to your letter of the 20th, which I am pleased to receive, I
beo- to send you inclosed herewith a list of members of this association which I have
available, and of which you can make use. I shall be glad to be advised later of any
action taken. I have not yet given the Bill careful consideration and am not able at
the moment to say how far it will affect this association as a whole. I am satisfied,
however, that the views of the association would be strongly in opposition of the Bill
as an interference with the freedom of contract.
Eaithfully yours.
FRANCIS KING,
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 602
APPENDIX No. 4
(704)
T. G. Brigham.
Ottawa, Ont., December 29, 1909.
Dear Sir, I am in receipt of your circular of the 27th instant. My opinion is
that no such class of legislation should be passed. This free country is free to every-
body, free to labour for whom they like and both parties ought to be free in a case
of this kind to negotiate their own contracts, and if the Dominion government keeps
on with this class of legislation they will simply drive the business to the older
countries.
As an illustration: Some years ago I sent to Scotland $30,000 worth of work in
the shape of water pumps for the city of Ottawa waterworks. The people who made
these pumps for, the Chaudiere Machine and Foundry Company, (of which I am the
owner) their wages averaged eighty-one and nine-tenths cents per day. My rate of
wages for the same class of work is $2.47. I took particular pains to ascertain the cost
of living there, and I do not think it possible to buy a porter-house steak in the coun-
try for less than forty-five cents a. pound, or a cut-off-the-neck for less than fifteen cents
a pound. All the other necessaries of life are as high in price. If the government
of this country continues to increase the cost of production, it will only be a matter
of eight or ten years before every factory in the country will be shut down. They
are doing business at present on a very fine margin of profit as compared with the
old country that is to say, the cost of production in this country for labour as against
England is as a rate of eighty-one cents to $2.47.
I trust I have given you some slight information that will be of service to you.
I am, yours very truly,
T. G. BRIGHAM.
(706)
Union Steamship Company of British Columbia, Limited.
Vancouver, B.C., January 5, 1910.
( Dear Sir, We have your favour of the 27th ulto. asking for our views on the
Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.’
The only contracts we have with the Dominion government are for the carriage
of mails by sea, and we beg to say that if we were required to comply with the stipu-
lation proposed to be inserted in this Act, to the effect that none of our men should
work more than eight hours in one day, it would be impossible to carry out those
contracts at all. We cannot believe that this regulation is intended to apply to ship-
Yours truly,
EDW. T. LEGG,
Managing Director.
(705)
Upper Ottawa Improvement Company, Limited.
Ottawa, January 5, 1910.
Sir, — We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 27th December last
inclosing copy of Bill Ho. 21, ‘An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
Works,’ and asking for our views on the matter.
Before expressing an opinion on the subject matter of the Bill we must explain
the nature of our business. It is the transmission of logs and timber down the
Ottawa river from head of Lake Temiscamingue to Ottawa a distance of some 300
miles and upon the successful prosecution of our work depends the operating of the
604
COMMITTEE RE BILL Eo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
saw mills and pulp mills of the Ottawa valley employing many thousands of men.
Our work is frequently held at a standstill for days by unfavourable winds and our
men idle, hut under full pay. The season of navigation is short as after September
the weather is as a rule unfavourable.
Under the circumstances you will readily understand how necessary it is that we
should avail ourselves of all the time feasible when conditions are favourable and
where our work is influenced by the operating of government booms and slides we must
protest vigorously against any change in the present regulations.
We have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servants,
G. B. GREENE,
Secretary-T reasurer.
TRADES COUNCILS AND LABOUR UNIONS.
(529) Journeymen Bakers’ Union, No. 204.
818 Dovercourt Road, Toronto, February 7, 1910.
Mr. \ . Clouthier, — We the Journeymen Bakers Union No. 204, passed at our
last meeting held February 5, that we uphold Bill 21 regarding the government con-
tracts for an eight-hour day.
Yours truly,
W. S. MURCHIE,
Secretary Local 20J+.
(634)
International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers and Iron Ship Builders.
Moosejaw, Sask., February 19, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your communication with regard to the Eight-hour Bill was read and
discussed at our regular meeting. A vote was taken which was unanimously in favour
of the Bill. We all hope it will become law. We also look forward to the time when
the eight-hour day becomes general. With best wishes for the success of the Bill, I
am.
Respectfully yours,
GEORGE WALTERS,
C. S. 478.
(606)
International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers and Iron Ship Builders, No. 417.
North Bay, Ont., February 15, 1910.
Sir, — It is the unanimous wish of the members of this lodge that we support the
Eight-hour Bill.
Trusting that it will be put through successfully. I remain,
Yours truly,
J. NICOLL,
c. s.
(644)
International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers and Iron Ship Builders.
Rivers, Man., February 24, 1910.
Dear Sir, — With reference to your communication and circular respecting Bill No.
21, which were read at a regular meeting of our lodge, I beg to state that the members
were unanimously in favour of said Bill. As a labour organization we fully believe
and understand the benefits to be derived from an eight-hour day.
Respectfully yours,
C. COTTERILL,
Secretary Pioneer Lodge , No. 529.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21—HOURE OF LABOUR
605
APPENDIX No. 4
(528)
International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers and Shipbuilders, No. 128.
Toronto, Ont., February 6, 1910.
Dear Sir, In answer to your letter of January 27 re Bill 21, an Act respecting
the Hours of Labour on Public Works, and will say that Lodge 128, Boilermakers, Iron
Shipbuilders and Helpers of Toronto highly recommend that this Act be adopted.
With best wishes and regards, I remain.
Sincerely yours,
JAS. MONAGHAN,
Secretary.
(,655)
(Translation.)
International Brotherhood of Bookbinders.
Local Union No. 91,
Montreal, Que., March 2, 1910.
Dear Sir— At the last regular meeting of our local union, held under the presi-
ency of Mr. A. Henderson, it was moved by Mr. A. Hound, seconded by all the mem-
bers present, that our local union give their fullest adhesion to Bill No. 21, providing
for an eight-hour day of labour upon all public works.
Allow me, sir, to congratulate you in the name of my fellow-workmen of the local
union and in my own name, for the interest you are taking in the Bill introduced bv
our worthy member, Mr. A. Verville. I remain,
Yours truly.
(602)
JOS. PELLETIER,
Secretary of Local No. 91.
International Brotherhood of Bookbinders.
Local Union No. 28,
Toronto, Ont., February 15, 1910.
Dear Sir, Your letter to hand in regard to Bill No. 21 (an Act respecting the
Hours of Labour), and in reply would say this was introduced at our last meeting of
the brotherhood and endorsed by every member present as being a full day’s work.
I might also add to this for further information that almost every trade in this
city is working eight hours a day and is the specified time for city contracts.
Trusting the members of the House may see their way clear to pass this Bill and
make it a government law. I remain.
Truly yours,
C. R. HURST,
Secretary.
(601)
International Brotherhood of Bookbinders.
Local Union, No. 160,
Winnipeg, Man., February 12. 1910.
Dear Sir, — In the matter of Bill 21, intituled: ‘An Act respecting the Hours of
Labour on Public Works,’ would say that this brotherhood is thoroughly in sympathy
with, and heartily endorses the proposed Act, and does earnestly request the Senate
and House of Commons to pass and enact the said Bill.
Your obedient servant,
J. L. WIGINTON,
Recording Secretary.
606
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(524)
Bricklayers’ and Masons’ International Union of America, No. 2.
Brandon, Man., February 3, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I am in receipt of your favour of the 24th ult., inclosing copy of Bill
No. 21, an Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works. The same was dis-
cussed at the 85th regular meeting of our union, held February 2nd at Brandon, and
I am instructed to inform you that we are heartily in favour of the provisions of the
Bill.
I am, sir, yours respectfully,
EDMUND FULCHER,
Secretary.
(561)
Bricklayers’ and Masons’ International Union of America, No. 2.
Calgary, Alta., February 5, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your communication with reference to Bill 21, respecting eight-hour
"day, received. I am instructed to endorse the Bill, and say that we are in favour of
an eight-hour day all over Canada, with the recommendation that the union wage be
paid to all who come under this Act.
Respectfully yours,
JOHN EVANS,
Cor. Secretary.
(558)
Bricklayers’ and Masons’ International Union of America, No 1.
Edmonton, Alta., February 4, 1910.
Dear Sir,- — I have been instructed to inform you that this union with its 82
members, are unanimously in favour of the enacting of this Bill No. 21.
Suitable resolutions have been sent to the Hon. Frank Oliver, Minister of Interior,
and also to Mr. Alphonse Verville. The former being member of parliament for this
district, and the latter being our labour representative at Ottawa, asking that they
support the Bill to the best of their ability.
Trusting that the Bill may become law and be placed upon the statute-books of
the Dominion,
I remain, your obedient servant,
WM. T. COLLYER,
Cor. Secretary.
(Resolutions referred to in above.)
(559)
Bricklayers’ and Masons’ International Union of America, No. 1.
Whereas, Mr. Alphonse Verville, M.P., has introduced a Bill to the House of
Commons of Canada, being Bill 21, and known as an Act respecting the Hours of
Labour on Public Works, and
Whereas, We believe that such an Act is in the best interests of the working
community of Canada, and that such an Act is urgently needed, and
Whereas, The officers and members of Edmonton No. 1, Alberta Bricklayers and
Masons International Union, are unanimously in favour of the enacting of this Bill,
be it
Resolved, That we, the officers and members of the Edmonton No. 1 Alberta
Bricklayers and Masons International Union, call upon our member at Ottawa, Hon.
Frank Oliver, Minister of Interior, requesting him to support the said Bill, and to
endeavour to the best of his ability to get it placed upon the statute-books of the
Dominion of Canada, and be it further
COMMITTEE RE BILL Eo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 607
APPENDIX No. 4
Resolved, That these resolutions be spread upon our minutes, a copy sent to
each local of the B. & M.I.U. in Alberta and copies to our member, Hon. Frank
Oliver, Minister of Interior, and to Mr. Alphonse Yerville, M.P.
(Signed) C. W. DRANSCOMBE,
JAS. BRERETON,
WM. M. ALLYN,
F. BLAKE, President.
HIRAM PERRY.
(654)
Bricklayers’ and Masons’ International Union of America
Hamilton, Ont., February 21, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Yours of the 10th to hand, contents noted and in reply will say, I
brought it to the notice of our association, and after discussing same it was moved,
seconded and carried unanimously that the secretary notify the committee through
you, that we are heartily in accord with the measure, and hope to see same carried
in the House. Wishing you every success,
I remain.
Yours respectfully,
JOHN T. LAING,
Corr. Sec. of No. 1 of Ont., B.M.P.I.U.
(574)
Bricklayers' and Masons’ Union, No. 10, of Ontario.
Kingston, Ont., February 10, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I am instructed to inform you that this union heartily endorses Bill
21 in every detail and sincerely hope when it comes to the House of Commons, there
will be little or no objection,
Yours very sincerely,
ALEX. FOWLER,
Cor. Sec. No. 10.
(513)
Bricklayers’, Masons’ and Plasterers’ Union, No. 5.
London, Ont., February 5, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your communication of the 27th received concerning an eight-hour day
on all government works, and in reply thereto I might say that our organization has
had an eight-hour day here for three years. Bricklayers’ and Masons’ Union No. 5
heartily endorse the proposed Bill now before the committee of the House of Com-
mons. The International officers of our organization have decided in favour of an
eight-hour day, so that all subordinate unions must adopt it sooner or later. Should
you wish any further information I shall be pleased to supply it. I remain,
Yours truly,
EDWIN HUMPHRIES,
Cor. Secty.
608 COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(535)
Bricklayers’ and Masons’ International Union of America.
Medicine Hat, Alberta, February 3, 1910.
Sir, — In receipt of your communication, dated December 27, 1909, would say
that the matter was placed before our union last night and the voice of the meeting
was unanimously in favour of Bill 21. Trusting same will come to pass.
I remain.
Yours truly,
W. SMITTEN,
Secretary No. 5.
(486)
Bricklayers' and Masons' International Union of America, No. 23.
Sarnia, Ont., February 2, 1910.
Dear Sir, — We the officers and members of No. 23 of Sarnia, Ontario,
Bricklayers’ and Masons’ Union, by special vote of said union do endorse the action
of said committee in trying to enforce said eight-hour law, on all public works and
do endorse all clauses of said Bill, for the good and welfare of the public at large.
Signed by
JOHN E. THOMAS, President.
JOHN McPHEE, D.P.
(498)
Bricklayers' and Masons' International Union of America, No. 16.
Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., February 3, 1910.
Sib, — Yours of 27th January to hand and contents noted.
As regards proposed legislation set-forth in Bill No. 21, would say, this Bill as it
stands was unanimously endorsed by our association February 1, when your communi-
cation came before us.
Hoping you in committee will report favourably on the Bill (without any altera-
tions), even in the face of any pressure which may be brought to bear by the Canadian
Manufacturers’ Association.
Sincerely -vours,
W. C. RAMSAY.
(566) .
Bricklayers' and Masons' International Union of America.
Woodstock, Ont., February 8, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter and Bill No. 21, Re the
eight-hours a day work on public works.
I brought the matter before our union this evening, and they are unanimously in
favour of the eight-hour movement, providing the wages are 45 cents per hour. We
are getting 40 cents per hour now, for nine hours, and they would not favour the
wages being any lower.
One of the reasons that we are in favour of the eight-hours is, that for every
eight men it would employ an extra man
Hoping this will reach you in time, I am.
Your obedient servant.
E. JOHNSON,
Sec. Union No. 22.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 609
APPENDIX No. 4
(499)
Bridge, Structural and Architectural Iron Workers’ Union, No. 4.
Toronto, February 3, 1910.
Dear Sir, -1 am in receipt of yours of January 27, re Bill No. 21 respecting
Hours of Labour, &c., on public works. This letter was read before a full representa-
tive meeting of the above local on Tuesday night of this week. We heartily endorse
each of the three clauses of the Bill and sincerely trust that same will be passed and
go into effect immediately.
Yours very truly,
W. B. GRACIE,
Secretary.
(597)
Builders’ Labourers’ Union.
St. Jerome, Que., February 14, 1910.
(Translation)
Sir, In answer to your letter of the 10th inst., informing us that you wish to
obtain the opinion and to hear the views of our association on Bill No. 21, respecting
the Hours of Labour on Public Works, let me tell you that I called a special meet-
ing, in order the better to discuss that important question. All the members would be
delighted if Mr. Verville, M.P., could succeed in having this Bill enacted, provided
,that the companies did not cut off those two hours from the wages of the working
men. In fact, the wages of the trackmen on railways are small enough as they are,
and should the companies cut off those two hours a day, it will be very hard for a
workingman with a large family to make both ends meet.
I remain, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. E. GODREAU,
Sec.-Treas., B.L. & U.
(6S2)
Builders’ Labourers’ Union.
(Translation)
St. Jerome, Que., March 23, 1910.
Sir, — Your circular was duly received a little while ago, and the reason why I
delayed answering your letter was that I waited till our monthly meeting took place,
in order to know the opinion of our members.
Our secretary has already written to you on the matter, giving you the result of
the meeting and the opinion of the members about Bill No. 21, introduced in the
House of Commons by Mr. Yerville, M.P. All would be delighted were the Bill
adopted by parliament, but they do not want shorter hours if it would result in reduc-
ing the earnings.
I remain, sir.
Your obedient servant,
O. QUINNEVILLE,
President B.L.B.XJ., St. Canut (Two Mountains').
4—39
610
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
(595)
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Builders’ Labourers’ Union.
Toronto No. 1,
Toronto, Ont., February 12, 1910.
Sir, — At a special meeting of the Builders’ Labourers’ Union, representing over
900 members, they were unanimously in favour of the Bill calling for an eight-hour
day lor all government contracts, and also for work done by day labour.
Yours, &c.,
JOHN M. MACKINTOSH,
Secretary.
(469)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 933.
(Translation)
Ange-Gardien, Que., January 31, 1910.
Sir, Let me inform you that having submitted and read Bill No. 21, which you
sent me, to the members of Local 933, at one of their regular meetings, they have
unanimously endorsed the same.
Your humble servant,
EUGENE HUOT,
Carpenter ,
(607)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 553.
Berlin, Ont., February 16, 1910.
Sir, — At a regular meeting of Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Local Union No. 553, a
resolution was passed to heartily endorse the above Bill. With best wishes, I remain.
Yours fraternally,
PETER JACOBS.
Recording Secretary Local No. 553.
(587) _
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 498.
Brantford, Ont., February 12, 1810.
Dear Sir,— Local 498 unanimously endorses Bill No. 21, respecting hours of
labour, in every particular, and would rejoice to see it the law of our country.
Yours respectfully,
JOSEPH SWIFT,
Recording Sccreiai >j.
(478)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 1325.
Edmonton, Alta., January 29, 1910.
Dear Sir— In reply to your favour of the 19th ult., which I have just received, I
am instructed by the unanimous vote of three or four hundred members present to
write you their hearty approval of Bill No. 21 as per copy sent us
Thanking you for the favour, I remain
Yours truly,
CHAS. BRENTWOOD,
Recording Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
611
APPENDIX No. 4
(584)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 1220.
Fernie, B.O., February 10, 1910,
Dear Sir, In reply to your communication, Bill 21 ‘An Aof
Hours of Labour on Public Work,,' I wish to infcJU ,.W Bit] waTSZf t
our local union. Hoping to live up to it in the near future. J
Yours truly,
FRANCIS H. SHAW,
Recording Secretary.
(495)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 1498,
Fort William, Ont., February 2, 1910.
Dear Sir —We the undersigned, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiner*
o America, Local 1498, of Fort William, deems it advisable for the welfare of the
workmen m general that Bill No. 21 should be enacted, as it would tend to employ
more men and alleviate the condition of the unemployed. Also that better results are
obtained from a short hour day and the cost of such contracts will not be increased. '
1 hanking you for the privilege of expressing our opinion.
Yours truly,
R. H. SOUTHCOMBE,
Recording Secretary.
(449)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 1744
Grand-Mere, Que., January 26, 1910.
(Translation)
a„swtVo“nlrtt°f CirCU'"- daW DC“mber 27’ an<>
But if it .be not too late and should our opinion on Bill No. 21 be of any u«e to
you, we unanimously declare that we are in favour of the adoption of that measure
and we suggest to your -committee the name of Mr. P. E. Blondin, M.P., fo,r Cham-
p am, m whom we repose our full confidence, as our representative for the hearing
of verbal evidence. We are also writing to Mr. Blondin in the same connection.
Your devoted servants,
GEORGE DELAGE,
Corresponding Secretary.
(448)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 83.
Halifax, N.S., January 24, 1910.
Sir, I am instructed to forward to you the following, in answer to yours of the
27th of December last.
We have many reasons for the asking of an eight-hour day.
lake for instance the progress of organized labour in securing the shorter work-
day throughout the world.
One of the most powerful trades unions in Great Britain is the Coal Miners
federation, with a membership of about 8,900, and they are enjoying the benefits of
the eight-hour day; the law establishing the same went into effect July 1, 1909.
4-39*
612
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
In Northumberland and Durham some few thousands of their men work only
from six and one-half to seven and one-half hours.
The miners of Great Britain have seventeen men from their own ranks to repre-
sent them in parliament.
We would call the attention of the special committee to the great loss of mil-
lions of dollars in the struggle for the shorter work day in the past, and would urge
upon the government the advisability of trying to avoid such large losses to indus-
try in the future.
We would also point out that all students of economics agree that the eight-hour
work day is forcing itself upon us, whether we will it or no.
Eight hours may be the objective which labour now seeks to accomplish, it does
not follow that eight hours is the ideal, or that it will be the goal of the future.
The short hour movement rests fundamentally on necessity, the constant im-
provement in machinery, and consequent displacement of labour in all lines of in-
dustry must ultimately compel us to agitate for the shorter work day, and as the
wage-earners become better educated to existing conditions, they become more deter-
mined to have greater bnefits brought about by labour saving machinery.
We desire more leisure so that our industrial life may be prolonged, and our fel-
low workmen employed.
The late Geo. E. McNeil, (often called the father of the eight-hour movement),
has said, eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, and eight hours for what you will
and it would seem an equitable division.
We further believe the government should take into favourable consideration
Bill No. 21, in the interest of the greater number of the population, and in trying to
avoid such serious losses to industry, and in setting a good example to private em-
ployers.
Just an instance in which the eight-hour day superseded the nine-hour day, and
worked successfully is the case of the Salford Iron Works of Mather & Platt located
at Manchester, England, which firm changed from the nine-hour to the eight-hour
<Jay in the year 1893.
The Bureau of Labour inquired of Messrs. Mather & Platt in May, 1904, how the
change affected their business, the reply was ‘ that in their experience, and that in
all sincerity they were benefited by the change, and would in future advocate for the
shorter work-day.’
Organized labour does not claim, in all cases, production will be as great and re-
munerative in eight hours as in nine hours, still cases contra wise can be cited.
The point to be insisted upon is not that it is profitable to the employer to have
the shorter work-day, but to point out that it is profitable to the nation and the race.
Continual fatigue is inimical to national vitality, and however it may effect
the commercial profits of the individual, it will in the end deplete the vital resources
on which national efficiency depends.
The accident bulletins of the Interstate Commerce Commission, contain frequent
records of disasters caused by the long hours that railroad employees have to work.
In a recent bulletin No. 27, two collisions are attributed to the mistakes of em-
ployees who had been on duty much longer than instinct of safety should allow.
Collision No 3, by which two were killed and thirteen injured was due to the
same cause.
Statistics show beyond dispute the benefits to all concerned in having the shorter
day.
In Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia, the eight-hour work day seems to
meet all contingencies.
Organized labour is clamouring for the shorter work day, for reasons stated
above and others of just as great a moment.
Organized bodies are supplied with statistics which prove conclusively that the
eight-hour day is a national benefit.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 613
APPENDIX No. 4
In conclusion we have tried to show how much organized labour is in favour of
Bill No. 21, and would urge the special committee to give this Bill their favourable
consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
JAS. ROSBOROUGH.
R. S.
(221)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 18.
Hamilton, Ont., January 18, 1910.
b'lR. The members of our local passed a resolution (to-night) that we endorse
and approve Bill 21, ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.’
Yours truly,
J. H. SMALL, President,
JOHNSTON McCORMACK, Rec.-Secy.
(4461
Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, No. 815.
Hamilton, January 25, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Meeting held January 24, your communication and copy of Bill 21
Re eight-hour day was placed before the members. I was instructed to inform you
that the members of the above society are strongly in favour of the Bill.
Yours respectfully,
F. H. SMITH,
Secretary.
(564)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 1946.
London, Ont., February 8, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Our local of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and J oiners heartily
endorse the Bill introduced in the House of Commons by Mr. Verville, relating to
the eight-hour day on all public works.
Yours truly,
H. G. ALFORD,
Corresponding Secretary.
(425)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 1127.
(Translation)
Montreal, Que., January 17, 1910.
Sir, — At our meeting of January 17, 1910, we received communication of your
circular concerning the hours of labour, such as provided by Bill No. 21. We concur
m all clauses of that Bill, in the hope that this legislation may he adopted by your
committee and enacted, by the House of Commons, in order to give satisfaction to the
working classes in general.
Hoping you will send us another notice. I. remain.
Yours truly,
A. CINQ-MARS,
Secretary.
614
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
<434)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 1244.
Montreal, Que., January 20, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In answer to your request regarding our views of Bill No. 21, known
as the Eight-hour Labour Day, I beg to state your communication was brought before
this local union at its regular weekly meeting, January 15, 1910, and after due consid-
eration an unanimous vote was given in its favour, with the sincere wish that the same
may speedily become law.
Yours truly,
JOHN A. HIBBINS,
Secretary.
(453)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
(Translation)
Montreal, Que., January 27, 1910.
Sir, After having taken into consideration Bill No. 21, respecting an eight-hour
day , I am instructed to inform you that the district council of the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America give their unqualified approbation to that Bill,
and request your committee to give it their sanction. Moreover, we shall endeavour
to send one or more delegates to support that Bill, should' you be kind enough to let
us know the date fixed for this debate, so as to allow us a few days for making our
preparations.
Yours truly,
JOSEPH E. BAYAED,
Secretary.
(567)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 134.
(Translation)
Montreal, Eebruary 10, 1910.
^IR, In answer to your circular, dated September 27, 1909, I beg to inform you
that after listening to the reading of Bill No. 21, ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of
Labour on Public Works,’ the Union No. 134 of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America in Montreal, unanimously adopted at the meeting of the 7th
instant, the following resolution: —
1. Whereas, for a number of years past, the working classes have demanded the
adoption of the eight-hour day and this without any result, it is the duty of the gov-
ernment to protest and to provide for the betterment of the position of the masses
who labour, to enact laws in that direction and to insure their enforcement, but above
all to set the example first.
2. Eight hours of labour should be sufficient to satisfy the needs of production in
the various industries, considering the steady progress of the means of production, the
considerable number of the out-of-works which goes on increasing from year to year
in an alarming ratio; the enormous influx of immigrants who, instead of bringing
about the development of the country, scatter through the cities and swell the num-
ber of the idle adding thereby to the difficulties already numerous enough experienced
by the workingmen in the cities, in finding the means of getting their livelihood.
3. A longer working day than an eight-hour day does not allow the workman time
for cultivating his mind and for recreation as becomes an honest citizen of a free
country.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 615
APPENDIX No. 4
4. The eight-hour day now in force in different countries has been of advantage
to the working classes, without interfering in the least with the interests of the manu-
facturers or traders. Moreover, if we consider the question from a moral standpoint,
it may be said without going outside the limits of Canada, that wherever the eight-
hour day law has been adopted, it has produced beneficial effects on our working
people.
Therefore, Union No. 134 of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America is in favour of and endorses Bill No. 21, such as drafted and introduced in
the House of Commons and wishes to see it extended to all industries. The desire
°iE0Ur mem^€rs *s ^at the committee should hear the verbal evidence that some
officers of our association might wish to give.
Believe me, sir,
Your most devoted servant,
L. LEFEBVRE,
Secretary.
(539)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 713.
Niagara Falls, February 7, 1910.
Dear Sir, In reply to your letter of January 27, will say the Bill was read to
the members of our Local Union of Carpenters and Joiners, and the principle involved
in an eight-hour work day meets with our hearty approval. The majority of our mem-
bers having worked in Niagara Falls, N.Y. and near by cities, can testify to a mutual
benefit enjoyed by both workmen and employer of an eight-hour day.
Trusting to see this Bill become law at an early date, we remain.
Yours respectfully,
J. R. MONTAGUE,
Recording Secretary.
(516)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 93.
Ottawa, February 4, 1910.
Dear Sir,— After presenting your copy of Mr. Verville’s Bill No. 21, and reading
it to Local No. 93, of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, it
was unaimously endorsed, as one step toward settling future trouble. This change
has to come one way or another, and we do not see why the contractor should com-
plain— we are paid by the hour, and every one paid the same.
We believe everybody should have work, and not have selfish feelings, and if I had
power, I would make it an example to show that eight hours’ work is profitable.
Now, the bricklayers’ and masons’ unions of Ottawa have an agreement for an
eight-hour day signed with the contractors to begin in 1911.
The carpenters’ employers of Ottawa have conceded Saturday afternoon, and
would not return to the old way.
Yours respectfully,
EMERY BEL AIR,
Recording Secretary.
616
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ho. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(518)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 38.
St. Catharines, Ont., February 5, 1910.
Sir, — Yours in reference to Bill No. 21, was duly received and laid before the mem-
bers of this local last evening, who, after discussion on the matter, heartily endorse the
provisions of the Bill and hope the same may become law without unnecessary delay.
Yours, &c.,
JAMES CARTY,
Recording Secretary.
(476)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 1160.
(Translation)
St. John, P.Q., January 27, 1910.
Sir, — After having taken into consideration Bill No. 21, read by our secretary at
the general meeting, it was unanimously resolved to ask the hon. members of the com-
mittee to recommend the Bill to the House of Commons. Pursuant to such resolution
adopted by the meeting, I do hereby convey to you, as I am authorized to do, the
expression of the wishes of the meeting.
Your humble servant,
A. D. PEPIN.
(445)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 919.
St. John, N.B., January 24, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your communication relative to Bill No. 21, ‘ An Act respecting the
Hours of Labour on Public Works,’ received; same was brought before our local union
on Wednesday last, and would say our union was unanimously in favour of the Bill,
and further request that at the earliest convenience a Bill effecting the universal eight-
hour day of Canada be introduced.
Kindly let me know when your committee meet,
Yours respectfully,
GEO. U. BREEN, '
Recording Secretary.
(420)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 730.
(Translation)
St. Sauveur, Que., January 18, 1910.
Sir. — At a meeting held this evening, attended by about fifty members, I have
been authorized to inform you that we are all favourable to Bill No. 21, respecting the
Hours of Labour on Public Works, and as you say, in the last paragraph of your circu-
lar, that you will give us notice of the date fixed for verbal evidence, if vve so desire, we
all heartily wish that you should notify us.
ALPH. RENAUD,
Secretary.
(585)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 1825.
Sault Ste. Marie, February 11, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your letter of January 27 brought before Court No. 1825 the other
evening, and I was instructed to reply to your request. This court is in accord with
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 617
APPENDIX No. 4
the Bill respecting the hours of labour. We think it is a move in the right direction.
I suppose the Bill will cover the canal staff, and we think it should, as their hours have
been too long; the men have hardly time to see their children, as they are to work
before the children are up, or they are to bed before the heads of the families get home.
Clause 3 of the Act seems to apply to work taken by the day. We think that it
should cover all contract work as well, as contractors getting work in a great many
cases do not pay the wage set by government, but pay the men what they like.
Hoping that the Bill may pass, I remain,
Yours truly,
ALEX. S. SCOTT,
President.
(458)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 171.
(Translation)
Sorel, Que., January 29, 1910.
At a special meeting of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local
Xo. 171, held at the usual meeting-room, under the presidency of Brother Joseph
Benoit aivl the officers, Alphonse Soulieres, Hector Gaboury, Francis Peloquin, Calixte
Vandal, Artistide Martineau, Pierre Bajotte, Ferdinand Arel, forming a quorum, it
was moved by Brother Pierre Bajotte, seconded by Brother Aristide Martineau, that
Bill No. 21 respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, be adopted. We are
also in favour of the eight-hour day, because long hours of labour in shops, in manufac-
turers, in stores, on railways, affect the health of the working men ; and besides, shorter
hours would give the workers greater opportunity for educational development and
would tend to make the working men better citizens, useful to their families and to
society. I remain,
Your devoted servant,
FBANCOIS LANCIAULT,
Assistant Secretary.
(470)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 1677.
Thorold, January 31, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I must say that I myself am in favour of an eight-hour day on all
works, and hope to see the Bill pass the House unanimously.
Hoping this may induce the doubtful ones, I remain.
Yours truly,
FBANK PANNEBTEB.
(473)
Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners. No. 803.
Toronto, Ont., February 1, 1910.
Dear Sir,— At our regular meeting held last night (January 31) this branch
unanimously supported the Bill No. 21 respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
Works. I remain.
Yours sincerely,
DAVID CBOMBIE,
Secretary.
618
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(638)
Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners.
Victoria, B.C., February 19, 1910.
Sir, — I have the pleasure to inform you that the above branch fully considered
your communication re Bill No. 21, at its last meeting, and heartily endorsed the
same.
NAT NICHOLSON,
Secretary.
(667)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 343.
Winnipeg, Man., March 3, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — At the last regular meeting of Local 313, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, the Bill for an eight-hour day as introduced by A.
Verville, M.P., was thoroughly discussed and approved.
I am instructed to place our views before you, and trust that you will give it your
support.
Thanking you in anticipation, I am,
Kespectfully yours,
BENNETT KOBERTSON,
Recording Secretary.
(481)
Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, No. 814.
Winnipeg, Man., January 31, 1910.
Sir, — In answer to your letter re Eight-hour Day Bill, I take this opportunity
of informing you that our society is wholly in sympathy with said Bill.
Signed in behalf of the above society.
D. McLEAN,
Secretary.
(646)
The Carpet Weavers’ Association, No. 663.
Peterborough, Ont., 26, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your letter and circular regarding the eight-hour day measure came
duly to hand, and should have replied earlier, but we did not hold our meeting till
two weeks after I received your request. The opinion of the majority is, that they do
not think the time is ripe for Canada to enact this Bill, as Canada is only a young-
country, and she needs developing; therefore it behooves each one of us to put in as
much time as we can on all public works, farms, &c. My own personal opinion is, that
every man should not work more than eight hours a day. To some the point is this: —
Eight hours’ work, eight hours’ play.
Eight hours’ rest, and three dollars a day.
Yours very truly,
THOS. A. WILLIAMS,
Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
619
APPENDIX No. 4
(429)
(Translation?16 CigamakerS’ Internatio“al Union of America, No. 58.
To the Committee on Bill No 21- Que., January 20, 1910.
% • 1 f =
lories, &nd. it exists in. many other inHnQtrioo rrv» ^
adduced against Mr Verville’s Bill The arguments whlch are now being
m ootam it trom the employers that resriction of hours
the mass *ofPtheg people^ would^pprove^f “UM ^ « *1
I have the honour to be,
T our most devoted servant,
A. GARIEPY,
Secretary.
(543)
The Cigarmakers’ International Union of America, No. 140.
St- Catharines, Ont., February 7, 1910.
of sf CntharC1 7 7trUCted ^ Local No- 140, Cigarmakers’ International Union,
desires to m 7r ?°mmi\tee that after due consideration this union
inTof M self on record as being thoroughly in accord with the present word-
the same! ^ ^ SmCerely trusts that y°ur committee will be able to approve of
Very respectfully yours,
LEO. T. COYLE,
Recording Secretary.
(556)
The Cigarmakers’ International Union of America, No. 27.
Toronto, Ont., February 8, 1910.
the Zv'fV? r6ply S y?UrL°f ;January 27> 1910> ™ Bill No. 21, an Act respecting
approves of the m] ha ?ubllc Works- The Cigarmakers’ Union, No. 27, of Toronto,
stTJ'kii^ tder it g °P d the 61ght'h0Ur P6r day kw May 1886’ and is
Yours, &c.,
J. PAMPIIILON,
Financial Secretary .
(505)
(Translation) Benefit Association of Civic Employees of Montreal.
Montreal, Que., February 2, 1910.
ir. We are in receipt of your circular, dated December 27, 1909 which onlv
reached us on January 24, ultimo, respecting Bill No. 21, introduced bv Mr Verville
sureThet6 I the hours of 1labo;ir 011 PuWic works. We would greet with great plea-
enactment of such legislation which we have been demanding for many years.
Yours truly,
HORMISDAS VALLEE,
Secretary.
620
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Cotton Spinners’ Union of St. Henri, of Montreal, No. 705.
(Translation)
St. Henri de Montreal, Que., January 26, 1910.
Sir —At our regular meeting of the 24th inst., it was moved by Mr. Gokey,
seconded by Mr. Ovide Davis, that the union should take into consideration the circu-
lar of the committee desiring to obtain our views before recommending to parliament
the enactment of any legislation affecting the hours of labour in Canada. I beg to
inform you that the motion in favour of an eight-hour law was unanimously adopted.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
PAMPHILE MARTIN,
Corresponding Secretary.
(450)
Cotton Spinners’ Union of Valleyfield, Clue., No. 1736.
Valleyfield, Que., January 27, 1910.
Sir, — Your letter of the 26tli inst., was duly received and I hasten to send you our
reply.
The views of our association were fully defined at a meeting held on the 5th inst.,
when the the Bill introduced by Mr. Yerville respecting the eight-hour day was unani-
mously endorsed. The grounds which actuated us in reaching that decision are the
following: That the government should blaze the trail and set the example in the
matter of shortening the hours of labour. -
We are asking for the introduction of the eight -hour day, because, long hours of
work in the manufactures, in shops and stores, as also on railways, affect the health
of the workingman, as evidenced in this town in which workingmen have xo work eleven
and twelve hours a day. _ . ,
We want an eight-hour day, because once that regime has been inaugurated an
put in operation for a while, the workingman will do as much work m eight hours
as he used to do in a ten-hour day.
We are in favour of an eight-hour day because we do not want to waste half our
earnings in buying stimulants to help to do our day’s work.
We are in favour of the adoption of an eight-hour day, because we want to pre-
vent enforced idleness, and we wish to allow a larger number of working people to earn
their living and that of their families.
We are in favour an the establishment of an eight-hour day, because we want
workingmen to take advantage of the educational conditions in which they may find
themselves. In this connection, let me say I am not surprised to see the opposition
offered to this Bill by the unions of employers and tradesmen, who are always .on the
look-out and no sooner does the workingman make a move with a view to bettering his
position they leave no stone unturned to thwart his efforts; but I trust that, on _ 1S
occasion they will lose their time and money and that of your committee, after having
considered the question will endorse the Bill, in the interest of the workingmen m
particular and of the public in general.
Trusting, sir, that you will be kind enough to give me notice of the date fixed tor
the hearing of the verbal evidence. I remain,
Your obedient servant,
WILFRID TESSIER,
Corresponding Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 62]
APPENDIX No. 4
(542)
Trades and Labour Council, No. 17.
Berlin, Ont., February 7, 1910.
. Bear SlR ~ 1 have been requested by the above local union to notify you that the
legislation now before parliament known as ‘ Bill No. 21/ has been heartily endorsed
end furthermore we would recommend its adoption.
Hoping the committee will report favourably on this Bill, I am.
Yours respectfully,
OTTO H. ZIMMER,
Secretary.
(408)
Trades and Labour Council.
Calgary, Alta., January 13, 1910.
Re ‘Bil1 No- 21 ’ forwarded under date December 27, 1909. The same was
aid before the above on the 13th inst., and the following resolution was passed unani-
mously :
, That this council is emphatically in favour of the passing into law of ‘Bill No.
2i, an Act respecting Hours of Labour on Public Works, and further are of opinion
it should be extended to embrace all labour throughout the Dominion. I remain.
Yours truly,
EDWIN HOWELL,
Secretary.
(568)
Building Trades Council.
Edmonton, Alta., February 2, 1910.
Dear Sir, This council has received a copy of your comunication re Bill No. 21,
and in answer I am instructed to say that as union men we want all government works
carried out under conditions similar to those in the particular district in which the
works happen to be; that is, hours of labour and rate of wages. But in no case do we
wish the hours of labour to be more than eight hours per day.
Yours faithfully,
W. R. EASTWOOD,
Secretary.
(435)
Halifax District Trades and Labour Council.
Halifax, N.S., January 21, 1910.
Special Committee on Eight-hour Day Bill,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Gentlemen, — In reply to your letter of December 27, in which you request us to
give our views on the eight-hour day question now before the House of Commons, we
would respectfully submit the following for your favourable consideration.
We respectfully urge upon your committee the necessity of favourably considering
this Bill for many reasons.
The working people of the world are unanimous in asking for a shorter work day,
the toilers of all countries agree in working for an international eight-hour day.
In England, Scotland, Australia, America and throughout Europe, the workers
are forcing this knowledge upon the legislatures whether willing or not.
622
COMMITTEE RE BILL A7o. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
This desire for shorter working hours is due mainly to a want for an opportunity
to enjoy some of the good things so abundantly provided for man, a desire which if
gratified would mean that the increased leisure would be devoted to pursuits most bene-
ficial to the toilers, and the natural result of this movement would be to benefit the
country generally.
Many instances could be quoted here showing the great good achieved when many
industries were placed on an eight-hour basis, but it would be only repeating what
your committee already know. It suffices to say that cases where it has worked out
to the disadvantage of industry are extremely rare, and statistics show clearly that the
operation of an eight -hour law in countries that have legislated in this direction have
greatly benefited the workers concerned, and in no case has there been an attempt made
to go back to the old conditions.
We have been told by some that they believe in the principle of the eight-hour day,
but are opposed to us getting it through our parliaments, they suggesting that we
utilize our trade unions for that purpose.
This argument can find no real support in political economy. If the economic
effect is injurious to industry, what does it matter which way we secure it, the effect
being just the same whether secured by the trade union or by legislation?
The trades union has only two methods to use — by industrial warfare (strike), or
by mutual agreement with the employer, and judging by its past history would have to
resort to the strike in its efforts to gain the shorter day.
The history of some of the eight-hour day strikes is still fresh in our memories,
and when we recall all the misery entailed, the millions of dollars spent and paralyzing
effect these strikes have had in the industries affected, and viewing the success attained
by the workers in this direction, it is reasonable to believe that the only sane way of
dealing with this question is through legislation.
The economists the world over unite in agreeing that the eight-hour c\ay is coming,
whether we like it or not, and it looks like a wise policy for our government to adopt
this measure in anticipation of this coming condition.
Some have advanced the argument that the government has no precedent to inter-
fere with the hours of labour, that that is a matter to be adjusted by workmen and em-
ployer, but when we look at the factories legislation of the world, we find that this pre-
cedent was established many years ago when the British government first regulated the
hours of labour in factories, the legislation applying to both male and female workers.
The government showed by the passing of the Fair Wage Acts that they were
desirous of protecting even their nominal employees from imposition by the con-
tractors, and this proposed Bill is just carrying same principle a little further making
sure that direct employees would be working under good conditions and extending the
protecting arm of the government to those who may be employed by contractors carry-
ing out public contracts.
We believe all Dominion work should be performed under ideal conditions, thereby
showing to the private employer an example worthy of emulation.
It is essentially the duty of any government to regulate industry and prescribe
remedies for any industrial ills that may exist and if the country can be benefited by
prescribing shorter hours then it is their duty to do so.
Objection has been raised against this Bill, alleging that it is so vague and indefi-
nite that it will apply to the most minute contracts thereby causing endless confusion.
This objection is not based on sound logic and is only a mere matter of detail, and does
not in any degree affect the principle, as the Bill can be amended to carry out its
import just the same as other bills.
Both political parties have repeatedly told us, ‘Let the working classes declare
their wants, and we will be only too pleased to do what we can to carry them out/
We have declared in no uncertain manner our wants in this direction, and as the pres-
ent and past history of our trade union movement clearly shows, we have worked along
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
623
APPENDIX No. 4
of <>" hours, always believing ,ha. that
■Uyona^iirbdSjSi^a.i'^1’1’"^ “ l"'EI"B your ooumiitfec to report favonr-
ciation of thfneoessnv of toV, ? ■“■d° 80 'vo“ wi!1 be ^”8 »" record your appre-
— t by patU^riatXtEr ™"n‘ “*icipa‘“* tbi*
TVe have the honour to remain.
Yours truly,
harry c. low.
Secretary.
(404)
Hamilton Building Trades Council.
Hamilton, Ont., January 14, 1910.
Rear Sir— lour letter received inclosing copy of Bill No 21 and In „ 0
o^ithour day^l'he113- T I'T COunci\heartily ^dorses the establishment of "an
• .. „ yi , y instructed me to call your attention, however, to the fact that
day infacfl ^ C°UnCil °nly W°rk f°ur hours 0n Satur-
uay , m iact l may say all the building trades.
Trusting this will be satisfactory, I remain,
Yours truly,
WM. BROWN,
Secretary.
(426)
Hamilton Trades and Labour Council.
Hamilton, Ont., January 19, 1910.
Of D“e27atvitinamed COimCiI>gS,t0. acknowled^ the receipt of your letter
follows:- g 311 expressi0n of on Bill No. 21, and beg to reply as
2 mw It '1 kea!+tily in fav0lir of the provisions contained therein.
. Ihat the benefits accruing to the workers through the shortening of the wm-V
the ope^ou of the eight-hour' % t ££&
s~s:
4. The prophecies of disastrous results which the employers in the chm,0 + u
• most invariably expressed when negotiations for sh„Z kgfte VoA-day we”' Z,
ZZllZ “ ‘hiS »- *. ‘o dfseovZSnZeaiTS S
more5 fr™n.Z'riere )n, *hiS °ity h“ been tb»‘ “^atrial accidents have been
equent m the factories and industries operating nine and ten and +woi
624
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. %1— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
6. The best mechanics will naturally try to secure employment where the best
conditions prevail, and the quality of the work performed under t le s or er wor
day may reasonably be expected higher. The government is interested m obtain-
ing the highest possible quality of workmanship on its contracts.
7. The shortening of the work-day is being recognized as an effective aid in com-
bating the ravages of tuberculosis, which disease claims such a large percentage of
working people. Statistics supplied by cigarmakers union show the death rate trom
this cause has decreased from 51 per cent to 20 per cent from 1888 to 1905. A large
measure of credit for the decrease is given by their statisticians to the shortening ot
the work-day. The experience of other trade unions in their death and disability
claims departments have been similar. .
8. This council endorses the proyisions contained in Bill No. 21 m belief that
they will make for better health of the workers, higher efficiency, better quality ot
products, a decrease in the number of industrial accidents and little, it any actual
financial loss to employers who may be required to alter their working schedules.
Youns respectfully,
0.. I. AITCHISON, President
W. R. ROLLO, Secretary.
(416)
Kingston Trades and Labour Council.
Kingston, January 18, 1910.
Dear Sir,— Your favour of the 27th December, 1909, came duly to hand and
contents noted. In reply would say that the Trade and Labour Council of Kingston
representing all the trade unions of said city unanimously endorse Bill No. 21, and
pray that your Honourable committee will recommend that said Bill will be made a
law. Yours truly,
W. J. DRISCOLL,
Secretary.
(410)
Lethbridge Trades and Labour Council.
Lethbridge, Alberta, J anuary 10, 1910.
Dear S.R.-I am instructed by the Lethbridge Trades and Ubour Co^cii to
send you copy of resolution adopted at our last meeting respecting Bill No. 21,
thanking you for your kind endeavours,
I remain yours,
B. PIPES,
Secretary.
Copy of resolution passed at regular session Trades and Labour Council.
Resolved that Bill No. 21 received from Y. Cloutlner, Clerk ot Committee, b
accepted and rider be added to the above resolution suggesting that the
nnion scale of wages he included in the Bill.
COMMITTEE RE BILL Eo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 625
APPENDIX No. 4
(440)
The National Central Trades and Labour Council of Montreal.
(Translation.)
Montreal, January 23, 1910.
^ ^he last meeting of this council, we took into consideration Bill No.
21, respecting the hours of labour on public works, and after discussing the matter,
it was moved that the council should endorse this Bill as being favourable to the.
interests of the labouring men and the motion carried.
Yours truly,
GEORGES LESAGE,
Secretary.
(464)
Port Arthur Trades and Labour Council.
Port Arthur, Ont., January 31, 1910.
Dear Sir, The Trades and Labour Council of Port Arthur having discussed
the Bin respecting the hours of labour on public works, passed an unanimous reso-
lution heartily endorsing the same.
I remain,
Youns faithfully,
FREDERICK URRY.
(423)
Quebec and Levis Trades and Labour Council.
Quebec, January 18, 1910.
Dear Sir, — We acknowledge receipt of yours dated December 28, 1909, Re copy
of Bill No. 21, ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, and beg
to inform you that the Federated Trades and Labour Council of Quebec and Levis,
is in favour of the Bill as presented by Mr. A. Verville, M.P., for Maisonneuve, and
we regret the action taken by some corporations of this city against this Bill.
Yours truly,
M. WALSH,
Secretary Trades and Labour Councils of Quebec and Levis.
(438)
Regina Trades and Labour Council.
Regina, Saskatchewan, January 18, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Replying to your request for the opinion of the Regina Trades and
Labour Council, Re Bill No. 21 an ‘ Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
Works.’ I have been instructed by the Regina Trades and Labour Council to say
that they are emphatically in favour of the eight-hour day. The demand for an
eight-hour day was advocated by King Alfred more than 1,000 yeans ago. Thomas
Moore in his classic ‘ Utopia,’ preached the doctrine in the reign of Henry YIII and
during the centuries since, it has been looked for, asked for, fought for, but we
'have not got it yet. High wages and shorter hours. Why certainly. Common
sense declares and experience proves that men will do more and better work when
there is an incentive to do so. It is also a fact that men will do more work as a rule
where there is a prospect of an early cessation from toil than when they are doomed
4—40
626
COMMITTEE RE BILL 1Y0. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
to long hours of continuous employment. Evidence in support of the contention for
an eight-hour day is too voluminous to he transmitted by letter, so I again repeat
that the Regina Trades and Labour Council wishes to endorse this Bill most em-
phatically.
Yours sincerely,
WM. E. COCKS,
Secretary.
(424)
Revelstoke Trades and Labour Council.
Revelstoke B.C., January 15, 1910.
Dear Sir,— I am instructed to notify you that this council is entirely in ac-
cord with the eight-hour day Bill as presented by Mr. Verville. We are of the opin-
ion that eight hours of one day is sufficiently long for men to labour at any kind
of work, and would wish to see the Bill carried further, to an universal eight-hour
day if possible, but as it stands we would support this Bill, and urge the Committee
to give it a favourable and earnest recommendation.
I remain,
Eaithfully yours,
PHIL. CARTER,
Secretary.
(413)
District Trades and Labour Council of St. Catharines.
St. Catharines, Ont., January 17, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I am instructed by the District Trades and Labour Council of St.
Catharines to state that we are thoroughly in accord with Bill No. 21, as it now
reads, and we have further instructed our committee to interview the member for
Lincoln 'with a view to having him support the same when it comes before the
House.
Very truly yours,
LEO T. COYLE,
'Recording Secretary.
(430)
Sydney Trades and Labour Council.
Sydney, C.B., January 19, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your circular of the 27th in reference to Bill No. 21 was dealt
with at our council meeting of the 14th January. After consideration I was in-
structed to inform you that we endorse the Bill as presented by Mr. Verville in its
entirety. We believe that such legislation is in the best interests of the wage-earn-
efrs, and that the government of Canada should be the pioneers of a general eight-
hour workday by adopting this measure on all public works. I remain,
Yours sincerely,
H. GREGORY,
Secretary ,
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21-HOURS OF LABOUR
627
APPENDIX No. 4
(412)
Federated Council of the Building Trades.
Toronto, Ont., January 17, 1910.
un bvEtW9S!Ro1m^lUrretter °f De,cember 27> 1909> is received, and the matter taken
h , ? L 1 may Say tbe trades affiliated with this council, all have the
turd]v°thi7r°o kda4’ t brougbt about V the different organizations. Na-
B- 'yn S C0Unc+1,1 Str011gly ^dorses the objects of the Bill and sincerely trust the
S !he woZr SUPP°rt °f a]1 Wh° have the matter t0 deal witb in the interests
Yours respectfully,
WI. NETTLESIIIP,
Recording Secretary.
(433)
Vancouver Building Trades Council.
Vancouver, B.C., January 15, 1910.
Dear Sir— Your communication of December 27, 1909, has been received to-
Bveew? a 3°?? ^ Elght-houi\ Bil1- The matter was taken up by our execu-
tive board, and they m turn reported to our building trades council, who have in-
structed me to reply, that we are in hearty accord with clauses one and two of the
Bra !tae of “clause' \htet" °f 'he WOTd ‘‘ls0>’ thc "0rd ‘sha11’ 1,1 the
This Act shall ‘ also ’ apply to, &c.
We are not quite clear as to what means will be provided, for bringing to the
attention of the government any violations of the conditions of this Act. Will it
be made the duty of some government official to see that the conditions of the Act
are kept inviolate?
It would not at all times serve the purpose to leave it to the workmen employed
on the works, to complain, for various reasons. Unless they were required by law
DO /CIO SO.
We had hoped to see the government enact an eight-hour law long since, and
we trust, this Act will become law at this session of parliament.
Hoping this will be of some assistance to your honourable committee,
I am
Yours sincerely,
GEO. W. WILLIAMS,
Secretary.
(405)
Vancouver Trades and Labour Council.
Vancouver, B.O., January 11, 1910.
Dear Sir,— In compliance with your communication relative to the proposed
introduction of an eight-hour Bill in the House of Commons, I am instructed to ad-
vise you :
That at the last regular meeting of the Vancouver Trades and Labour Council
the matter was taken up in committee and discussed at some length.
With clauses 1 and 2 the members of the council are in hearty accord. Clause
3 may be all right from a ‘ legal ’ standpoint, but we suggest that the insertion of
the word ‘ also,’ ‘ This Act shall “ also ” apply to/ &c.
4 — 40J
628
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Before further committing ourselves to the measure we should like some in-
formation as to the penalty clauses for non-enforcement of the provisions of the pro-
posed Act. Of course the contractor would lose the contract, but that is not hard
and fast enough. Who will take the initiative to see that the Act is enforced ? Will
there be a fair-wage officer in each province? Under no circumstances allow it to
become a repetition of the alleged Alien Labour Law, through having no means of
enforcement within reach of the employees.
This proposed Act should be paissed and become law at the coming session ; it
should have been enacted long ago.
I am,
Yours sincerely,
R. P. PETTEPIECE,
General Secretary.
(441)
Victoria Trades and Labour Council.
Victoria, B.C., January 18, 1910.
Sir, — My letter Re Bill No. 21 and dated the 17th inst., was inadvertently for-
warded with certain typographical errors that might affect the subject matter of
same. By this I am forwarding a corrected copy of the original and ask you to put
this in its place, as conveying the correct expression. Regretting the oversight in the
first instance and thanking you for your compliance with my request,
I have the honour to be, sir.
Sincerely yours,
CHRISTIAN SIVERTZ,
Corresponding Secretary.
(442)
(Corrected copy referred to in above.)
Victoria, B.C., January 17, 1910.
Sir,— I have the honour to state that your communication of the 27th Decem-
ber last has, by the direction of the Trades and Labour Council, been referred to me
for reply, respecting said Bill No. 21.
This council endorses the Bill as it stands, both in spirit and letter, with the
following provisions inserted in form of amendments thereto : —
(a) Should it be found that the parliament of Canada has no authority to pass
legislation that would oblige persons contracting to do the whole or a part of any
work contemplated by any contract to which the government of Canada is a party,
to establish an eight-hour day in all works controlled by said person, and to extend
such eight-hour day to every person in his or her employ, on the ground that legis-
lation affecting hours of labour in private industries, lies wholly within the powers
of the provinces, and such legislation would therefore constitute an encroachment on
provincial autonomy.
Then, in the opinion of this council, the Bill should be so amended as to limit
the operation of same to the work actually contracted for.
(b) In the case of articles of manufacture or commodities of any kind entering
into and necessary for the carrying out or completing any work carried on or un-
dertaken by the government, whether by day labour or contract, and provided such
articles of manufacture or commodities are not produced in the Dominion of Can-
ada, thereby necessitating their importation from British or foreign countries where
parliament has no jurisdiction, then the Bill should be so amended as to permit the
use of such articles or commodities without any regard to the hours of labour by
which they were produced.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
629
APPENDIX No. 4
i
The above modifications of the Bill in 'Question are conceded, conditional on it
being found that without them the Bill, if passed into an Act of parliament, would
be hampered in its operations, or perhaps rendered unworkable altogether, and while
this council is emphatically, consistently, and persistently in favour of a universal
w orkday of not more than eight hours, yet, in case the powers of parliament are limit-
ed m this instance, the council will accept the Bill, with the above suggested amend-
ments as a substantial instalment towards that sum total of a general reduction in
the hours of toil of the workers that will make it possible for them to enjoy a larger
measure of happiness, and which would ensure to their children a brighter future
than is possible now, or has been in the past.
Respecting possible or real objections to the measure, other than those noted
above, I wish to observe that the economic questions involved in such objections re-
quire greater time and space for their proper consideration than is at my disposal
at this time, but shall content myself by pointing out the following respecting the
primary factors of production, namely land and labour.
Land or the natural resources is the passive fact or in production from which
all wealth is produced by the application of labour, which is the active factor in
production.. That part of wealth represented in machinery, buildings, transporta-
tion facilities, &c., and which is used in production, is the instrument in the hands
of labour by which production is facilitated. It is because of labour’s active force
that all machinery, &c., is produced, and its value as well as that of the natural re-
sources is created. It obviously follows then, that all wealth is produced by labour
applied to land, labour being assisted by that part of its production which consists
of machinery , &e. It is equally plain then that all wealth belongs of right to, and
should be enjojed by labour. I he private ownership of the natural resources and
machinery, which, in many cases, are inseparable, makes the realization of that
measure of simple justice impossible, as the interests involved in such private owner-
ship are irreconcilable with, and diametrically opposed to the interests of labour. In
fact the private ownership of natural resources and machinery is only sought, be-
cause it confers power to levy on production, which as has been pointed out, is the
result of labour’s active force being applied to natural resources.
Such being the facts concerning the conditions under which production is car-
ried on, and wealth is created at the present time, it is not a matter of surprise to
find determined opposition, emanating, mostly, from owners, private owners of na-
tural resources and machinery of production, directed against a measure of the char-
acter of Bill No. 21, a measure that has for its object to make labour stronger in
its continuous battle for its right against vested interests, fortified behind private
ownership in the means of production, and in the means of life.
Opposition to this Bill, for commercial reasons, is pathetic to behold and cruel
in its intent. It sets commercial gain above the rights and the happiness of human-
ity. We want a Dominion-wide workday of not more than eight-hours. We claim
our right to it, and take this opportunity to impress on parliament, through your com-
mittee, that the day and hour is now at hand for that body, as the representatives of
the workers, on whose shoulders rests the burden of toil, by whose brain and muscles
the wheels of industry are kept moving, and in whose keeping the future of our
country rests, to respond to the demands of labour and to deal with the measure
under consideration so as to bring to the workers of the land the largest benefit, thus
putting human life and rights above commercial considerations.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
CHRISTIAN SIVERTZ,
Corresponding Secretary.
630
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(444)
j ' Windsor Trades and Labour Council.
Windsor, Ont., January 24, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Will you kindly convey to the hon. members of your committee, the
Windsor Trades and Labour Council’s endorsation of Bill No. 21, affecting the
hours of labour on public works.
Yours respectfully,
LEWIS J. WILBER,
Secretary.
(666)
International Union of Steam Engineers, No 398.
Belleville, Ont., March 7, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I received your letter February 10, and as our local union only meets
once a month could not give you early reply.
Your letter was brought before our meeting, and all voted unanimously for Bill
No. 21 to be passed.
Yours truly,
BURTON KITCHESON,
Recording Secretary.
(589)
National Association of Marine Engineers of Canada, No. 13.
Dartmouth, N.S., February 15, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Yours of the 8th instant at hand, and noted, and would say in reply
that the officers and members of Council No. 13, N.A. of M.E. of Canada, are in
favour of the proposed Bill No. 21, ‘An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on
Public Works/ and trust that the same may become law and enforced throughout the
Dominion of Canada.
I remain, yours respectfully,
CHAS. E. PEARCE,
Secretary -Treasurer.
(570)
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, No. 243.
Port William, Ont., February 3, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In reply to your letter of January 27, I have been informed by
Division No. 243, B.L.E., that it would be impossible for their representative to give
a verbal statement regarding Bill No. 21, but the said division wishes you to place on
record their unanimous support of the Bill.
Yours truly,
A. J. CAMPBELL,
Legislative Representative.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
631
APPENDIX No. 4’
(41^) Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Engineers. No. 14.
Halifax, N.S., January 17, 1910.
Dear Sir -I received your letter of December 27 with reference to Bill 21 ‘ An
Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.’ I may say that we are in
hearty sympathy with the movement and we will discuss the question at our next
monthly meeting. Our regular meeting nights are the third Friday in the month It
will come on the same date as your committee meeting. If our grand president is in
Ottawa on the date of the verbal evidence, he may give his views on the subject.
Yours respectfully,
A. E. SIMMONS,
Secretary.
<586)
International Union of Steam Engineers, No. 404.
Kingston, Ont., February 12, 1910.
®IR' ^-°ur letter of February 10, to hand, and as our meeting was past, I went
and saw the engineers, and their views are in favour of Bill No. 21, as some of them
work nine hours, some ten, some thirteen and some eleven per day, without any recom-
pense for extra hours, also work all day Sundays without pay. We as a whole favour
set hours. Hoping this is satisfactory.
I remain yours,
(485)
W. A. MILNE,
Recording Secretary.
National Association of Marine Engineers of Canada, No. 4.
Kingston, Ont., February 2, 1910.
Dear Sir,— Your letter of January 27 instant, with a copy of Bill regarding the
hours of labour on government contracts I received.
I read it before our last meeting, when it was unanimously agreed to be all right
in every particular and receives our hearty support. We have a membership of 125.
Yours truly,
JAMES GILLIE,
Secretary.
(443)
National Association of Marine Engineers of Canada, No. 5.
(Translation.)
Lachine, P.Q., January 24, 1910.
Sir— I beg to inform you that the Council No. 5 of the National Association of
Marine Engineers of Canada, at a regular meeting held on the 20th inst., took into
its most serious consideration Bill No. 21, ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour
on Public Works.’ The members present at the assembly having given expression to
their opinion on that important matter, it was moved and resolved without a dis-
sentient voice:
That the Council No. 5 of the National Association of Marine Engineers is in
favour of the adoption of Bill No. 21 and that copy of this resolution be forwarded
to the proper authorities.
Hoping that you will receive a satisfactory report from the whole association,
I remain, sir.
Your obedient servant,
D. LECLAIRE,
Secretary.
632 COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(639)
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, No. 750.
Lethbridge, Alberta, February 18, 1910.
Dear Sir,— Received copy of Bill No. 21, Us Hours of Labour on Public Yorks
and I have been instructed to say that it meets the approval of this division of the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. Thanking you for the consideration you have
shown in forwarding this copy.
Yours truly,
JAMES W ALLWORK,
Secretary.
(610)
National Association of Marine Engineers of Canada, No 12.
Midland, Ont., February 24, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your communication of the 10th inst., received by this council of
the National Association of Marine Engineers and duly considered. After discus-
sing the matter at one of our meetings I am to inform you in reply, that we wish to
be put on record as being in accordance with the object in view of Bill No. 21.
But with the number of hours specified in the Bill (8) we do not unanimously
agree. Some of our members take the standpoint that if the hours of organized
labour be fixed at eight hours work in any calendar day, it will necessitate a corres-
ponding reduction in wages or else a corresponding advance in prices of manufactur-
ed articles and all products of skilled labour. For my own personal ideas on the
subject I must say that I fail to see wherein in any way the said Bill is going to
affect us either as engineers, individually, or as an association of engineers, col-
lectively. We have, as a general rule, to put in twelve hours every twenty-four
hours and often eighteen and twenty or twenty-four hours per calendar day, without
any extra compensation for such overtime. In fact we have never asked for it al-
though I think there should be some regulation to control the hours of labour for
seamen especially stokers and deckhands, &c. Under the present system in vogue in
marine circles, if a mate or assistant engineer of a ship, wants to work the men sub-
ordinate to him all day and all might too, the men have no option, but to do so or to
seek elsewhere for employment, unless, as it sometimes occurs, the master or the
chief engineer, as the case may call for, intervenes in the favour of the men. It is
time that some well disposed member was bringing in a Bill to remedy a few of
‘ Jack Tans’ grievances too. Well, sir, in conclusion I can only repeat that we are
in favour of the object of the Bill, but we also are of the opinion, partially, that the
hours specified should be (if extended to all classes of labour at any time) changed
to nine hours instead of eight as we who, working for a living, have to depend upon
what we earn, cannot expect to get ‘ long wages for short hours,’ if we do, we must
expect to have to pay more for the necessaries of life which we consume and where
will there be anything gained. There 13 always a limit to all things and although
organization in labour has many good and worthy points it cannot afford to kill the
‘ goose that lays the golden egg.’ Thanking you for your kindness in giving us, an
opportunity to express our views upon this subject, I beg to remain,
Your obedient servant,
JOHN A. MURPHY,
Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOUR* OF LABOUR
633
APPENDIX No. 4
(622)
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.
Moose jaw, Sask., January 16, 1910.
?EAiSlR,_lYTrTletter ? BiU No- 21 ^as come before the legislative board of
the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, province of Saskatchewan, and has been
will Taf by ^ D°.mimon board which meets in Ottawa in March, and they
will take up the matter at that meeting. With best regards for success, I remain.
Yours truly,
JOHN McALLISTEK,
Secretary.
(454)
International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, No 689
Montreal, January 25, 1910.
Dear Sm,--In reply to your letter of December 27, regarding Bill 21 which was
z?z:zs^r r'r,? D,"h'wn «*■ », i
you that the members of this division are in favour of Bill 21 being passed.
I am, yours truly,
JOHN WILLIAMS.
(521)
Canadian Association of Stationary Engineers, No. 7.
Ottawa, February 7, 1910.
Dear Sir,-I am instructed by Ottawa No. 7, Canadian Association of Stationary
lgmeeis, to write you acknowledging receipt of your letter, together with a copy of
the proposed Act respecting the hours of labour on all public works, and to thank
you for the consideration you have shown us in sending us a copy of the nronosed
Act, and inviting discussion in favour of or against the Act. And further that we
regret that under the constitution of which we hold our charter we feel restrained
from entering into discussion of the subject. You will note the preamble of our con-
stitution at heading of this sheet.
While I regret personally that our association feels debarred from taking any
part in a question that there is so much to be said for and against it, yet I wiil
always feel indebted for any report or information you may send me and will follow
its progress with interest.
Yours truly,
E. J. MERRILL,
Recording Secretary.
(500)
National Association of Marine Engineers of Canada, No. 10.
Owen Sound, Ont., February 3, 1910.
^Dear Sir,— In answer to yours of January 27, I am instructed by the members
of Council No. 10, National Association of Marine Engineers of Canada, that we are
not in accord with an eight-hour day on government contract work, unless the eight-
hour day were applied to all classes of labour generally throughout the Dominion of
Canada.
Signed on behalf of Council No. 10, N.A. of M. E., Owen Sound.
E. J. RILEY,
Recording Secretary.
634
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(475) Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, No. 368.
Quebec, January 15, 1910.
Sir, — I am in receipt of your letter of the 27th December, with Bill 21 respecting
the Hours of Labour on Public Works.
I read your letter to my fellow-members, at our last meeting, of the 10th inst.,
and it was an unanimous concert of congratulations for the government and for the
promoter of the Bill, who is Mr. Yerville, I think. No doubt the workingmen, in
general will owe a debt of gratitude to the members of parliament who support and
vote in favour of that legislation. We shall keep a good watch and see whether
those men who, on the hustings, when the elections are on proclaim themselves the
champions of the workingmen, are going to take the same attitude on the floor of
the House of Commons, when the Bill in question comes up for its third reading.
I trust that the Bill will not meet too many objections and that it will pass. Un-
doubtedly it was the duty of the Dominion government to take initiations of such
a measure, in the best interests of the labouring classes in general. Therefore, on
behalf of my fellow-members, I wish to offer my best thanks to those who are will-
ing to contribute to the adoption of a Bill which all workingmen, I am sure, are
anxious to see enacted.
You are no doubt a workingman yourself or at least you are exerting yourself
to the utmost to promote the interests of the labouring classes. Let me tell you that
I was delighted to read, this morning in ‘ La Presse,’ that the hon. Minister of
Labour had just given notice that he would bring down a Bill to provide for the
investigation of combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers which may enhance prices
or restrict competition to the detriment of consumers. For many years past the
workingmen have been longing for such a legislation, and we say that it is high
time to attend to it, for, should the cost of living go on increasing, we shall certainly
see very regrettable conflicts arising in this country. The meagre salary which the
workingman receives for the work performed has become altogether inadequate to
the needs of his family and he can no longer provide for the education of his chil-
dren, when they reach the age of fourteen or fifteen, and so boys and girls have to
go and swell the masses who work in the manufactures. Really, there are a great
many fathers who had dreamed of more brilliant prospects for their children. In
the last ten years the cost of living, broadly speaking, has increased about 100 per
cent while the increase in wages has been almost insignificant. What will become
of us, if that is going to last? Yes, let us by all means have that investigation into
the existence of combines and we hope that it will result in remedying the existing
evils. It is a matter of sincere gratification for us to know that the Minister of
Labour is attending to the question. Whenever Hon. W. L. McKenzie King under-
takes something, he is always sure to make it a success.
Pardon me for writing at such length. I should not have done so perhaps, but,
really, when the interests of the workingmen, of my fellow-workers is at stake I have
so much to say that I do not know where to stop. I hope you will pardon me, in con-
sideration of the good cause
Believe me, sir.
ALFRED BEAUDRY,
Secretary.
(565) Amalgamated Society of Engineers, No. 664.
St. Thomas, Ont., February 8, 1910.
Dear Sir, — At a meeting of this branch, it was agreed, that we heartily en-
dorse the principles of Bill No. 21, re an eight-hour day.
Yours faithfully.
GEO. CREBER,
Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL Vo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
635
APPENDIX No. 4
(629)
International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. No. 67.
Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., February 12, 1910.
Dear Sir, Your letter of January 27 inclosing copy of Bill No 21 which W
sL'ZTyZ, zz?zz Sr in 7i:
Respectfully yours,
A. C. WAGNER,
(487)
Amalgamted Society of Engineers, No. 674.
Stratford, Ont., February 3, 1910.
SlR^—At 0Ur Aguiar meeting of Stratford branch of the above society
your letter and inclosed copy of Act respecting labour on public works in Canada’
wa, read to the members present, and I was directed to write to you and say that th v
were all m favour of the proposed legislation. 7 * they
I am, sir, yours truly,
WILLIAM BELL,
Secretary.
(523)
National Association of Marine Engineers, Council No. 1.
Toronto, February 7, 1910
A at our regular meeting on the 3rd instant. The members of Council N T
nTedTnVd ?V°Ur 1 ^ 6unaCtment °f ***** AtK toaW
will h i ud+ 1 amj mstructed t0 advise you that the marine engineers of Toronto
w!winSl an/ assistance or furnish any information in their possession
i e pleased to hear from you should you require further advice in the matter.
Yours truly,
E. A. PRINCE,
Secretary.
<432)
Amalgamated Society of Engineers.
Vancouver, B.C., January 13, 1910.
on Publi7wUI 1>tt6r an<i C°P7u°f BiU 21, ‘ An Act resPecting the Hours of Labour
Public Vy orks, received and brought up at the branch meeting of the above society
JZraT2e« Unamrr^' m fav°Ur °f an eight'hour day and think it would be a
great benefit to pass Bill m its entirety.
Many members expressed their views of the benefits that would be derived from
tne passing of such legislation, for instance : —
636
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
1. It would be one step to the solution of the unemployed, this great question of
the unemployed at the present time is a source of trouble to every nation and country
and the sooner Canada faces the question and deals with it, so much the better.
2. To work eight hours at the speed men are asked to work to-day, is long enough ;
if the hours per day are longer, the men can’t keep up that pace, their body and brain
get tired, consequently lack of interest in work performed, which means the best
results are not obtained.
3. The competition at the present time is so great that our best and only our best
can find sale on the markets, and in order to get our best an eight-hour working day
is long enough, not only for contracts in which the government of Canada is a party,
but for work of all description.
4. By a vote of the people last Thursday at the municipal election of \ ancouver
an eight-hour day for nine-hours pay was passed by a very large majority for all muni-
cipal contracts.
Hoping to deal with this vital question at a future date,
We remain, yours respectfully,
- EDGAR R. SMITH,
President.
R. H. ARMSTRONG,
Vice-President.
J. BRAIDWOOD,
Secretary.
(648)
International Union of Steam Engineers, No. 356.
Local Union No. 356,
Toronto, February 27,
1910.
Dear Sir, — In answer to your communication of February 18, re An Act re-
specting the Hours of Labour on Public Works,’ I beg to inform you that we called
a special meeting to discuss the contents of your communication, and also Bill 21,
and to be brief, we could come to no other conclusion than to unanimously indorse
the whole sentiment of the Bill. I am instructed to inform you that should the Bill
become law, we will do all that lays in our power to help the government to enforce
the law. We believe an eight-hour day would be the means of employing men who
are now idle.
I remain, sir, your obedient servant,
JOHN HART,
Pecordina Secretary.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen.
Island City Lodge No. 69,
Brockville, Ont., February 12, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Referring to your communication of January 27, would say I have
laid this matter before the lodge, and have been instructed to notify you that we have
a representative, Mr. \V . J. Dowell, in Ottawa at the present time attending pailia
ment, and he will be pleased to give you any information in his power re Bill No. 21
and the views of our brotherhood.
Thanking you for your courtesy in asking our ideas on this matter,
Sincerely yours,
FRED. C. RACE,
Becording Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
637
APPENDIX No. 4
(624)
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen.
Sandstone City Lodge No. 635,
Calgary, Alta., February 17, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Yours of December 27, 1909, with Bill No. 21, ‘An Act respecting
the Hours of Labour on Public Works,’ inclosed received, and was read at our last
regular meeting. I have been instructed to inform you that this lodge heartily ap-
proves of the contents of the above-named Bill.
I remain sir, yours respectfully,
IL. N. LUKES,
Recording Secretary.
(488) Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, No. 321.
Chapleau, Ont., February 3, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Referring to your favour of January 27, 1910, regarding Bill No. 21,
‘An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works/ I have been authorized
by the members of Snowdrift Lodge, 321, B. of L. F. & E., to inform you we are
heartily in favour of the passage of said Bill No. 21, as we believe it is a step in the
right direction in the interests of those concerned and affected,
I am, yours respectfully,
WM. L. BEST,
Chairman Local Board.
(503) Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen.
Buffalo Range Lodge No. 521,
Moosejaw, Sask., February 2, 1910.
Sir, — Your communication, dated December 27, 1909, has been placed before the
members of the above lodge, and I am directed to acknowledge receipt of same and
beg to inform you that our wishes in the matter have been communicated to our duly
appointed legislative representative at Ottawa.
Yours truly,
GEO. HALL,
Secretary.
(569) Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen.
Wellington Lodge No. 181,
Palmerston, Ont., February 5, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In reply to your letter of January 27, re Bill 21, I beg to state that
this matter will be looked after by our representative.
Yours truly,
ALEX. DUNBAR.
(623) Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen.
Gold Range Lodge No. 341,
Revelstoke, B.C., February 17, 1910.
We, the undersigned, representing the said labour orders, highly approve of the
passing of this Bill.
JOSEPH CALLIN,
B. of L. F. & E. Legal Representative.
S. IL STINGLEY,
B. of L. E. Secretary-Treasurer.
638
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
(554)
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen.
Sydney Lodge No. 329,
. Sydney, N.S., February 5, 1910.
Dear Sir, — On behalf of the officers and members of Sydney Lodge No. 329, B.
of L. F. and E., I will say that we approve of an eight-hour work day. If Bill No.
21, now before you for consideration is workable in its present form, we would like
to see it become law. Failing this we would urge the government to make the experi-
ment of establishing an eight-hour day without any reduction of wages on all public
works under their control.
Believing that such legislation will conserve the best interest of the wage-earners,
we again urge that the same be granted without any further vexatious delay.
Yours truly,
JNO. B. STEWAKT,
Secretary.
(632)
Fishermen’s Union, No. 15.
Port Morien, N.S., February 22, 1910.
Dear Sir, — You will excuse me for not writing before, but we did not meet until
the 20th instant. Now I am writing out station’s views, when I say that we are all
in favour of eight hours. At our meeting it was moved and seconded to be all left
in my hands, but I wanted to draw out a resolution and they said if you did not
believe me they would not believe the stations. Also, I would like to say a few words
about an article I saw in the Coast Guard about Mr. Mackenzie King wishing the
Minister of Marine to do away with the Canneries License Act. Now if the govern-
ment would only do that it would be a great help down here to the fishermen’s unions
and also the individual members, and if there is any word you could put in to help
Mr. King’s good work please do so. We fishermen are oppressed with the laws of the
government down here. Good-bye, and at any time you will find me.
T remain,
FEED. PEACH,
Secretary.
(512)
Fishermen’s Union, No. 15.
Port Morien, N.S., February 3, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your letter to hand and contents noted. We the officers and mem-
bers of station No. 15 do heartily endorse the views of said Act and think it is badly
needed according to the way labour is used here at Port Morien our labourers have to
stand ten (10) hours per day at the hardest kind of work mixing cement all day
long for the small sum of $1.50 per day and carpenters and mechanics and engineers
for the -sum of $1.75. I think it is ridiculous, and I hope your committee will do
its utmost to have it put in force. Now, my dear sir, our station meets again on
next Saturday, the twentieth of February and if you should wish a set of resolutions
from our station please let me know at once and we will be only too willing to give
you any information at any time.
Yours truly.
FEED. PEACH,
Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
639
APPENDIX No. 4
(551)
Fishermen’s Union, No. 27.
UANSO, N.S., February 5, 1910.
97 Sl1^ ~~We undersigned members of the executive committee of station No.
7 Fishermens Lmon of Nova Scotia think favourably of Bill No. 21, ‘An Act
respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works,’ providing such Act when passed
will not decrease the earning power of labourers engaged on public works beyond
being '"performed ^ in each trade in the where the work is
WILLIAM SHRADER,
Vice President,
HAVLOCK HORTON,
JOHN PREMULKAY,
PATRICK RYAN,
ALEXANDER KEATING,
tfiio'i — _ . , Secretary.
Fishermen’s Union, No. 23.
Sambro, N.S., February 16, 1910.
Sir,— We the Fishermen’s Union Station 23 of Sambro having carefully
read and considered your letter and the Bill No. 21 referring to the Act respecting
parliament forYegisTatKn. ^ KU 21 be recommended to
We think that it will be most suitable in every way especially to the working
men employed on government contracts and also that the country in general will
thdr’ have it "e aEai" ^ ‘° "* ,h“ *he SP<ioi,1 ~ iH“ d'>
Your obedient servant,
MARK L. NICKERSON,
Secretary.
(62°) Gas Workers’ (Stokers’) Union, No. 9.
New Edinburgh, Ottawa, February 19, 1910.
f\T rec.e*ve<^ y°ur kttcr of the 10th inst. As regards the views of this union
,, °‘ / ’ resPOcting the eight-hour working day. We are all unanimously agreed
that eight hours for a working day is sufficient, although at present we work 72
hours one week, and S4 hours the following week, and sincerely hope that this eight-
hour working day Bill will be passed by the government.
Yours obediently,
(534)
Amalgamated Glass Workers International
H. BUSHEL,
Vice President.
Association of America.
Toronto, February 5, 1910.
Sir,— In reference to Bill No. 21, ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on
Public Works.’ I put the same before the members of the above local at our last
meeting Friday February 4, 1910, and I am pleased to state that the members are
for the tBill in every respect.
Yours truly,
T. DOWNS,
Secretary.
640
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(407)
National Brotherhood of Tanners, Curriers and Leather Dressers.
Quebec, January 12, 1910.
(Translation)
Gentlemen, — We have received your communication in reference to the Ver-
ville Bill (No. 21), asking us to give our opinion on the matter. I am authorized by
the association to convey to you the assurance that the members are very anxious to
see this Bill passed by parliament and that we approve of it, on behalf of the wThole
working community of which our association form's a component part, and as such
we are entitled to some small share of consideration at the hands of the government.
I remain,
Your obedient servant,
JOSEPH DION,
Corresponding Secretary.
(522)
International United Brotherhood of Leather Workers, No. 93.
Toronto, February 5, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your letter and Bill at hand and contents noted. Will say that
Local No. 93 Leather Workers on Horse Goods thought it best to have one of our
officers give verbal evidence, so Local No. 93, have appointed one of its members to
be present at your fixed meeting. The members will be our president, Bro. Geo. Ship-
man.
Yours truly,
C. COULTON.
(533)
International United Brotherhood of Leather Workers, No. 118.
Victoria, B.C., February 1, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Yours of recent date received and contents noted. In reply would
say that our association is in every way in accord with Bill No. 21 — that is for an
eight-hour day — and in the coming summer our craft will make a general demand on
all employers from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that is in the United States and Can-
ada. Am sending you one of our trade journals.
Meanwhile, I remain,
Yours very truly,
JOHN McKENZIE,
Secretary-Treasurer.
(457)
Federated Association of Letter Carriers.
Branch 11, Calgary, Alta., January 28, 1910.
Sir,— Your circular letter, dated December 27, 1909, with inclosure, addressed to
our late secretary, T. J. Pratt, reached Calgary this morning.
In reply. I beg to state that my association is in full sympathy with the proposed
measure, which has its cordial support. It is sincerely hoped that the Bill will
include mail carriers within its meaning.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
G. F. TANNER,
Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
641
APPENDIX No. 4
(600)
Federated Association of Letter Carriers.
Victoria, B.C., February 7, 1910.
Sir,— I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your communication of
December 27 1909 in reference to Bill No. 21, and copy of same inclosed.
„ The Vl.Ct°na branch of the Federated Association of Letter Carriers of the
Dominion of Canada at their regular meeting on the 4th instant, instructed me to
effect’— y°Ur reqUeSt f°r expressi011 of views on 'said Bill No. 21, to the following
As an organization of workers and a component part of the organized labour
movement of this wide Dominion, we endorse the Bill, in so far as it may be instru-
mental m securing and extending an eight-hour work-day to the greatest possible
number of bread-winners and toilers, and we wish it to affect and extend to the greatest
number ot trades and callings as well as to the most varied and diversified branches
ot industry.
. are ftdly aware of our position as public servants and our obligations and
duties as suph. We realize to the fullest extent the many considerate provisions that
parliament, on the recommendations of the honourable the Postmaster General, has
approved from time to time securing us in our employment and removing us, as a
class of workers, from the terrible struggle for employment and living that obtains
m the industrial world, where the fear of poverty, as the result of enforced idleness,
acts as a suspended sword over the heads of those who are not already deprived of all
ambitions to preserve their self respect and manhood. We appreciate the advan-
tageous position we occupy as workers and bread-winners. But the labour move-
ment is our movement. It not only has our sympathy and entire approval, on gen-
eral principle, but we endorse, in detail, the conscious efforts the organized workers
are making, with the object of securing improved conditions of employment for the
toiling masses. We regard Bill No. 21 as an expression of one of the most impor-
tant planks in the platform of principles on which the labour movement stands. In
connection with this we feel constrained to admit that had it not been for the gen-
eral standard of wages, &c., created by the material gains and victories achieved by
and through the co-operative efforts of organized workingmen in the different in-
dustries, the Postmaster General would undoubtedly have experienced difficulty in
convincing parliament of the justice of the several measures brought down and pro-
posed by himself and his immediate predecessor in office for the material comfort
and well-being of the letter carriers.
We are further cognizant of the fact that we are of the working class and while
fortunately relieved by virtue of our position of the more trying experience that is
the daily lot of our fellow brethren and citizens, some or any of us may, through
causes over which we have no control, have to return to the ranks where we came
from, and be obliged to fight and strive in a glutted labour market for such existence
as a person having passed the prime of life may obtain in open competition with his
fellow men.
But the most important phase of this question remains to be considered. The
one and the only side of the question that has induced us to avail ourselves of the
opportunity given by your courtesy in inviting an expression of our views on the
question involved in the Bill is the question of our children. How will this Bill, if
implemented into a statute, affect our children? Will their lives be brighter and hap-
pier for it? Will it increase their opportunities for physical and mental develop-
ment? These and other questions have suggested themselves to us in considering
this measure. The reply is in the affirmative.
By passing the Bill into an Act, with such amendments as are or may be found
necessary to ensure its greatest efficiency, the great object being to minimize Lhe
4 41
642
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
oppressive industrial conditions that affect the working class in an ever-increasing
degree, parliament will have anticipated a great and insistent demand in the near
future.
We therefore endorse Bill No. 21.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Sincerely yours,
CHRISTIAN SIYERTZ,
Secretary.
(661)
International Association of Machinists, No. 357.
Calgary, Alta., March 3, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your letter of February 21, to hand re Bill No. 21, An Act respect-
ing theUTours of Labour on Public Works.’ I beg to state this was brought up
again at a meeting of the Machinists February 28, and that as a body we are heartily
in favour of an eight-hour day on public works. We consider that in proportion as
opportunity is given to men ofi every class to improve their social and intellectual
natures, it will result in proportionately good citizens. Ignorance is neither virtuous,
nor does it tend to virtue, and the state will benefit both in the present and future
generation. In extending the intelligence and uprightness of her people.
We would like to suggest that a clause be inserted to the effect that ‘ Workmen
being employed by the contractors be guaranteed all wages due them up to the can-
cellation of any contract.’
Sincerely yours,
ALFRED SADLER,
Financial Secretary.
International Association of Machinists, No. 115.
McAdam, N.B., February 2, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I am in receipt of your circular letter of the 27th ult., re Bill No.
21, respecting Hours of Labour and have Tead same to the machinists’ local here.
I am now instructed to inform you that we stand as a unit for the passing of
same, as we consider that it will not only benefit the workingman but the employer
as well. .
We consider that the time has now arrived when this government should rise
equal to the occasion, and considering the improved machinery now in use and the
output so much more than formerly, an eight-hour day is absolutely necessary.
Trusting that the committee can see its way clear to recommend same, I remain,
Yours very truly,
W. A. BURNS,
Recording Secretary.
International Association of Machinists.
Moncton, N.B., February 25, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I beg leave to acknowledge receipt of your communication of some
few days ago, re the eight-hour Bill. I beg to state that all the lodges affiliated with
this district heartily endorse the Bill. We would be pleased to learn on what date
the committee will take verbal evidence.
Respectfully yours,
L. F. WALLACE,
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
643
APPENDIX No. 4
(579)
International Association of Machinists.
North Bay, Ont., February lo, 1910.
Dear Sir,— At our regular meeting last night your letter of January 27 1910
and also Bill No. .21, re An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works’
was read before he lodge and it was moved and carried unanimously, that al! the
members of the lodge would give all those who are Irvin- to not th* Tini u
it “s? ™ ai1 th"k th»‘ “ *• « th!;“ if
y looking after the interest of the workingman. We are all looking forward to
the time when the eight-hour day shall be a standard working day all over the country
rom coast to coast and we look to the government to help us and those who are not
on government work to get the eight-hour day. It gives a workingman a little more
ime for ^creation, and those who are married more time at home with their families.
makes a man feel as if he did not have to keep his nose on the grindstone all the
time and it also gives the good wives at home a little more time in the evening.
Ve, the members of the I. A. of M., are trying to get the eight-hour day system
all over North America; it is our aim, and we all look forward to the day when it
will come We aSk our government to help us get it and ten-hours’ pay, and it will
theaLgarun.W 1 ^ 7 ^ tradeS’ ^ the employers wil1 “°t lose in
I am, yours truly,
P. W. FISK,
Recording Secretary.
(428)
(Translation.)
National Brotherhood of Machinists Boot and Shoe Workers of Quebec.
Quebec, January 19, 1910.
letter is to certify that we absolutely indorse the arguments put for-
ward by Mr. Alphonse Yerville, the member for Maisonneuve, in favour of Bill No
21, respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, and that we are in favour of
the passage of an Act based on that Bill.
Believe me, your most obedient servant,
EUG. BEKNABD,
Corresponding Secretary.
(455)
(Translation.)
International Association of Machinists.
Temiscouata Lodge No. 656,
Biviere du Loup, P.Q., January 28, 1910.
At a special meeting of this court, held yesterday, January 27, it was unanimously
resolved that the members of this court approve of Bill No. 21, introduced in the
Dominion parliament under the title of, ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on
Public Works.’
One of the grounds upon which rests this approval is that a workingman engaged
in mechanical operations can produce as much in an eight-hour day as he can by
working ten hours a day, while experiencing less fatigue and having more time to
devote to his meals and to family life.
4— 41*
; if u
u
644
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
The Intercolonial, for which we work, has found by experience last year, that the
same amount of work could be accomplished by the same men in eight hours as in
ten. *
JOS. TURGEON,
Corresponding Secretary.
(605)
International Association of Machinists.
Pioneer Lodge No. 103,
Stratford, Ont., February 15, 1910.
Sir, — Your circular re Bill 21 was received a few days ago and discussed at our
regular meeting, February 14. Our officers and members all agreed that the Bill^ in
its entirety was a grand thing and a committee report of later date will be yiankfully
received.
Your obedient servant,
ARTHUR F. MILLER,
Recording Secretary.
(511)
International Association of Machinists.
Wellington Lodge No. 723,
Winnipeg, Man., February 3, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I am in receipt of your communication of the 27th referring to Bill
No. 21. In reply I beg to state that Lodge No. 723 unanimously decided, ‘ That we
fully endorse your resolution and are most desirous of seeing such a Bill passed.’
You will grant us a favour by notifying us of later evidence.
Respectfully yours,
E. J. BOOKER,
Recording Secretary.
(496) International Association of Machinists.
Fort Garry Lodge, No. 189,
Winnipeg, Man., February 2, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I have been instructed by the above lodge to say that we as a body
unanimously endorse the eight-hour work day and will watch with interest to see the
Bill pass the House.
Respectfully yours,
E. P. STRANG,
Recording Secretary.
(591) American Federation of Labour.
Machinists'1 Helpers'’ Union, No. 12799.
Fort William, Ont., February 10, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I can assure you that we are unanimously in favour of the Eight-
Hour Day Bill. I do not think it really worth while writing you on this Bill, for I
think that the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association will have it squashed if they
have not already done so. I will be greatly obliged if you will notify me of the date
when the Bill will be again brought up.
I am, yours truly,
JAMES MALONEY,
Secretary-Treasurer.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 64f
APPENDIX No. 4
(651)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
Ashcroft, B.C., February 25, 1910.
Dear Sir,— Your letter of December 29, 1909, to hand, referring to Bill No. 21,
re Hours of Labour on Public Works. I am requested by Ashcroft Lodge. No. 210,
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Ways, that we are in favour of the Bill
and as a body agree to support it, hoping that it will pass the House of Commons.
Yours respectfully,
D. T. H. SHTHEELAND,
Secretary-Treasurer.
(681)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
Bunclody, Man., March 31, 1910.
Dear Sir,— In behalf of the members of Wilson lodge 579 Maintenance of Way
employees we ask you to do all in your power to have this eight-hour Bill pass and be-
come law. We feel satisfied that a man can do as much in eight as in ten hours. I
have tried it on the railroad. The United States has an eight-hour day for all gov-
ernment work and if it is a success we don’t see why it will not work here.
Yours respectfully,
CHAS. COTTEK,
Secretary.
(642)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
Caledon, February 24, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In reply to yours re the eight-hour day Bill. Our next, meeting of
the Brotherhood of International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
will be held in Orangeville, March 2th, and I will take your letter and we will dis-
cuss it at the meeting. I have mentioned it to quite a number of our members
and they seem to think the eight-hour day would be all right if it would not affect the
wages, although eight hours a day is enough for the wages we receive.
Yours truly,
T. SCAELAND.
(643)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, No. 70.
Cutler, Ont., February 25, 1910
Dear Sir, — In answering your letter of the 10th, in regard to the eight-hour day
labour Bill, we have talked the matter over at our meeting, and decided to not
favour the same, as we prefer more help, and better wages.
Yours truly,
N. LANDEIAULT,
Secretary.
646
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
(697)
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
Cutler, Ont., April 4, 1910.
Dear Sir, — We held a meeting Marach 26, and we have talked over Bill No. 21.
If the government pass this Bill it would be a good thing in some trades, but we
railroaders have a schedule agreement with the company for ten hours a day and it
would not make any difference to us, until there would be a new schedule. It would
be much easier on the men so long as the wages were not reduced as they are low
enough now.
Tours truly,
W. McCAETEY.
(693)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, No. 3.
Englehart, Ont., March 30, 1910.
Dear Sir, — A meeting was held on Sunday March 27, 1910, of Lodge No. 3,
Englehart, and I put before the lodge the proposition of an eight-hour day Bill, after
consideration the members were all in favour of the Bill.
Hoping this will meet with your approval,
I remain.
Yours most respectfully,
S. G. NHDDS,
Secretary and Treasurer.
(612)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, No. 136.
Finch, Ont., February 17, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Yours of February 16, to hand and contents noted. Will read
yours at our next meeting. Also would be pleased to know of date of meeting of
verbal hearing later on.
Yours truly,
A. SEAL,
Secretary and Treasurer.
(695)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
Fort William, Ont., April 1, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I beg to write you in reference to the Eight-Hour Bill on government
work introduced by Mr. Alphonse Verville, M.P. I may say that Division No. 128,
I. B. M. of W. E., have discussed the matter and passed a resolution in favour of the
Bill becoming law. The general opinion expressed in its favour was that the working-
man has not sufficient time after working ten hours a day for leisure, improvement or
recreation, and the little time they have after working hours could be better described
as periods of exhaustion. As the day, generally speaking, commences about 6 a.m.,
and does not end until 7 p.m. or later, taking thirteen to fourteen hours to get in a
work day of ten hours. Further, it is generally acknowledged that as much work
could be accomplished on an eight-hour basis as on a ten.
Trusting the Bill will receive favourable consideration,
I remain yours, very respectfully,
ALBEET EOWE,
Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
647
APPENDIX No. 4
(701)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, No. 323.
Hanlan, Man., April 14, 1910.
Dear Sir— We, the members of Lodge 323, International Brotherhood of Main-
tenance and Way Employees, have been informed that there is about to be a Bill
brought before^ the House calling for an eight-hour day on all government work.
We consider this is a step in the right direction, as we think that eight hours is suffi-
cient for any labouring man to perform in one day. Several reasons can be given.
Firstly, they will be able to give better service and show better results from their
labour, and give better satisfaction all around to their employers. Secondly, we con-
sider when an employee has worked eight hours strenuously that he is entitled to the
rest o-f the day for leisure and looking after his or her interests. Therefore, we would
ask that all efforts be made to have this Bill passed, and you will have the hearty
support of all members by so doing.
Yours sincerely,
J. A. CAMPBELL,
Secretary.
(684)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, No. 136.
Humboldt, Sask., March 12, 1910.
We, the members of Humboldt Lodge, No. 350, of the I.B.M.W.E., employed on
the Canadian Northern Railway, in session assembled, March 12, 1910, unanimously
passed the following resolution supporting Bill No. 21 : —
‘Resolved, That this lodge approves of A. Yerville’s Eight-Hour Bill, as practical
men engaged in manual labour all the year round. We are of the opinion, that as
much work can be done in the eight hours as there could be accomplished in the ten.
Therefore, it would be in the best interests of the working classes, and we trust
that you will do your utmost to bring the Bill through, and that it will soon become a
Dominion law.’
Signed on behalf of the lodge,
J. H. D. DOHRMANN,
President.
D. BLACKBURN,
Secretary-Treasurer.
(691)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, No. 322.
La Broquerie, Man., March 23, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Our lodge at its last regular meeting had under discussion the eight-
hour question and adopted the following resolution: —
Whereas, We fully realize the importance of having the number of hours for
a man’s work reduced to a reasonable length, so as to give the working class time for
recreation and education, and
Whereas, Eight-hours should constitute a day’s work for all kinds of govern-
ment work done,
Be it resolved, That we most heartily recommend and endorse the Bill affecting
same, which is introduced in the House by Mr. Alphonse Yerville, and earnestly
beg for its passing, and that it be placed on the statutes.
Yours very truly,
F. FINNSON,
Secretary Treasurer.
648
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
(489)
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
Langenburg, Sask., January 31, 1910.
Sir, — Received your letter of the 27th of December. I wish to inform you that
this lodge has brought this question up several times, and they are all agreed that
the government of Canada ought to enact a law for an eight-hour day whether it is
done by contract or not as stated in Bill (1).
Also that it should be enforced in some such a way as stated in section (2).
Tours respectfully,
H. SCOTT,
Secretary.
(699)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
Mahone Bay, N.S., April 11, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In answer to a letter of our Grand President, Mr. A. B. Lowe, St.
Louis, I would like to make the following statement concerning the eight-hour sys-
tem. We talked the matter over among our brothers and we are all of the opinion,
that a man who works at this kind of work, would do more, orj at least just as much
in eight hours, than in ten, because, if working eight hours a day, he would be a
better man the day following, and would be able to do a day’s work every day of the
week. In the other case he would be played out before the end of the week and con-
sequently would not be able to do a day’s work. We believe, that it would be in the
interest of the employers also, if this Bill were passed, as men would be more willing
and more cheerful in doing their work.
We hope that you may be successful and remain, with kind regards,
Respectfully yours,
HANS. SCHULTZ.
(668)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
Mattawa, Ont., March 8, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In reply to yours of Wednesday, July 16, 1910, re Bill No. 21, it is
the wish of North Bay Lodge No. 244, International Brotherhood of Maintenance of
Way Employees, that said Bill be passed, as we consider eight hours sufficient for a
day’s labour.
Yours respectfully,
D. C. WILSON.
(696)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
Morden, Man., April 2, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Re your communication in regard to Bill No. 21 now before the
House of Commons. I laid this matter before the lodge at our meeting held here on
March 19, with the following result: —
‘ Resolved that the eight-hour day as proposed in Bill 21 now before the House
of Commons is a step in the right direction, but in the opinion of this lodge, it
should include all railroad work in Canada that is done by day labour.’
Yours truly,
EMERY MOTT,
Secretary Treasurer.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
649
APPENDIX No. 4
(690)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
Ottawa, Ont., March 29, 1910.
By a vote of members of Ottawa Lodge of International Brotherhood of Main-
tenance of Way Employees, in support of the Verville Bill, to make an eight-hour
day, it was decided unanimously to give the said Bill our utmost support.
WM. ROBERTS,
Presiden t,
JOSEPH MARTEL,
Secretary.
(676)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, No. 217.
Coldwater Junction, Muskoka, March 11, 1910.
Dear Sir, I have a letter to hand from Brother A. B. Lowe in regard to eight-
hour a day s work we have brought this before a number of members and officers of
our lodge and they all approve of an eight-hour day system. In this way a man
with more rest would be able to start fresher in the morning and would be able to
do more in the same time, as the life would not be worked out of him.
Yours truly.
J. W. BONE,
Secretary Treasurer.
(688)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
Portage La Prairie, Man., March 23, 1910.
Dear Sir, — At a meeting of the local protective board of the central division
C.P.R. system, International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees held in
the city of Winnipeg last week, due consideration was given to the present eight-
hour Bill now before the parliament of Canada, asking that eight hours be a day’s
work on all government works. The above board is composed of representatives
from twelve lodges of our order, representing about (800) eight hundred employees
of the C.P. Ry. Company. Each representative was in a position to know that the
members composing their lodges were strongly in favour that our government
should pass and make law an eight-hour day on all government work. Moreover our
people owuld be in favour of an eight-hour day being made universal in Canada.
Our reason for favouring the Bill is that we know from experience that as much
work would be accomplished, as our people would come fresher to work in the morn-
ing and go home fresher at the end of their day’s work, which would be a vast im-
provement mentally, physically, and socially to our people.
A motion was unanimously carried instructing me to write you and advise that
we are strongly in favour of the above Bill being made law, and give you our
reasons why we believe it should (as above).
Assuring you of our strongest support in regard to the above Bill being made
law. I beg to remain dear sir,
Yours truly,
GEO. SEAL,.
Secretary.
650
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
' 9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(678) International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
Shediac Road, N.B., March 14, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I am in receipt of a letter from A. B. Lowe, Grand President of
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, referring to a Bill
that Mr. Alphonse Verville, M.P., is about to bring before parliament, aspiring for
an eight-hour day on all government works, and wished my lodge to take some action
on said Bill, and report to you. I have done so, and I find that they are in favour
pf an eight-hour day. For myself I have not thought much about it; it might
work all right in some works, and in others it will not, so far as I can see. I re-
main, Yours truly,
W. K. POWELL,
(657) Secretary.
(Translation.)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
Salmon Lake, P.Q., March 2, 1910.
Sir, — We, the undersigned members of Court 92 of the Brotherhood of Main-
tenance of Way Employees, respectfully set forth that, after having considered Bill
No. 21, respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, we have come to the con-
clusion that an able-bodied workingman will do the same amount of work in eight
hours as he will do in a ten-hour day.
That is why we are in favour of the Bill.
THOMAS PELLETIER,
francis McMullen,
THOMAS LEVESQUE,
PAUL GENDRON,
EUGENE LEVESQUE,
F. MIGNEAULT,
LIONEL HARVEY,
E. LEGACE,
JOSEPH BERUBE,
ZENON GENDRON,
GEORGE B. MARTIN,
ALPHONSE ST. LAURENT,
H. DUBE,
JOSEPH LEVESQUE,
P. DASTOUS,
A. BERGER,
G. GALLANT,
D. GAMACHE,
JOS. POITRAS,
T. BEAULIEU,
W. FOURNIER,
EUSEBE PELLETIER,
DAVID DAMOUR,
JOS. POIRIER,
WILLIAM ROY,
PHILIBERT POIRIER,
ARTHUR POIRIER,
ERNEST DECHENES,
JOHN PINEAULT,
ALFRED COUTURE,
JOSEPH LAFERTE.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
651
APPENDIX No. 4
(669)
(Translation.)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
St. Jerome, P.Q., March 9, 1910.
. haTe ^ecyived a letter from the president of the International Brother-
hood. Brother A. B. Lowe, directing me to write to you about Bill No. 21, respecting
the eight-hour day which Mr. Verville has lately introduced in the House of Commons.
I have already written to you on the matter. I brought the question before the mem-
ers o our lodge. They all approve of the Bill, provided the railway companies do
not cut off two hours pay a day. Bor here, on our division, the wages are so small
that the lather of a family with several children could hardly provide for the wants
of his family. Those are the only reasons we have to give, but all would be delighted
to see the Bill passed by the House.
Believe me, your obedient servant,
A. E. GOUDREAU,
Secretary Treasurer.
(635)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
St. Louis, Mo., February 22, 1910.
Dear Sir, A copy of the eight-hour day Bill and of a letter sent to the secretary
of our lodge at Medicine Hat has been forwarded to me.
T can, however, speak confidently for all our people, members of the organization
in Canada, that they all heartily approve of the principal of the eight-hour day and
believe that in our heavy work in the maintenance of way department of the dif-
ferent railways we could do as much in an eight-hour day as in a ten. I have been
engaged in track work almost all my life and have often put the matter to a practi-
cal test.
I have written to Mr. Coeburn to say that I would instruct Messrs. Verville and
Smith, two ex-presidents of the Dominion Trades and Labour Council with which we
are affiliated, to support the measure in behalf of the members of our organization in
Canada.. I may add that I, myself, am a citizen of Canada, our organization being
international and my comrades having paid me the compliment of electing me to the
presidency some three years ago.
Trusting that the commission which the Minister of Labour has asked for may
bring in abundant evidence to justify the passing of the Act making an eight-hour
day a legal one on all government work, thus setting a splendid example to other
employers of labour, I am.
Yours sincerely,
. A. B. LOWE,
President.
(653)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
St. Louis, Mo., February 28, 1910.
Dear Sir, Yours of the 25th to hand and contents noted. As I promised, I have
written to Messrs. Verville and Smith, authorizing them to support the eight-hour
Bill on behalf of our good Canadian brothers. We believe, as I said before, as much
652
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
work could be done in our department, which is hard and heavy, and we have the
heat of summer and the cold of winter to contend with, as in the ten-hour day.
With best wishes for the progress of the measure, I am,
Yours sincerely,
A. B. LOWE,
President.
(679)
(Translation.)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
St. Tite, P.Q., March 16, 1910.
Dear Sir, — We have received a letter from the executive of the Internationa]
Brotherhood informing that Mr. Verville, M.P., the labour representative was about
to introduce an eight-hour day Bill in the House. We are all in favour of the pro-,
posed Bill. Will you kindly advise us as to our action in the matter. We are all
sectionmen, maintenance of way labourers, and belong to the Laurentian Lodge No.
456, on the Quebec-Canadian Northern Division.
I remain ,sir,
Yours faithfully,
O. DUCHEMIN,
President,
JOS. BEOUILLET,
Secretary.
(687)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, No. 399.
Sutherland, Sask., March 21, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I received a copy of Bill No. 21, now before the House, also a notice
from our Grand President, Bro. Lowe, concerning this Bill, asking me to bring it
before the lodge. I did so, and it was received with approval, each and every one
considered it was to the advantage of the working man although not directly affecting
us at present. We trust if this Bill is carried in the House it will have a tendency
to make the railroads come to terms with the men, and give them shorter hours.
Trusting the Bill will meet the approval of the House, I remain your servant,
ALEX. D. BAIRD,
Secretary-Treasurer.
(689)
(Translation.)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, No. 232.
Thurso, P.Q., March 24, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I am in receipt of your letter respecting the hours of labour. I have
to apologize for not having replied sooner to your letter. As you told us in your
circular that the committee would meet on March 2. I am afraid my letter will reach
you too late. I was away when your letter reached here, but we have had a meeting
of our lodge and our members are favourable to an eight-hour law, but they do not
want a shorter day, it the result would reduce their earnings.
Please give us notice, as you say in your letter, and oblige.
Yours truly,
O. PELLETIER,
Secretary-Treasurer.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
653
APPENDIX No. 4
(603)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, No. 262.
Udney, Ont., February 14, 1910.
Dear Sir,— I feel inclined to answer this letter to me in behalf of my brethern
and myself I might say I have been talking to some of the members, and we come
to the conclusion that a ten-hour day is none too long for us and as long as the
officials of our road use us as well as they have done in the past, there is no reason
to ask for such a Bill to be forced on them. It means a decrease in our wages, which
are none too large, and we could not expect anything else. If such a Bill is' passed
we will abide by it. At least if we get an increase through the union which is among
us. We will feel much pleased and satisfied to work the ten-hour day if we could
have a five o’clock quit on Saturday night.
E. E. GIVENS,
Secretary-Treasurer.
(694)
Udney, Ont., February 14, 1910.
Vancouver Lodge, No. 167,
Vancouver, B.C., March 26, 1910.
Dear Sir, A letter was received from our president respecting an Eight-Hour
Bill as intioduced in the parliament of Canada, and was read at our last meeting. I
was requested by our lodge to write to you that we are in favour of an Eight-Hour
Bill and that we are sure our employers would not lose by it, as we are positive that
as much work could be done in eight hours as we do at the present in ten ; also, that
it would be a boon to the working community in general. Trusting that the Bill
will meet with the success it deserves,
I remain, yours truly,
C. A. COMBEE,
Secretary-Treasurer.
(477)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, No. 373.
Wetaskiwin, Alta., January 29, 1910.
Dear Sir, — An acknowledgment of yours, dated Monday, December 27, 1909
which I have just received. I am sorry to say I cannot bring this before the mem-
bers of this lodge, as we have no meeting in sight, but personally I may say in con-
nection with the eight-hour day that we have been trying or asking for an eight -hour
day for some time, but of course we have to try and keep up our wages at the same
time, as I don’t think our labourers could live according to the cost of living at
present, at fifteen or seventeen cents an hour for eight hours a day, as they have to
be more than careful to live at that now in this Northwest country.
I am safe to say for the officers and members of this society that we would be all
pleased to see the eight hour labour day if wages were satisfactory.
Yours truly,
WM. MILTON,
Secre tary -Treasurer.
654
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(673)
International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, No. 535.
Wolfville, N.S., March 10, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In re Mr. Alphonse Yerville’s Bill asking the parliament of Canada
to make eight hours a legal working day for all government work, allow me to say
that at a meeting of Kentville Lodge, No. 535, recently held, the membership com-
prising 57 names, were unanimously in favour of the passage of the Bill, believing
that as much and better work can be accomplished in an eight-hour day as in a ten-
hour day. Also, that it would be as advantageous to employers as to employees, and
not only so, but that it would be well to have the Bill amended so as to include all
departments of day labour throughout the Dominion of Canada, whether a corporation
or an individual employer.
Personally, I wish the Bill every success whether in its present form or as it may
be amended.
Yours respectfully,
GEO. W. ABBOTT,
Secretary-Treasurer.
(593) .
Metal Polishers’ Union of North America, No. 21.
Toronto, Eebruary 12, 1910.
Dear Sir,- — Your letter to hand re the recommendation of Bill 21. I wish to state
that our meeting happened to be on February 9, and according to your letter, it . being
too late for a written report. I trust that you will send due notice of the date for
verbal evidence to be taken. Hoping you will meet with every success, I am,
Yours &c.,
WALTER DRISCOLL,
Recording Secretary.
(621)
Metal Trades Council.
Toronto, February 19, 1910.
Sir, — Regarding Bill 21 before House of Commons, our council heartily indorses
it. Excuse lateness of reply as we did not meet until the 18th instant.
Respectfully yours,
JAMES HIGGINS,
Secretary.
(619)
United Mine Workers of America, No. 2162.
Blairmore, Alte., Eebruary 17, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Our organization fully appreciated Bill 21 as drafted. Should any
public works be carried on underground, we would approve of the principle of the
eight hours from bank to bank applying in such cases.
Yours truly,
GEORGE KELLY,
Secretary-Treasurer.
655
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
APPENDIX No. 4
(552)
United Mine Workers of America.
Bridgeport Local, No. 739,
Bridgeport, N.S., February 5, 1910.
Sir— We, the undersigned committee on behalf of above local (containing 235
members), do heartily indorse the action of the committee in endeavouring to pass
an Eight-Hour Day Bill. And further would like to see said Bill rigidly enforced
throughout the whole of Canada.
Tours obediently,
DAN. McISAAC,
JAMES COLWELL,
peter McMillan,
ALF. BRENCHLEY,
NEIL CAMPBELL,
Committee.
(460)
Western Federation of Miners, No. 746.
Cobalt, Ont., January 31, 1910.
Dear Sir,— We are in receipt of your favour of the 27th instant requesting that
we, as a labour organization, express our views in regard to ‘ An Act respecting the
Hours of Labour on Public Works.’ This matter received the most careful consider-
ation at the hands of our membership in regular meeting, and I may state briefly
that the proposed measure was unanimously endorsed as a necessary and commendable
one.
At the same time, however, we must say that it falls very far short of being per-
fect or complete, because it fails to include the mining industry on the eight-hour
basis. No class of workers are in a stronger need of short hours than the miners.
This organization, I might add, has a measure, which calls for an eight-hour day, in
the hands of the member for this riding of Temiskaming (Mr. R. T. Shillington),
and have received from him a promise of support.
Thanking you for giving us an opportunity of discussing the measure, and
sincerely hoping it will come to a successful issue.
I remain, yours sincerely,
ALBERT NAP. GAUTHIER,
Secretary.
(403)
United Mine Workers of America, No. 950.
Dominion, No. 4, January 12, 1910.
Sir, — Your communication of December 27 received and read to the local union.
I am authorized to state in reply that the members of our local union are unanimous
in their support of Bill 21, respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.
Respectfully yours,
ALEX. J. CURRIE,
President.
R. J. McNEIL,
Secretary.
656
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(462)
United Mine Workers of America.
Gladstone Local, No. 2314,
Fernie, B.C., January 25, 1910.
Sir, — I may say the Gladstone local union (comprising nearly 1,000 members) '
endorses and supports the Bill as fas as it goes, but that we say and most emphati-
cally too, that the Bill does not go far enough. We feel that the Bill should provide
an universal eight-hour day. We would be prepared to give a Bill of that description
all the support we possibly could.
We sincerely trust that the passing of this Bill No. 21 will hasten the day when
the eight-hour day will be recognized universally.
I am, yours sincerely,
DAVID BEES,
Secretary.
(480) United Mine Workers of America.
Frank Local, No. 1263,
Frank, Alta., January 31, 1910.
Sir, — I beg to acknowledge receipt of your communication re Bill No. 21, also
Bill. I may say the same was read and discussed and this local heartily approves of
any action taken to shorten the hours of labour. We consider it is a great step to-
wards getting rid of the great unemployment question.
Yours sincerely,
GEO. NICOL,
Secretary.
(641)
United Mine Workers of America, No. 695.
Glace Bay, C.B., February 24, 1910.
Sir, — With reference to your letter of 27th ultimo, respecting our views on Bill
No. 21, now before the committee, we beg to reply that we are in hearty accord with
the provisions of the Bill, for the following reasons: —
1. We believe and urge that the time has arrived for a uniform eight-hours’ day
in every class of work where physical exertion is required and demanded.
2. We believe that better results will follow both to employers of labour and
employees. This stand has been proved in many instances in Britain itself, and in
many British colonies where the eight-hour system has been adopted.
3. We further believe that Canada is behind-hand in respect to the long hours
worked in almost every trade or calling; and that the government would be well
advised in giving a lead to this movement in respect of these contracts, and thus set
an example to other employers of labour.
All of which we respectfully submit.
Signed on behalf of and by the unanimous consent of Local No. 695, U.M.W.A.,
representing some four hundred miners.
CHAS. DONAGHY,
Convenor.
JAMES CAVAKS,
JAMES McKELLOP,
JOHN A. MOEEISON,
H. W. VICOE,
Members of Committee.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
APPENDIX No. 4
(562)
Western Federation of Miners.
Grand Forks Union, No. 180,
Grand Forks, B.C., February 5, 1910.
MYi f)EA^.SlR~In reP]y to your circular letter, re Bill No. 21, I have been in-
structed by this local union, to communicate with you, and state that it is our absolute
belief, that only by demanding the shortening of the average workday, can any
material gam be made by the average worker to-day.
I have also been instructed to communicate with the member for this riding, Mr.
Martin Burrill, and request him to use his influence to see that this important mea-
sure gets his approved vote.
Yours sincerely,
WALTER E. HADDEN,
Secretary.
(532)
Western Federation of Miners.
Kimberley Miners' Union, No. 100.
Kimberley, B.C., January 29, 1910.
Sir,— I beg to inform you that your letter and Bill 21, was brought before a
meeting of this union and the following motion were made and carried: —
That we, the members of Kimberley Miners' Union, do heartily concur with Bill.’
I remain, yours truly,
A. E. CARTER,
Financial Secretary.
(490)
United Mine Workers of America.
Lille Local, No. 1233,
Lille, Alta., January 31, 1910.
SIR— On behalf of above local, I may say we are all in favour of Bill 21, ‘ An
Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.’
Yours respectfully,
W. L. EVANS,
Secretary.
(483)
United Mine Workers of America.
Michel Local Union, No. 2334,
Michel, B.C., January 31, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Replying to your letter, dated December 27, 1909, in reference co
Pill 21, respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, I might state that Michel
Local Union No. 2334, United Mine Workers of America, is in favour of said Bill,
only its members would prefer it to read all outside day wage or contract employees of
labour.
Yours respectfully,
CHAS. GAINER.
Secretary*
4—42
658
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(492) Western Federation of Miners.
Moyie Miners Union, No. 71,
Moyie, B.C., January 31, 1910.
Sin, — Yours of recent date to hand regarding Bill No. 21, a measure now before
the House, to limit the hours of labour on all public works. Will say in reply, that we
as a union composed of workingmen engaged in the mining industry, are in perfect
sympathy with the objects of the Bill, but would also like to see the scope of the Bill
extended, so as to make it applicable to all kinds of industry, as well as public works.
The benefits derived by a reduction in the hours of labour, are many and varied;
in the first place, it will make room for some of the unemployed, a question which
is facing every civilized country to-day, and a reduction in the hours of labour, will
certainly help to solve the problem.
Experience has also taught labour unions, that an advance in wages is not to be
compared, with a reduction in the hours of labour, for the simple reason, that as soon
as wages are increased, the price of commodities, the staples of life, soar away up,
and as a result, the condition of the workers, is worse than it was before the increase
in wages.
Yours respectfully,
JAMES ROBERTS,
Secretary.
(560)
Western Federation of Miners.
Nelson Miners' Union, No. 96,
Nelson, B.C., February 5, 1910.
Sir, — Yours re Bill 21, ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
Works,’ came before our meeting last night and will say this union indorses it.
Trusting it will be made law.
I am, yours respectfully,
FRANK REILLY,
Secretary.
(588)
United Mine Workers of America.
New Aberdeen, C.B., February 5, 1910.
Sir, — Your communication to hand re a Bill to enact an eight-hour per day sys-
tem. In reply, our organization is unanimously in favour of such legislation. We
have on several occasions sent committees to provincial legislature pressing our claim
for an eight-hour day.
Trusting this may meet your approval.
I remain, yours, &c.,
J. G. SHERIFF,
Secretary.
(510)
United Mine Workers of America.
Port Hood, C.B., February 3, 1910.
Hear Sir, — Your communication re the eight -hour workday, has been received.
In reply, I beg to state that after the fullest consideration our members are unani-
mous in requesting that the eight-hour day be introduced on all public works in
Canada.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
659
APPENDIX No. 4
We have no hesitation in asserting that the present work day is too long and
to ru1,kenSarXl^0rki°gm“ “ * S“*te °f which tods
the ^ h°UrS °f lab°Ur would undoubtedly increase the efficiency of
the men sufficient to compensate the employer for the shorter day..
pnpJ16- €.Xtr.aliSpare tl!ff atjthe disposal of the workingmen would instil new life and
Yy int° the“’ would mduce them to take a greater interest in their homes Tu
technical education, and in improving their minds generally, thereby becoming more
thffir countrvndW 016 Tl and more intelligent and useful citizens of
l it Z /' /+wely P<3 tHat y°Ur committee will report favourably on the
h day’ and that the same Wl11 become law at the present session of parlia-
ment. The expense necessary to do so prevents us from giving verbal evidence before
your committee, on behalf of the members of Local No. 1366, United Mine Workers
oi America.
I remain yours, very respectfully,
J. archy McDonald,
Acting Secretary.
(662)
United Mine Workers of America.
Local, No. 2352,
Passburg, Alta., March 1, 1910.
Dear Sir,— In reply to your circular letter of February 10, 1910, I am authorized
y this Local, No. 2352, U.M.W., to say that we indorse Bill 21, and hope it will be
passed. We only regret that it does not include every class of Canadian labour.
Yours truly, v \
O. CARLSON,
Secretary.
(506)
United Mine Workers of America, No. 2672.
Roche Perce, Sask., February 2, 1910.
Dear Sir, I received your letter on January 28, and I called a mass meeting of
workingmen at the school house for Saturday evening, and they came in goodly num-
bers. I read your letter and the draft of the Bill that you inclosed. The following
is a copy of resolution, passed in respect thereto : —
Moved by Mr. Peter Chesworth, and seconded by Mr. T. W. Allsopp, ‘ That this
public meeting request your committee to do all in your power to pass the Bill
(namely an eight -hour day labour Bill, No. 21).
Signed on behalf of the public meeting.
WM. HANSON,
Chairman.
(581)
Western Federation of Miners.
Sandon Miners' Union, No. 81,
Sandon, B.C., February 7, 1910.
Dear Sir,— Your communication bearing date December 27, 1909, together with
a copy ^ of Bill No. 21, entitled, ‘An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
Works,’ were read at our first regular meeting following their receipt, and I now beg
to advise you, that after due consideration had been given Bill No. 21, it was unani-
mously endorsed by the Sandon Miners’ Union.
4— 42J
660
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
At the same meeting I was also instructed to forward you a copy of the report of
a committee who were appointed by the twelfth annual convention of District Asso-
ciation, No. 6, Western Federation of Miners, to consider and report upon needed
legislation. This report was adopted by the convention at its session held in Trail,
B.C., on January 19, 20 and 21, 1910, and similar action taken thereon at a subse-
quent meeting of this union. I might further say for your enlightenment, that Dis-
trict Association, No. 6, is comprised of the locals affiliated with the Western Federa-
tion of Miners in British Columbia, and that the copy of the legislative committee’s
report is sent for the purpose of giving you an idea of the aims and purposes of our
organization.
Trusting that Bill No. 21 will be placed on the statute-books of Canada without
qualifying clause or abridgement, and thanking you for the opportunity and pleasure
of signifying our approval of the same, I beg to remain,
Yours very respectfully,
A. SHILLAND,
Secretary.
(530)
United Mine Workers of America.
Local Union, No. 469,
Springhill, N.S., February 6, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your Communication of January 27 duly received and read at the
regular meeting of this union on February 3 instant.
I am instructed to reply stating that this union of fourteen hundred members
thoroughly approves of Bill 21, which proposes an eight-hour working day on public
works, and desire this fact placed on record.
The union is of opinion that works could be carried on successfully, and bene-
ficially to all parties, under the conditions proposed by the Bill, not only on public
works, but in all industries, such as coal mines, railways, factories, telephones, tele-
graphs, dock labour, &c.
I am your obedient servant,
WM. WATKINS,
Secretary.
(637)
United Mine Workers of America.
Sydney, C.B., February 22, 1910.
Dear Sir— Local No. 324 of Sydney heartily indorses the principle of an eight-
hour day on all government contracts.
I am, yours respectfully,
Y. TOBIN,
Secretary.
United Mine Workers of America, No. 1959.
Taber, Alta., February 1, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In reference to your communication re 1 An Act respecting an Eight-
Hour Day on all Public Works,’ we, as miners, having worked an eight-hour day since
April last year, find it more beneficial both in pocket and in health, as a man can do
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
661
APPENDIX No. 4
we are in favour of an eight-hour day.
EDWARD BROWN,
. Secretary.
BERNARD NUGNT,
THOMAS SNEDDON,
Committee.
(536)
Iron Moulders’ Union, No. 362.
Carleton Place, Ont., February 7 1910
Those who have declared themselves as against the Bill mostlv do n +u
grounds that it may limit the output. By an examination of the l l/l? ^
statistics it has been found that in the year 1S-50 S TJ LlWed States census
of wealth was $1,064, and fifty years later in 1900 it bL^ ^ Ca,P1*a Productlon
average of production of 130 per cent! In IsS the nl mCr®aaed t0. $2’451’ ^
industries was $247, or an equivalent of 23 :21 per" cen C of" He od u ct ' fiR16
later. In 1900 wages had risen to $437, an increase of only 77 per cent in
against 130 per cent increase in production. We believe these figures are sufficient!
m themselves but we might further state that in the United States in the h
trades where the eight-hour day has been in effect for vears „ i • Uldmg
from 25 to 100 per cent. years’ wages have increased
We believe that eight hours on public works to be the forerunner of eie-ht hn„ra
for the workers in private industries. erunner ot eight hours
We believe that reducing the hours increases the pay: adds lone-pr a-nrl i10 •
years to life, lessens disease and lowers the death roll of the white plague' WpT
\ 8 °f W0A ,eSS“5 'torlm“’s to 2%
and therefore he is not so productive as he would be in proportion on a ton b n
day as if he were working an eight-hour day. en 10ur
We also believe that an eight-hour day would brighten the intellect ■
more time for stud, aud education i„ the home and eintualj, bl a We LSrln
raising- the standard of citizenship in this country. °
. We,lo?k.a1t this question mainly from a workingman’s point of view believino-
that such legislation will be of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people5
and to be of the greatest benefit for all the people. Hoping these several views whih
are the result of our earnest consideration, may be of some value to the committee
which you represent, we remain.
Tours respectfully,
S. CROOKS,
J. Me VAIL,
HARRIS BENNETT,
Committee.
662
COMMITTEE IIE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(527)
International Moulders’ Union of North America, No. 191.
Peterborough, Ont., February 5, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I have been instructed by International Moulders’ Union, Local, Nj.
191, Peterborough, Ontario, to state in reference to Bill No. 21, ‘ An Act respecting
the hours of Labour on Public Works,’ that the members of that body unanimously
endorsed the measure at their last regular meeting.
Hoping the Bill meets with the approval of your committee, and the members
of parliament,
Yours sincerely,
WILLIAM A. MOWRY,
Secretary.
(611)
Iron Moulders’ Union, No. 189.
Port Hope, Ont., February 16, 1910.
Dear Sir, — As no meeting of our organization was held until February 14, your
communication, which was duly received, was not acted on until that date, when the
following was adopted : —
Whereas, Any move to lessen the hours of labour of the mechanic or labourer, is
to give that mechanic or labourer more time either for his own education or with his
own family, thereby making him a more desirable citizen, be it
Resolved, That the Bill No. 21, now before the House of Commons of Canadi,
introduced hy Mr. Yerville, has the most hearty endorsation of Local, No. 189, I.M.U.
of N.A.
Signed on behalf of No. 189.
CHAS. A.McELROY,
Iron Moulders’ Union, No. 201.
Smith's Falls, Ont., February 8, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Yours in regard to Bill 21, received and would say in reply that the
Bill has the hearty approval of the members of our association. We find with all
the improved facilities for turning our work, that the workers have to work the same
long hours, and we believe the only real benefit to the workingman would be the
reduction of the hours of labour. We are of the opinion that the government ought
to take the first step in that direction, and grant the eight hour-day on all contracts
given out, and on all day labour undertaken by the government.
Hoping that the Bill becomes law,
We remain, yours truly,
GEO. F. ELLIOTT,
Secretary.
(439)
International Moulders’ Union, No. 26.
Hamilton, Ont., January 22, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your favour of January 13 received with copy of Bill No. 21 inclosed,
will say in reply the same was read before our meeting J anuary 19, 1910, and I was
instructed to inform your committee that I.M.U., No. 26, heartily indorse the Bill.
Yours respectfully,
JAS. W. RIPLEY,
•Cor. Rep.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
663
APPENDIX No. 4
(497)
International Moulders’ Union, No. 472.
Welland, Ont., February 3, 1910.
.. Sir— T am in receipt of your letter of the 27th with Bill No. 21 inclosed
teed ”83 * "P " k!t regukr ““‘“S was unanimously in
Tours truly,
EDGAR JONES.
(415)
Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers.
St. Catharines, Ont., January 17, 1910.
My Dear Sir,— At our regular meeting of the above local, Bill No. 21, an Act
respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, it was the unanimous vote (28) in
all that the Bill should be passed in its entirety, and I was notified to write you co
that effect.
I remain, yours truly,
WILLIAM ADAMS BEATTY,
Secretary.
(419)
Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers.
Local, No. 349,
Montreal, January 18, 1910.
Dear Sir,— I have received yours of December 27 last, including Bill No. 21,
presented to the House of Commons, and put it before our local. I was instructed to'
inform your committee that Local, No. 349, is in favour of Bill No. 21, as presented
to the House of Commons by Mr. Alphonse Verville. We think it would be a very
good thing for the workingmen. Hoping that it will meet with your approval and
become law,
I remain yours,
L. A. GUILLET,
Secretary.
(658)
Pattern Makers’ Association.
Winnipeg, Man., March 2, 1910.
Dear Sir,— I am instructed to communicate to you the unanimous approval by
our association of Bill 21, ‘ An Act respecting Labour on Public Works,’ as we think
it will be of great benefit.
I am respectfully,
JAMES AKERSTREAM,
Recording Secretary.
664
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(613)
(Translation.)
International Photo Engravers’ Union, No. 44.
Ottawa, February 17, 1910.
Dear Sm, — I am in receipt of your communication of the 10th instant. I per-
sonally questioned all the members of our association, which is not numerous in this
city. The unanimous opinion expressed by our members is a desire to see the eight-
hour day extended to all corporations and all classes of labouring men, a reform
which we have been enjoying for some time.
I am always happy to be the expounder of feelings involving a little human
solidarity. Wherefore, I wish you success in the enactment of your Bill.
Your devoted servant,
T. CHEVALIER,
Secretary.
(675)
International Photo Engravers’ Union, No. 35.
Toronto, Ont., March 11 1910.
Dear Sir, — The Toronto Photo-Engravers’ Union, No. 35, of Toronto, Canada,
heartily and fully indorsed Bill No. 21, now before your committee.
We trust that your honourable committee will report favourably on said Bill 21,
as it will be the means of making better men, and giving more men employment than
by working the ten-hour day.
I remain, very truly yours
JOSEPH ROBSON,
Corresponding Secretary.
(525)
Musical Instrument Workers, No. 34.
Guelph, Ont., February 4, 1910.
To the Members of the House of Commons.
Gentlemen,- — We, the Piano and Organ Workers, Local No. 34, Guelph, Ont.,
beg to inform you that our members are in entire sympathy with the eight-hour day
Bill now before the House of Commons. We believe that the Bill will be in the best
interests of the people of Canada and should become law.
Trusting this may be of some value to your committee,
I remain yours,
GEO. CUTTING,
Recording Secretary.
(494)
Operative Plasterers’ International Association.
Local, No. 334,
Winnipeg, Man., February 1, 1910.
Dear Sm, — In answer to your communication, dated December 27, 1909, re the
proposed Act respecting the Hours of Labour, &c., on Public Works. It was discussed
at our general meeting, held on Friday, January 28, and it was resolved, that this
union heartily concurs in the principle involved in the Bill, as conducive to the best
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
665
APPENDIX No. 4
interests of the labourers without causing any loss or being detrimental to the em-
'benefiT mter€St‘ And als°’ that from a humane standpoint, it will be a national
viewf6 Wil1 be Unable t0 giVG any Verbal evidence delegate; but these are our
Yours respectfully,
THOS. F. WOOD.
Recording Secretary.
(596)
United Association of Journeymen Plumbers, Gasfitters, Steamfitters, &c.
Local Union, No. 186.
Brantford, Ont., February 12, 19X0.
Sir— As your. communication to us referring to ‘ An Act respecting the Hours
of Labour on Public Works,’ was not put before our local until the date of your meet-
ing, February 9, therefore, we are a little late in answering, but the above local wish
me to state that they are in favour of the Bill and hope it meets with success. Sorrv
was not able to answer sooner. ‘ y
I remain, yours respectfully,
JAS. W. CKOUCHEB,
Secretary.
*(575)
United Association of Journeymen Plumbers, Gasfitters, Steamfitters, &c.
Local Union, No. 488,
Edmonton, Alta., February 6, 1910.
Sir, — In answer to your communication from House of Commons in respect to
Bill 21, ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.’ I am requested
to say by our local that we heartily indorse said Bill No. 21, and would also respect-
fully recommend that union wages be paid in all localities where government works
are being performed.
Respectfully yours,
W. M. MURRAY,
Recording Secretary.
(456)
United Association of Journeymen Plumbers, Gasfitters, Steamfitters, &c.
Local Union, No. 56,
Halifax, N.S., January 27, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In reference to your letter re Bill for an eight-hour day on government
work, had it brought before meeting and passed unanimously, every man voting in
favour of it. Hoping I am not too late in sending answer.
I remain, respectfully yours,
F. C. CRAIG,
Secretary.
666
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(431)
United Association of Journeymen Plumbers, Gasfitters, Steamfitters, &c.
Local Union No. 67,
Hamilton, Ont., January 20, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Tour circular re Bill 21, arrived too late for our first meeting in
January, but was considered last evening.
I am instructed by Local No. 67, U.A. of Plumbers and Fitters, to express our
hearty approval of Bill 21.
I am also instructed to inquire whether, in clause 1, reading, ‘ eight hours in any
one calendar day,’ would effect our members working on government contract, who
at present work only four hours on Saturday?
Yours, &c.,
A. W. HARRIS.
(583)
United Association of Journeymen Plumbers, Gasfitters, Steamfitters, &c.
Local Union, No. 289,
London, February 8, 1910.
Sir— In answer to your letter of January 27, 1910, I might say that this local
union is unanimously in favour of the eight-hour day on all government work, and
considers it will be a good thing if Bill 21 be passed, as we are working under the
eight-hour day system, and always advocate the same.
Tours truly,
G. F. AVEY,
Secretary.
(615)
United Association of Journeymen Plumbers, Gasfitters, Steamfitters, &c.
Local Union, No. 170.
Vancouver, B.C., February 15, 1910.
Vours at hand regarding Bill No. 21, an Act respecting the Hours of Labour
on all Public Works, and the Bill in its entirety has been indorsed by this local
union.
ED. HENLEY,
Secretary.
(463)
United Association of Journeymen Plumbers, Gasfitters, Steamfitters, &c.
Local Union No. 62,
Winnipeg, Han., January 29, 1910.
Dear Sir,— Yours of the 27ult., received. Our union has considered Bill No.
21, respecting the eight-hour day and is unanimously of the opinion that by its
final adoption the workers of Canada would have better health and it would create
better conditions and give employment to a greater number of people.
Yours truly,
F. J. KING,
Financial Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 667
APPENDIX No. 4
(547)
London Printing Pressmen and Assistants’ Union, No. 173.
London, Ont., February 8, 1910.
. ^EAR Sik, Tour letter of the 27th instant received and placed before the above
union at their monthly meeting on Saturday evening the 5th, and beg to state that
it met with great success, as it will help our movement in this city among the print-
ing craft. Wishing you every success in this movement, and will be pleased to hear
of further developments.
I remain, yours sincerely,
H. S. BENTLEY.
*(504)
Provincial Workmen’s Association.
New Aberdeen, C.B., February 2, 1910.
Sir— I hereby notify you that Keystone Lodge, No. 14, P.W.A., is in favour of
‘the passing of Bill No. 21.
DAN. P. McKAE,
Secretary.
(515)
Provincial Workmen’s Association.
Lord Koberts Lodge, No. 35.
Sydney Mines, N.S., February 4, 1910.
Dear Sir, Tours of January 27 to hand and in reply I am instructed to tell
you that although the Bill does not directly affect us, yet at the same time we heartily
approve of same and trust the time is not far distant when we also will be receiving
the benefit of an eight-hour day.
I remain, dear sir, yours truly,
W. I. RENAYNE,
Secretary.
(553)
Provincial Workmen’s Association.
Drummond Lodge, No. 8,
Sydney Mines, C.B., February 5, 1910.
Sir, — Your communication of the 27th to hand re Bill No. 21, ‘ An Act respect-
ing Hours of Labour on Public Works,’ in short, we take much pleasure in indorsing
same, as we believe it is only advancing with the times and for the betterment of
conditions generally. At a future date any verbal evidence or assistance we can lend,
will gladly do so.
Yours truly,
A. W. DAVIS,
Secretary.
668
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
(501)
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Victoria Labourers’ Protective Union.
Victoria, B.C., January 31, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Allow me to kindly state that our union strongly advocates an eight-
hour day. On our invitation a referendum vote by a large majority authorized our
city council to grant an eight-hour day, which was also speedily adopted by all con-
siderate building contractors. Iron workers, lumber mills and certain cheap labour
corporations still adhere to a nine or ten hour day. We are not in a position to give
verbal evidence, and though it is now after the day or time set to receive written
communications on this matter, we hope that it may be accepted and our influence
used to gain its adoption.
Yours truly,
A. R. SHERK,
Corresponding Secretary.
(692)
Victoria Labourers’ Protective Union.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
Victoria, B.C., March 20, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Attached please find copy of resolution adopted by the Victoria Trades
and Labour Council and indorsed by the Victoria Labourers’ Protective Union.
We may possibly have misjudged the good intentions of the members of the
House of Commons in their actions respecting Bill Ho. 21, it being somewhat difficult
to form a just opinion from such meagre information as we can gather at this dis-
tance.
Perhaps you could send us information that would post us better.
Here in Victoria we have for some years past had an eight-hour day as well as
in the mining districts whether coal or mineral, and naturally take it for granted that
where they work longer hours the employers are either more avaricious or less humane
and need to be educated along that line. We are of the opinion that in lessening the
hours of labour there is a chance of employing more of that which is now idle as well
as giving employees more time for recreation and mental improvement, thereby fit-
ting them to give better service as well as bringing them nearer the ideal we must
believe it was intended by the Creator that they should obtain. Please excuse and
oblige.
Yours truly,
A. R. SHERK,
Secretary.
Re Bill No. 21.
Resolved, That the Trades and Labour Council of Victoria fear the sincerity of
the majority of the members of the House of Commons in their relation to Bill Ho.
21, entitled : ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works,’ and request
that, as the Bill, as a progressive measure, is in the best interest of humanity in
general, it be passed and speedily become law.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
669
APPENDIX No. 4
(686) Victoria Labourers’ Protective Union.
Victoria, B.C., March 19, 1910.
Re Bill No. 21.
Dear Sir,— -The Victoria Labourers’ Protective Union, at their last meeting,
indorsed the action of the Victoria Trades and Labour Council in the matter of its
passing a resolution, copy attached, in regard to the action of the members of the
House of Commons on Bill No. 21, entitled, ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour
on Public Works.’
At this distance and with the meagre news of the doings at Ottawa received here,
we may possibly be in the wrong in forming our conclusions, but we are fully con-
vinced that it is in the best interests of the country at large to adopt such a Bill
applicable to all public work, whether construction, manufacturing or transportation,
and hope that it may speedily be carried and become law.
Tours truly,
Re Bill No. 21.
A. R. SHERK,
Secretary.
Resolved, That the Trades and Labour Council of Victoria fear the sincerity of
the majority of the members of the House of Commons in their relation to Bill No.
21, entitled, ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works,’ and request
that, as the Bill as a progressive measure is in the best interest of humanity in
general, it be passed and speedily become law.
(592)
Quarrymen’s International Union.
Graniteville, Que., February 12, 1910.
Dear Sir, — You asked for some information from me. Now, I think any man
who works for his living by day’s work needs short hours and good pay. Eight hours
is a day’s work, in my opinion, for I know when I work eight hours on the granite
quarries, I am glad to rest. In 1906 we organized a branch of the Quarrymen’s In-
ternational Union, and everything was all right until we presented them with a bill,
and prices for an eight-hour system, then they would sign the bill, as they thought
a man who could not work nine or ten hours, was not much of a man. They were
more like slave drivers. Then they got up a union of their own to drive us out, and
they have run that ever since on the nine-hour system. The gang that is working for
them had put in another bill for nine hours to take effect May 1, 1910. There are
three different plants owned by three different parties; first J. McIntosh, known as
Stanstead Granite Company; next is James Broda, next is S. B. Norton. These are
the three men who work long days.
I think any man who knows eight hours is all he has got to work for a day, will
do just as much in that time as he would in ten hours. Now, that is my experience
in working with men in a gang.
Yours truly,
MYRON MORSE,
(459)
Order of Railway Conductors, No. 464.
Brandon, Man., January 29, 1910.
Sir, — Your letter dated December 27, 1909, accompanied by Bill No. 21, entitled,
An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, just received, which has
taken a whole month to reach me, thereby allowing January 21, 1910, to pass over,
so that I cannot comply with your request in time.
670
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
I have been instructed to acknowledge receipt of your letter and Bill and to in-
form you that the Order of Bailway Conductors stands for the principle of shorter
hours for labour, and that this division of the order heartily indorses the Bill a's
presented to the committee and we hope and pray that it may pass the House without
opposition.
I might inform you that our order has a legislative representative at Ottawa, viz.,
Mr. Harvey Hall, who is authorized to look after our interests while parliament is
in session.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Tour obedient servant,
THOS. BROWNLEE,
Secretary-Treasurer.
(491) Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America, No. 173.
Cranbrook, B.O., January 31, 1910.
Sir, I beg to acknowledge receipt of your communication. As it is impossible
for me or any other member of my organization to visit Ottawa and give verbal
evidence, I will endeavour to explain by letter our views on the Bill under discussion,
in the hope that such a letter will be deemed worthy of consideration.
I take it, that you are also endeavouring to obtain the views of employers of
labour on this matter as well as the views of organized labour; in that event it is
plainly my duty to treat this reply somewhat fully.
Whilst I have not had the opportunity of placing your circular before a repre-
sentative assembly of the members of my organization, I believe that I am perfectly
justified in stating that the said members would more than welcome legislation for the
purpose of regulating the hours of labour, particularly so if the said legislation is
worded as in Bill No. 21.
Such a course of action could never be considered too radical, because the eight-
hour day is continually gaining an increasing number of adherents among our em-
ployers of labour, as witnesseth the action of Vancouver city council no later than
last week.
I believe that you will agree with me when I state that all students of industrial
economics know that the continual improvement in machinery and mechanical ap-
pliances, displaces an increasing number of toilers day by day. Now then, granting
that this is so, it is wise legislation which endeavours to regulate the hours of labour,
worked by the people. We know that this proposed Act only affects those who are
engaged in government work, but the example shown by those in national authority,
will in all probability be gradually copied by many private industrial firms and cor-
porations (who have not already adopted an eight-hour day) without any government
pressure.
Then, again not only does a reduction in the number of hours of labour provide
employment for a greater number of people, but it gives those same people a little
more leisure for recreation, self-improvement, and a little more time to attend to the
needs of their children, their homes, &c., &c., all of which tends to make a happy,
healthy nation.
It is idle to say that the workers have enough leisure, that if their hours of re-
creation are increased they will spend the said hours in vice, drinking, &c., this
theory was exploded long ago.
I am aware that certain employers of labour, and members of the House, will
object to this Act on the ground that it will increase the national financial burden.
It may, but we hope this argument will not carry any weight with your committee,
as such legislation is not only consistent with modern thought, but is to the practical
benefit of the brains, sinew, muscle and bone of the Dominion.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— H0UR8 OF LABOUR
671
APPENDIX No. 4
o-n Co?rSe- °rganized labour take it for granted that the workers
Hill -No. 21, will not suffer any reduction in their daily earnings.
Yours obediently,
affected by
JOHN McKENNA,
Recording Secretary.
(436)
Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America, No. 167.
Halifaa, N.S., January 21, 1910.
Dear Sir —I beg to acknowledge receipt of your circular, dated December 27,
1909, and regret delay in replying on account of having to wait for the January meet-
ing of our lodge.
I am directed to say that while we are in sympathy with the movement for a
shorter work day, we believe that any attempt to establish it by Act of parliament at
the present time would be premature and we would rather under present conditions
retain the present work day of nine or ten hours with increased wages, because the
cost of living is at present so high in comparison with the average rate of wages
received that it is impossible to maintain our families and keep free from debt. When-
ever it may become practicable to establish a work day of eight hours, with a rate of
wages equal to or superior to the present rate we are ready to support it, but bearing
in mind the conclusions imposed upon us in the necessity of maintaining our
families and ourselves we are willing to forego the shorter work day and retain the
longer one until the time comes when the change may become practicable.
I remain, sir, respectfully yours,
HERBERT E. GREENOUGH,
Recording Secretary.
’(544)
Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America, No. 245.
Moncton, N.B., February 7, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Replying to your communication of January 27, asking for infor-
mation and views regarding the eight-hour day, Intercolonial Lodge of the B.R.C.
of A., desires to be understood as being strongly in favour of the shorter working day
for the following reasons : —
That the eight-hour day has given excellent results both in quantity and quality
of work turned out wherever it has been fairly put to the test.
Indeed, after a year’s experience of the eight-hour day in Messrs. Mather &
Platt’s iron works at Stalford, England, it was found on careful examination and com-
parison with the productions of the six preceding years, that more work was turned
out during the year when the employees worked 48 hours per week than during the
average of the six preceding years when the men worked 53 hours a week or longer.
'Messrs. William Allen & Co., iron workers, of Sunderland, had the same experience
after reducing their working hours from 53 to 48 a week in 1892. After a fair trial
had been given to the shorter day, Mr. Allen (at that time member of parliament),
wrote: ‘Paradoxical as it may seem, I get fully more work out than formerly; in
fact I am surprised at how the work is going ahead; having believed, like so many
employers, that there would be a corresponding decrease in output.’ Messrs. Short
Brothers, shipbuilders of Sunderland, adopted the eight-hour system in 1892. Their
experience has been the same. Five months after the reduction of hours they wrote :
‘ We have very great pleasure in saying it has more than met our expectations. We
are now paying considerably more wages and consequently turning out more work.’
672
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Numerous instances like the above might be cited to show that the decrease in
the hours of labour from ten or nine to eight have not been accompanied by a corre-
sponding decrease in output.
Such instances may be read of in the excellent volume of Mr. John Rae, entitled,
‘Eight Hours for Work.’ This book is a veritable encyclopaedia of facts in favour
of the eight-hour day.
In this age of machinery there seems to be no good reason to suppose that tho
work of the mechanic can not be accomplished in eight hours per day.
The shorter day is more conducive to health and therefore to that vigour which
enables the worker to do in the shorter day what he formerly did in the longer time.
I he eight-hour day allows the worker some hours for the cultivation of his mind, and
by elevating him from the condition of the thoughtless to the plane of the thinker,
qualifies him for the superior work of the master mechanic.
. Yours truly,
MARSHALL J. GOVANG,
(409) Correspondent.
(Translation.)
Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America.
Montreal, June 15, 1910.
Dear Sir, In reply to your letter of December 27 last, I beg to inform you that
when Mr. Verville first introduced his Bill to provide for an eight-hour day the
matter was taken into consideration by our members and without a dissentient voice,
they voted in favour of an eight-hour law.
Hoping that I have correctly answered your question,
I remain, your obedient servant,
ALF. CHAETEAND.
<479)
Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America, No. 98.
Nelson, B.C., January 30, 1910.
Dear Sir, Thanks for copy Bill 21. Would say we are heartily in favour of Bill
21, the only fault we can find with it is we would like it to extend further and apply
all work such as railroad construction where road is assisted or housed by government
nt the present time with large numbers of working men employed. We see no avenue
of relief open other than to shorten the day and give the employee some benefit of
inventions and improvement in labour-saving machinery as well as the employer.
Again thanking you,
J. A. AUSTIN,
Recording Secretary .
<630)
Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America.
Vancouver Lodge, No. 58,
Vancouver, February 16, 1910.
My Dear Sir, — Referring to your communication concerning Bill 21, regarding
‘ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works,’ I am instructed to forward
Jo you the sanction of the members of the above lodge as a body. Hoping this will
meet with your approval.
I remain, yours respectfully,
THOS. P. JOYCE,
* Recording Secretary „
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
673
APPENDIX No. 4
(663)
Order of Railway Conductors.
Division No. 542,
Lethbridge, Alta., March 2, 1910
ou, tor\’vhat
of Labour,’ aud wo have written our representative to' give all posX ^
Yours respectfully,
JNO. J. FERRIER,
Secre tary-Treasu rer.
(636)
Order of Railway Conductors.
Bartlett Division, No. 214,
Moncton, N.B., February 22, 1910.
Dear Sir,— Your letter of January 27 was read in Division 214, Order of Rail-
Z“rS ‘°'day' “ WC °”,y “ in T you will pardon deV
any W fai0,'r bU‘ lile *°
whence t!ringfi“mteke“iraS J°“ mi8h‘ *■" le* ~
Yours truly,
W. CROCKETT,
Secretary.
(599)
Order of Railway Conductors.
Union Division, No. 13,
St. Thomas, Ont.,. February 14, 1910.
. Dear Sir,— Your letter and copy of Bill No. 21, was brought up at our last meet-
ing of union, Division No. 13, O.R.C., and fully discussed and concurred in, feeling
assured of its wisdom, for employees in any service of the people, or other corporat-
ions as well. Wishing success in your efforts and pray it may in the near future
become universal in all branches of industry.
I am, sir, yours truly,
JOHN MACKENZIE,
Secretary-Treasurer.
(401)
Canadian Brotherhood of Railroad Employees. (Headquarters).
^ Halifax, N.S., January 6, 1910.
Dear Sir, — In reply, I beg to say that our organization is strongly in favour of a
reduction of the hours of labour; but the act referred to, does not, in my opinion,
seem broad enough. I can see no reason why this Act should be confined exclusively
to labourers, workmen, or mechanics employed by contractors, or sub-contractors, who
may contract with the government of Canada. In fact I see no reason why the Act
should be confined to government employees only, as, in my opinion a universal eight-
hour labour law of Canada is more desirable, and is a matter which deserves the care-
ful consideration of our government.
Yours faithfully,
4—43
M. M. MACLEAN.
674
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
X573)
(Translation.)
Canadian Brotherhood of Railroad Employees.
Levis, February 10, 1910.
Sir, — Yours of the 8th instant, respecting the Act concerning the Hours of Labour
on Public Works duly at hand. My former letter conveyed to you broadly the feeling
voiced by the members of our division on the matter. The following is the resolution
adopted at our last meeting.
In view of the fact that the matter is already before the grand divisions and that
the grand president, A. H. Mosher, was appointed delegate by the grand officers for
the next meeting, which will take place shortly, we indorse all the proceedings and
steps taken so far in such matter.
Yours truly,
J. W. L. BROCK,
Secretary.
(546)
Electric Railway Employees.
Ottawa, February 8, 1910.
Sir, — Your communication respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works to
hand; the Bill was read, discussed, and fully approved by Division 279, Electric Rail-
way Employees. On behalf of Division 279, I would say it is their desire that this
Bill may come into effect.
Yours respectfully,
FRED. GOLDING,
Recording Secretary.
(555)
Electric Railway Employees.
y? Toronto, February 7, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your circular re eight-hour per day Bill on government contracts
reached ir*- a few days ago and was dealt with at the regular meeting of our organi-
zation last night. The Bill was unanimously indorsed. It is probable that some of
our officials will appear before your committee and give reasons why we indorse the
Bill and why such legislation should be enacted.
Yours truly,
J. GIBBONS,
Secretary.
(672)
The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, No. 7.
Agincourt, Ont., March 10 1910.
Dear Sir, — Bill No 21, £ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
Works.’ This has the hearty approval and endorsement of the telegraphers of my
district, Toronto to Smith’s Falls, Ont.
If same becomes law it will be an honour to all concerned in its passing, now and
hereafter. We as a body are not now affected by this measure. It will, however, bring
into operation mutual consideration for all classes some time in the future.
Your sincerely,
P. BROWN,
Local Chairman.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
APPENDIX No. 4
(659> The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, No. 30.
Coatsworth, Ont., March 1, 1910.
Dear bm-Your communication of February 25, 1910, also copy of Bill No 21
ecewed and “oted, I beg to advise your honourable committee, that after bringing
his Bill before our members they have giyen it their hearty approval We as
labourers bel.eve that our own work should be eight hours, and no more, even at a
mailer rate of pay if necessary. We believe that better work,' less accidents and less
loss of life are the benefits derived from shorter hours. Thanking your honourable
committee for the privilege of expressing our wishes, I am, b
Your obedient servant,
W. A. KNISTER,
General Chairman.
(548)
The Order of Railroad Telegraphers.
.London, UNT., March 1, 1910.
M p?EARTSlR'~^°U-r faV0Uf.0f 27th ult0-’ handed over to our local chairman, Mr.
McPhee. I heartily indorse his attached remarks and trust the exacting and strenuous
sideratiorT^ h°UrS’ °f railway tele^aphers of Canada will receive fair con-
Yours very truly,
JOHN SHAW,
Secretary.
(549)
The Order of Railroad Telegraphers.
London, Ont., February 8, 1910.
Dear Sir— Your favour of January 27, 1910, addressed Mr. Shaw, London
handed to me, to which I beg reply. I think I can safely voice the views of ever^
railway telegrapher on District No. 2, Ontario division, C.P.R. System 7, that all as
a body are greatly concerned in Bill No. 21, re eight-hours of labour, and also that
every Canadian railway telegrapher wishes to see it passed by House of Commons and
Senate.
The Canadian railway telegraphers on all lines are subjected to not less than
twelve hours day labour, and on some lines as much as sixteen and eighteen hours.
This we all feel a gross injustice, as the duties are comprised of so many important
matters that the mental strain is altogether too much for the strongest of mortals.
I cannot point out strongly enough the great responsibility that is placed upon
all railway telegraphers, in so much as the handling of lives and property are con-
cerned. Too little notice is being taken of this very great and important matter,
when it is. shown time after time that 90 per cent of the accidents occurring were
after the eight-hours days labour had ensued.
Our American telegraph cousins, are living under a nine-hour day labour Act
and the result, is no doubt being felt by the public, railway companies, and the tele-
graphers. It is a success in the fullest sense of the word, and there should be no
reason whatever why the Canadian public should not receive the same good result.
I am very glad to note that your committee has taken such interest by asking the
telegraphers’ views on this one great and important question, so dear to our craft.
I feel that, irrespective of what party as individuals we may belong to, that the
sympathy, and good support of telegraphers as a body will be forthcoming if this
measure is brought to a successful issue. Again thanking you.
I remain, yours very truly,
, W. D. McPHEE,
Local Chairman.
4— m
676
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
'(671)
The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, No. 7.
Milan, Que., March 9, 1910.
Dear Sir —Yours of 24tli ulto., respecting Bill No. 21 received. It is my pleasure
to advise you that the Order of Railroad Telegraphers on District No. 1, and myself
personally, take great pleasure in offering our support to this Bill and wish it every
success. We contend that it is imperative to have an eight-hour day on government
labour, and that it will greatly add to our benefit. Signs of prosperity also assist in
securing legislation favourable to all classes of labour, and it is high time.
Yours very truly,
J. M. KANE,
Local Chairman.
(680)
The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, No. 43.
Boland, Man., March 14, 1910.
Sir, — I have before me your communication of the 10th ultimo with copy of Bill
No. 21, respecting Hours of Labour on Public Works, attached.
In reply I wish to state that this Bill meets with approval of our organization on
this division, and we consider it a move in the right direction.
The Order of Railroad Telegraphers has been agitating for shorter hours for its
members for many years, but with little success and we believe, it the duty of the
state to step in and pass such legislation as will reduce the working hours of the
labouring classes.
The present long hours of labour performed by the working classes generally are
detrimental to health and happiness and are not conducive to good citizenship.
The working men and women of our country require more time for pleasure,
thought and education, and any legislation passed with this object in view will be an
important factor in raising the moral and social standing of workers of our Dominion.
Yours truly,
A. E. .7. WILLIS,
General Chairman.
The Order of Railroad Telegraphers.
St. Pierre, Que., February 26, 1910.
Dear Sir.— I have received all your papers in connection with the eight-hour Bill
question, through Mr. Samson, formerly secretary and treasurer of Levis Division,
No. 64, and I was very pleased to communicate same to our members at our last
meeting This Bill is very necessary so far as it concerns employees of government
contractors, but it would be more suitable for us, if telegraphers could have their
share in it, as it is established that twelve hours of steady work is rather too rnucii
'for our class of men. and accidents very often result through it. Hope you will en-
deavour to enter the class of telegraphers in this Bill, and that you will keep me
posted with the work that will be done. I remain,
Your obedient servant,
WILLIAM PARSONS.
COMMITTEE RE BILL So. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
677
APPENDIX No. 4
(674)
(Translation.)
The Order of Railroad Telegraphers.
St. Raymond, Que., March 11. 1910.
Your circular of February 25 duly to hand. As it will be impossible for
ine to attend the meeting of the committee, in order to convey at greater length the
views of my fellow workmen and my own, I deem it my duty to inform you by writ-
ing that we strongly approve of Bill No. 21, about the eight-hour day, and that the
remarks formulated by Mr. Verville are highly appreciated by the members of our
organization. Evidently an eight-hour day is about as much as the human consti-
tution can stand.
I remain, your obedient servant,
J. P. BLONDEALT.
(626) The Order of Railway Telegraphers.
Toronto, Ont., February 19, 1910.
Dear Sir,— -Replying to your circular letter of January 27th, in which you asked
for the views of my association in regard to the eight-Hour Bill now before the House.
1 have to say: —
1. that railroad telegraphers generally are required to work twelve hours per
day, with the result that their health becomes greatly impaired before the age of
forty-five is attained. Although the work in some instances, may not be very exacting,
the excessive number of hours of constant attention to duty daily, almost invariably
deprives them of their health and strength at an age at which they should really be
at their best mentally and physically.
2. That in some cases railroad telegraphers work an average of nine hours per
day, at some of the offices where very exacting work is required of them, but even
these hours are too long to permit them to withstand the strain, and preserve their
health past middle age.
3. That train dispatchers work an average of eight hours per day, but the ex-
cessive exaction of this work has the same effect as mentioned in the foregoing cases.
4. That it is quite evident that at some point in the course of a day’s work in
all classes of employment, the work should be suspended for the day, and the work-
man fully relieved therefrom, if his health is to be reasonably preserved. Any con-
dition that is detrimental to health curtails life, and there should be no such condition
permitted in a society, where it can be freely prevented. The state must always retain
its interest in the individual citizen, and fully exercise it to the extent, if necessary,
of protecting the individual against himself.
5. That there can be no expense pleaded as an excuse for the failure to enact
such laws as will tend to give the best protection to the health and longevity of the
people of any country, and to protect and promote to the fullest extent their comfort
and happiness.
6. That the state is as much at fault in permitting an individual or a corpora-
tion to exact from members of a society a condition of servitude which deprives them
of their highest degree of happiness, health and well-being, as it is in permitting the
perpetration of any other crime upon them. But this fault is inexcusable when the
state commits the crime itself.
7. That the state has no grounds for the claim to a right to be governed by the
practise of an individual, and in duty to its own honour and integrity can not afford
to hesitate in establishing such equitable conditions among- its people as will yield the
results above indicated.
8. That if workmen are compelled to work excessive hours in order to obtain a
livelihood, they are practically being penalized for the permission to live, and by a
penalty which includes the pain and suffering of ill-health, and the deprivation of
678
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
those comforts, opportunities, and moderate enjoyments which should he the inalien-
able right and heritage of every free man; and, in the end the curtailment of their
natural lives. This is a most unjust penalty upon innocent men, but more especially
so, when the victims are those who perform honest labour, and who should be com-
pensated therefor with an adequate means of a comfortable livelihood, and the greatest
possible opportunities for personal development and happiness. Again, I wish to state
that there can be no justification when the state is the offender.
9. That in any class of employment, the average number of hours of labour per
day can not exceed eight in number without imparing the health of the average man,
and in many classes of employment it should be less in number.
10. That the question as to whether such a law would eventually compel private
employers to adopt an eight-hour day does not in any way alter the duty of the state,
release it from its responsibilities, nor mitigate its wrongs.
11. That if a wrong is being done to the workers in any state, and if that wrong
can be removed by the mere setting of an example, surely the state can not afford to
be derelict in such a matter.
12. That it is a duty of the state to set a good example to all society, and to
decline following a bad one.
13. That in the proposed law there can only be one question by which statesmen
can permit themselves to be governed, and that is the question as to whether such a
law is right or wrong within itself.
14. That the standard of living in any society is affected by at least two con-
ditions : —
(a) The ability of the masses to purchase an adequate share of the necessaries
and comforts of life, and
( b ) The enjoyment of sufficient relief from labour to afford the opportunity for
education, recreation, and domestic enjoyment. The extent to which the masses are
obliged to forego the enjoyment of these two conditions determines very largely the
degree of lawlessness, crime, ignorance and ill-health which prevails in any society.
15. Inasmuch as the whole well-being is based upon the standard of living
enjoyed by that standard, the standard ought to be fixed by such rules of conduct as
will give the best results, and not by a daily servitude which in the long run, must
detract continually from that standard.
16. That the additional cost to the state which such a law would put up society
can surely be more fittingly borne by the state, than by the individual workmen who
have ever to face a keen struggle for the means of subsistence, and whose sacrifices
at the best, are always very considerable; but particularly is this true in a country
which possesses the fabulous wealth of a Canada.
Trusting that I have made myself clear on this matter, and hoping that your
committee may be alive to the sacred trust reposed in them as representatives, I am,
Very sincerely yours,
D. CAMPBELL,
Third Vice-President.
The Order of Railroad Telegraphers.
(670) The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, No. 131.
Tring Junction, Que., March 9, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your communication re Bill No. 21, respecting Hours of Labour on
Public Works, received. Same is unanimously indorsed by all the members of this
division and we long to see the day when eight hours shall constitute a day’s work
for all telegraph operators in Canada.
Wishing success to the cause of labour,
I remain, yours truly,
P. DOYLE, Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
679
APPENDIX No. 4
The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, No. 7.
Dear Sir, — I am in
Bill 21. In reply, I am
(677)
Viscount, Sask., March 19, 1910.
receipt of your favour of 25th ulto., together with copy of
pleased to advise that our organization indorses this Bill.
Yours truly,
J. T. SCOTT,
Local Chairman.
The Order of Railroad Telegraphers.
Winnipeg, Man., March 12, 1910.
Dear Sir,— Replying to your communication in connection with Bill No. 21, con-
cerning proposed legislation to shorten the hours of labour for employees on govern-
ment contracts. The committee representing the train dispatchers, agents, operators
and linemen on the Canadian Pacific Railway system, beg to say: —
1st. That we recommend the adoption of the Bill.
2nd. That we believe that a man working eight hours per day, can do more work
per hour if required to work in excess of that number.
3rd. That an eight-hour working day would result in a higher standard of edu-
cation and citizenship among the labouring classes.
4th. That in a few decades the moral and intellectual improvement would amply
repay the state for the extra first cost.
5th. That the example set by the government would have a very far-reaching
effect upon transcontinental industrial corporations employing labour. The conditions
as to hours of service required of the men we represent are deplorable. This is self-
evident when we state, that out of approximately 1,600 men employed in the branches
of the service named on this system of railway, about 1,200 of them are required to
work twelve or more hours per day, with a possible opportunity for some to get one
hour for a mid-day meal. When it is considered that it is these men who have to do
exclusively with directing the movements of all the trains carrying the travelling
public on this railway, it should be evident that shorter hours would be conducive to
public safety.
It cannot, however, be expected that one corporation will or can so largely reduce
the working hours of its employees, when its competitor does net do so, and therefore,
a remedy for the existing conditions is well nigh impossible unless the state wil lstep
in and not only protect the safety of the people, and the welfare of the employees,
but also put the corporations on an equal footing in this regard.
We would further say that the statements made in the letter submitted by Mr.
D. Campbell, third vice-president of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, who has had
many years of experience in dealing with labour problems, are concurred in by this
committee.
Expressing the hope that ©ur government may cause Bill No. 21 to become law,
we have the honour to be.
Your obedient servants,
H. W. HARBOUR, Vancouver, B.C.,
W. L. MACDONALD, Calgary, Alta.
J. M. MEIN, Winnipeg, Man.,
A. C. BARKER, White River, Ont.,
J. C. ROONEY, Ottawa, Ont.,
A. HOUSTON, Toronto, Ont.
G. D. ROBERTSON, Chairman,
Telegraphers General Committee.
G. S. MORRIS,
General Secretary and Treasurer.
680
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
‘(683)
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
East Pubnico, N.S., March 14, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Having been advised that Mr. Verville, M.P., is about to introduce
an Eight-Hour Bill in the House of Commons, I thought I would drop you a few
lines, as my opinion and the opinion of those whom I represent. They are a body
of trackmen all organized and about two hundred and fifteen in number. We are a
hard-working lot, and are in a position to say which is more profitable, a ten-hour day
or an eight. As a general thing a man knowing that he has got to labour ten hours,
is not going to work as fast as if he only had eight ahead of him. Again, starting
work at 7 o clock a.m., we have to get breakfast between five and six. It is a long
time to twelve, noon, in fact too long. At the end of four hours he is faint. That
last hour from 11 to 12 he just drags out, every minute seems ten, and at 12, noon,
lie is so faint he does not relish his dinner as he would, had he had it at eleven. After
dinner at twelve there is another five hours and by five o’clock he is completely played
out, but still has another hour to wait. Then again, six o’clock leave work, seven o’clock
get supper and your evening is gone. What pleasure has a labouring man? Get up
in the morning and go to work, come home at night and go to bed. Give that man
an eight-hour day and he will feel better himself and make everyone else feel better
around him. In my opinion the employer is going to gain. At any rate, I know he
will lose nothing.
Make the eight-hour day a general rule applying to all classes of labour and we
will do the same amount of work.
Yours truly,
GEORGE N. FOX.
(418)
Brother of Railroad Trainmen.
Fairville, N.B., January 15, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Tours of December 27, 1909, re Eight-Hour Law, to hand. For your
information John Maloney, 62 Henderson avenue, Ottawa, Ont., who is legislative
representative for the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, has full authority to express
the opinion of our organization in all legislation which may pertain to labour. If you
will please have a copy of your letter sent to him he will be pleased to give you the
stand taken by the B. of R. T.
Yours respectfully,
S. H. SHAW.
(616)
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
Crowsnest Lodge, No. 785,
Lethbridge, Alta., February 15, 1910.
Sm,— This to notify you that at our last regular meeting, I received your letter
and proposed ‘ Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.’
This subordinate lodge of the B. of R. T., is unanimously in favour of a nine-
hour day for workmen on public works.
Yours truly,
H. H. FITZSIMMONS,
Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL Fo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
681
APPENDIX No. 4
(509)
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
London Lodge, No. 415,
London Ont., February 3, 1910.
Dear Sir, lours of January 27, 1910. to hand; and in answer, would say that
we, as railway trainmen, are not in a position to give much information on such a
question as this, as our trade is rarely, if ever, represented.
We believe, however, that anything tending to reduce hours of labour to a reason-
able basis, would be beneficial to labour and country at large.
Yours truly,
W. H. NICHOL,
Secretary.
(660)
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
Morning Star Lodge, No. 168,
Moncton, N.B., March 5, 1910.
Dear Sir, Yours of the 27th January to hand, and Morning Star Lodge put
themselves on record in favour of the Bill.
Yours truly,
J. A. STRONACH,
Secretary.
\508)
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
Montreal, February 3, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Further in reference to your letter of January 25, with which you
forwarded to me a copy of Bill No. 21, and circular letter referring thereto, and sug-
gested that I might possibly desire to offer some evidence or an opinion on behalf of
the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen in respect to the proposed measure.
As I advised you in my letter of January 29th, this question has been given fur-
ther consideration, and after conference in the connection, I am in a position to say
to you, and ask that you convey to the committee having this matter in mind, that
the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen representing some seven thousand men em-
ployed on the railroads of Canada, will be heartily and earnestly in accord with the
proposed measure.
Trusting that the Bill may become law at the present session of parliament and
believing that such a measure will operate for the best good of the labouring man of
Can&da, I remain,
Yours truly,
JOHN MALONEY,
Dominion Legislative Representative.
Approved :
James Murdoch,
Vice-President, B. of R. T.
682
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
(578)
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
Soo Lodge, No. 249,
North Bat, Ont., February 9, 1910,
Dear Sir, — In regard to Bill No. 21, respecting the eight-hour work day, I beg to
say that we debated it for some time at our last meeting, and came to the conclusion
that the said Bill would undoubtedly be a fine thing for day labourers, but we could
not see that it would work satisfactorily either to railway employees, or to the rail-
road companies. There are very few of our through runs on passenger trains that we
can make in less than eight hours and some twelve and thirteen hours. Of course
under the present system of running freight trains, the eight-hour day would be out
of the question altogether. Hoping this will reach you in convenient time.
I remain, yours truly,
EOBT. DINGWALL,
Secretary.
(577)
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
Jubilee Lodge, No. 129,
Ottawa, February 10, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of January
27, and also copy of Bill No. 21, entitled, ‘An Act respecting the Hours of Labour
on Public Works.’
In reply would say that the same was read out to the members present at our
last regular session of the 6th ultimo, the same was accepted as read, and I have
been also instructed to inform your committee that the above lodge is in favour of
any legislation which may be of interest ,and enacted for the betterment of labo irers
throughout the Dominion of Canada.
I remain, yours respectfully,
WM. A. PERRY,
Secretary.
(538)
International Rock Drillers’ Association, No. 504.
Amherstburg, Ont., February 7, 1910.
Sir, — I beg to acknowledge the copy of Bill 21, ‘ An Act respecting the Hours of
Labour on Public Works,’ and wish to say I voice the sentiment of 450 members of
our association by saying we think it one of the best Bills put before the House.
We consider longer working hours do not give a man time to study or recuperate,
and unlike the eight-hour day, will not make more employment for more men.
Hoping it will meet the approval of the House,
I remain, obediently yours,
ROBERT RETT,
President.
L. A. PARKER,
Recording Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 683
APPENDIX No. 4
(540)
Stereotypers’ and Electrotypers’ Union, No. 21.
Toronto, February 7, 1910.
Dear Sir— An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works was taken
up at our last meeting and the members are heartily in accord with it and hope to
hear of it becoming law.
Yours truly,
H. BARTLEY,
Corresponding Secretary.
(590)
Sheet Metal Workers’ Union.
St. John, N.B., February 13, 1910.
Dear Sir, The secretary of the Sheet Metal Workers’ Union is in receipt of a
letter sent from your office some weeks ago. It gives us much pleasure to deal with,
and we hope we will be able to do what is in our power to help you. There is one
point we would like to ask you for some information on, which we know is at your
disposal. Some of our union men think that if we get the eight-hour day that it
would mean a reduction in wages. What we want to know is this, will the government
fix the scale of wages for the workingmen the same as the eight-hour day as they get
with the nine-hour day. We feel that if the government will not make some definite
settlement between employer and employee in regard to the regular wages, that the
employee would only get paid for eight hours — that is if they get $2 for nine hours,
they would only get $1.78 for eight. Hoping that this point has been taken into con-
sideration, .
I remain,
J. L. BOWES,
Recording Secretary.
(664)
Sheet Metal Workers’ Union, No. 134.
Victoria, B.C., February 27, 1910.
Dear Sir, — At a meeting held by the Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers, L. U.,
No. 134, I was instructed to notify you that Bill No. 21, 1 An Act respecting the Hours
of Labour on Public Works,’ was heartily endorsed by all members of said lodge.
Yours sincerely,
H. BREWSTER,
Corresponding Secretary.
(422)
(Translation.)
Benevolent Society of Ship Labourers.
Quebec, January 8, 1910.
Sir, — I have received your letter concerning the eight-hour day which you sent
me, in order to know the opinion of our association. Ae we shall have no meeting
before the month of May next, let me tell you that we have always striven to carry
out that object; besides, we are the only society in the city of Quebec that has
succeeded so far in obtaining an eight-hour day and I do not think any of our mem-
bers would be willing to work more than eight hours a day, in fact we had some
little trouble in that connection and never did they consent to depart from the prin-
ciple of the eight-hour day secured to us by our charter. Never since the date of our
684
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
incorporation, in 1862, did our members work more than eight hours a day; they have
always struck to the charter in that respect. This information I impart to you in
compliance with the orders given me by the president. I have had an interview with
him and he does not deem it proper to assume the responsibility of calling a meeting,
because he thinks it is perfectly useless, as he is satisfied that not a single member is
opposed to the eight-hour day. I hope you will overlook my handwriting and my
orthography and if there is any other information you wish to obtain, and that I may
give you, I am entirely at your disposal.
I remain, your devoted servant,
DAVID BLONDIN,
Secre tary-Treasurer.
(627)
Granite Cutters' International Association of America.
Brownsburg, Que., February 18, 1910.
To the Special Committee of the House of Commons —
Sirs, — In reply to your letter in regard to the Eight-Hour Bill on all govern-
ment work, we submit the following: —
Members of our association, and most of trades unions throughout Canada are work-
ing eight hours. Under the laws of their constitutions we do not see why all government
work should not be regulated by an eight-hour law. By doing so the government
would prevent conflicts arising between employers and employees on said work. As
the eight-hour movement is quite a lengthy question to discuss on paper, and seeing
the benefits that our neighbouring country the United States is reaping, where it is
adopted on all government work, we can not see why it should not be in force in our
country.
In closing we hope to hear from you of the date when verbal evidence will be
heard.
We remain, yours,
WM. CLERIHEW,
ALEX. GORDON,
JOS. PAQUET,
W. A. THOMPSON, Secretary.
Committee of G.C.I.A.
(519)
Journeymen Stonecutters’ Association of North America.
London Ont., February 3, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Yours of the 27th of January. 1910, to hand with Bill inclosed, ‘An
Act respecting the Hours of Labour.’ I placed it before our members and they
thought it was all right, and think that all government contracts should call for an
eight-hour day. It has been the main object of the stone cutters to work eight hours
where possible in Canada and United States.
Yours truly,
•H. BOYD.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
£85
APPENDIX No. 4
(625)
Journeymen Stonecutters’ Association of North America.
Monarch, Alta., January 17, 1910.
Dear Sir —Your valued communication of the 10th to hand and contents care-
fully noted. I may say that we never work more than eight hours per day, whether
we are working on government contracts or not, but we fully indorse the eight-hour
Bill, if wages correspond.
Yours respectfully,
M. MATTHEWS,
President.
wm. McKinnon,
Corresponding Secretary.
(447)
(Translation.)
Journeymen Stonecutters’ Association of North America.
Montreal, January 25, 1910.
S|R.' The Union of Stonecutters of Montreal highly approves of the provisions
of Bill No. 21 respecting the Hours of Labour. Since 1903, the members of this
union have enjoyed the eight-hour day. It is needless to say that to the employers
the results have also been eminently satisfactory.
On these several grounds our association, taught by experience, is most anxious
to see this Bill enacted by parliament.
Your obedient servant,
GEOEGES DE LA DUKANTAYE,
Secretary.
(580)
Journeymen Stonecutters’ Association of North America.
Peterborough, Ont., February 11, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I beg to acknowledge your letter along with copy of Bill 21. I have
done as you desired and I find the members of our association are unanimously in
favour of the eight-hour day. We would be glad to hear whether it passes.
Yours truly,
JOHN O. MOSS.
(468)
(Translation.)
Journeymen Stonecutters’ Association of North America.
Terrebonne, Que., January 31, 1910.
Dear Sir, — I have received your letter of the 26th instant, with Bill No. 21,
respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, which I submitted to our union at
a regular meeting and it was unanimously decided to approve of and indorse the Bill
the 32 members of the union who attended the meeting having voted in favour of
the motion. We trust that the committee will help in carrying out that object. Let
me further tell you that we have here the eight-hour day in force and that it gives
us satisfaction.
I remain, your obedient servant,
JOSEPH THEEEIEN,
Secretary.
686
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
(614)
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Journeymen Stonecutters’ Association of North America.
Victoria, B.C., February 14, 1910.
Sir, — Having received your communication and copy of Bill regarding the eight-
hours labour, I and my colleagues and members of this branch, heartily indorse said
Bill, and we think it would benefit all the working classes of Canada. I may 6tate
that we, the trades unions of this city, have had eight hours a day and four on Satur-
day for a few years now, and we would like to see it everywhere. Hoping the Bill will
go through successfully, I remain,
Your obedient servant,
SAMUEL PARKER,
Fin. and Cor. Secretary.
(537)
Stonemasons’ Union, No. 26, of Ontario.
Toronto, Ont., February 7, 1910.
Article VII. — Hours of Labour.
The hours of labour of this union are 8 hours, from 8 a.m. to 12 noon, 1 hour for
meals, then from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. for the first five working days of the week, and
from 8 a.m. to 12 noon on Saturday.
Sir, — In reference to your letter of January 27, relating to Bill No. 21, ‘An Act
respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works/ in Canada. As per request, we beg
to answer as follows : —
Firstly. Our Union Stonemasons, No. 26, Toronto, Ont., with over 200 members,
have worked under the eight-hour per day system for the past twelve years, which we
have found to be most satisfactory both to employee and employer. During those
twelve years we have never had a suggestion from the employers to return or go back
to the nine-hour or ten-hours per day system. Further inclosed please find a copy of
our hy-laws governing the hours of labour in our city.
Yours respectfully,
ROBERT SCOTT,
President.
JOHN McLEOD,
Recording Secretary.
(526)
Journeymen Tailors’ Union of America, No. 235.
St. Catharines, Ont., February 5, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your letter of the 27th received regarding the Hours of Labour on
Public Works, and on behalf of this union would state that we heartily indorse the
eight-hour day system.
VERNER FULLERTON,
Recording Secretary.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 687
APPENDIX No. 4
(474)
Journeymen Tailors’ Union of America.
Toronto, Ont., February 1, 1910.
Dear Sir, In reply to your letter and Bill we, on behalf of our association, are
in favour of passing the Bill, respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works, and
wish that the same number of hours was in effect for every kind of labour, as eight
hours a day are long enough for any man to do his work in.
Yours truly,
GEO. SANGSTER,
President.
JOHN RANT A,
Treasurer.
H. E. MIKKONEN,
Secretary.
(633)
(Translation.)
Federation of Textile Workers of Canada, No. 708.
Magog, Que., February 13, 1910.
Sir,— I have just received your letter asking for the opinion of our association
on the reduction of the hours of labour on public works.
Being unable to send one of our members to give verbal evidence, as you desire,
and as we ourselves would have liked to do, we are going to give our opinion in this
letter. The members of Local No. 708 of the Textile Workers of America, approve
of such reduction in the hours of labour, and moreover we beg of you to be kind
enough to take into consideration the lot of the poor textile workers who toil from
6.30 in the morning till 6.15 in the evening in those manufactures where the heat is
stifling, without mentioning many other inconveniences, sources of many diseases,
chiefly for the female sex. Trusting that you will not forget us, I remain,
Your devoted servant,
EUGENE LANTTAGNE,
Corresponding Secretary.
(520)
(Translation.)
Federation of Textile Workers of Canada.
Montreal, February 6, 1910.
Sir, — I am in receipt of your letter of January, 1910. The Federation of Textile
Workers of Canada indorses the principle of the Bill now before the House. But, as
we are not directly interested in the different branches of that department, I ca in< t,
as secretary of this organization, give you any information that might be of any use
to you, under the circumstances.
The Federation of Textile Workers includes those who are engaged in the manu-
facture of cotton fabrics and so, we cannot help approving of the principle of this
Bill as concerns the various trades interested in this matter.
Yours truly.
OSCAR NAN TEL.
688
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ro. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
(631)
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Chatham Typographical Union, No. 421.
Chatham, Ont., February 22, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your valued letter and Bill No. 21, respecting the Hours of Labour
on Public Works, received. Our union is in hearty sympathy with this Bill and
would welcome the day it became law. For many reasons. It would help the solu-
tion of the unemployed problem. Better work would be done in eight hours than in
ten or twelve, as men would be more fit for it and employers would be greatly benefited
by reduction in the cost of artificial light, steam and electric power. Sunday could
be observed as the Sabbath day, not as a day of bodily rest and recreation, which
could not be obtained during long hours of labour throughout the week.
Yours respectfully,
THOMAS W. CLARK,
Secretary.
(541)
London Typographical Union, No. 133.
London, Ont., February 7, 1910.
Dear Sir, — Your communication of January 27 to C. V. Dodd to hand, and in
reply to same, I beg to state that the printing craft is one of the pioneers of the
eight-hour movement. At the outset the employers claimed the reduction of hours
were too great, but, as the movement advanced they began to recognize the fact that
their employees were apparently doing as much work as formerly, the work was of a
better class, and the men were in better condition, both mentally and physically.
Trusting your honourable committee will do all in their power to see this Bill
come to a successful issue, I remain,
Yours, &c.,
WM. O. RUSE,
Corresponding Secretary.
(618)
Victoria Typographical Union, No. 201.
Victoria, B.C., February 6, 1910.
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir, — This union by resolution goes on record as in favour of the Eight-
Hour Day Bill, No. 21, now before the House.
Faithfully yours,
GEORGE M. WATT,
Secretary.
(563)
Upholsterers’ International Union.
Berlin, Ont., February 8, 1910.
To the Gentlemen composing Committee to whom was referred Bill No. 21 —
Sirs, — In reply to a communication received from Mr. V. Clouthier, clerk to your
committee, I beg leave to inform you that the members of Local, No. 42, Upholsters
International Union, are unanimously in favour of Bill No. 21 being passed by parlia-
ment. They believe that were the Bill to become law, no injustice would be done to
any person concerned, but would benefit not only those employed on government con-
tracts, but also the country at large would be benefited. They believe that more
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
689
APPENDIX No. 4
efficient work can be done by employees who are not overworked, and the opinion of
greatest number of working people is, that any one who is forced to work more
than eight hours in one day, is overworked.
Sincerely hoping you will see fit to recommend the passing of the Bill.
.1 remain, yours truly,
A. E. LEE,
(698) Secretary.
(Translation.)
The Workingmen’s Party of Canada.
Montreal, March 11, 1910.
SiR-The Workingmen’s Party of the city of Montreal, being in favour of Bill
No. 21, respecting the eight-hour day has adopted a resolution to that effect and lays
before you, m support of its decision the following statement or reasons, which mili-
tates in favour of the Bill The eight-hour day system has long been in operation in
certain trades and that reform has been of advantage to the members of those cor-
porations without the employers having had occasion to complain about it Ex-
perience has proven that the same number of men performed the same amount of
work in eight hours as they did in a ten-hour day, because in a reasonable working
day the labouring man can concentrate his faculties with more purpose and interest
m ins work, than when he is crushed by bodily fatigue. It is further shown by ex-
perience that, the workingmen enjoying the benefits of the eight hour day avail them-
selves of their leisure time to cultivate their minds and it cannot be gainsaid that
among the printers are to be found the best educated workingmen, many of them
having already been called upon to manage public affairs.
It could further be alleged in favour of the eight-hour day movement that it
makes life more agreeable, promotes social intercourse and discourages anarchical
ideas, subversive of social order.
The .Workingmen s Party is of the opinion that the government should set an
example in that humanitarian and progressive direction and that the government by
adopting the proposed Bill would render itself popular among the working classes and
would greatly help on that great eight-hour day movement.
We could even affirm, on the authority of the best qualified doctors that public
health requires the establishment of the eight-hour day of labour, it having been shown
that the long hours of labour are one of the most potent causes of that dreaded dis-
ease, the white plague or tuberculosis, which claims so many victims among the great
masses who labour. Mens sana in corpore sano, to quote the old Latin axiom," and
not only will the shortening of hours lead to the development of their physical vigour,
but it would also afford them greater opportunities for educational development.
The country cannot plead economy, in denying to the workingmen the law they
are asking for. The government will not be put to any greater expenditure by re-
stricting the hours of labour in all their contracts and on all government construc-
tion work, since, as we have already stated, the same amount of work can be per-
formed in eight hours as in a ten-hour day. We may mention here that the eight-
hour day or rather the six or seven-hour day is in vogue in all the public departments
without anybody having ever complained about it.
Some urge against the principle of individual freedom, an objection which has
been raised by contractors, because they want to remain free to make their employees
work as they think proper, while pretending that their workingmen are also free to
work as long as they please. We do not acknowledge that they have any authority to
speak in' the name of the workingmen and our reply to their argument is that
individual freedom has its limits which are our neighbour’s rights. No one has the
right of doing harm and if the ten-hour day is not as beneficial as the eight-hour day,
4—44
600
COMMITTEE RE RILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
from the standpoint of public interest, no one can rightfully oppose the enactment of
"Bill 21 of the House of Commons.
Numberless other reasons militate in favour of this Bill, but we bring our letter
to an end here, as much for the sake of brevity as because we wish our letter to be
road.
We remain, the representatives of the Workingmen’s Party,
CHARLEMAGNE RODIER,
AZ. FILIATREAHLT, Sr.,
GUS. ERANCQ,
General Secretary.
(700)
(Translation.)
The Workingmen’s Club of the Northern Section of Montreal (Incorporated),
Montreal, April 9, 1910.
Sir, — I have been authorized by a resolution of our meeting of the 2nd instant,
to send you copy of the following resolution unanimously adopted by the members.
That the club indorses the stand taken by the general committee of the Work-
ingmen’s Party as well as that of the Trades and Labour Congress on Bill No. 21 and
demands its adoption.
Hoping that our request will be taken into consideration,
I remain, &c.,
J. GIRARD,
Secretary.
(708)
TRANSPORTATION.
Grand Trunk Railway System.
Montreal, Que., January 31, 1910.
Mr. V. Clouthier,
Secretary of Committee on Eight-Hours Bill,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir, — The hon. Minister of Labour has suggested I communicate with you
in regard to our being heard on the subject of this Bill before final report is made
to the House.
May I ask you to let me know if this be convenient and when it can be arranged
to have our representatives visit Ottawa for the purpose.
Yours truly,
WM. WAINWRIGHT,
Second Vice-President.
(710)
(Reply.)
House of Commons,
Wm. Wainwright, Esq.,
Second Vice-President,
Grand Trunk Railway System,
Montreal.
Ottawa, Ont., March 3, 1910.
Re Committee respecting Hours of Labour, Bill No. 21.
Dear Sir. — I received your letter of March 1, and beg to say in reply, that a date
will be fixed to hear such evidence as you may wish to offer, but so far the committee
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21—HOURU OF LABOUR
691
APPENDIX No. 4
HaS I'^ily^ubmitted^you^ Tl^to^th*1^ Pr°V.incial labmir burea"';-
l£.d riSVAdtX 'vit" rr — S’ ‘ofe Z*2?££
Our next meeting on March 9 'at n^cJehT neXt.™etmgI sha]1 advise promptly.
with Mr. Murray and others of the n0 !r Tr W11 be entlrely taken llP> 1 expect,
T +n ana others of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association
In the meantime, believe me,
Yours faithfully,
V. CLOUTHIER,
Cleric of Committee.
(712)
Ottawa River Navigation Company.
T)far Cip t i . Montreal, January 14, 1910.
to ' n ^ y y°Ur query in circuIar> dated December 27, 1909 we be-^
worS "re *° *he Iimi‘in« «f Iab<>“r ho^PB per d.y „„ public
Yours truly,
A. E. BLAGG,
Secretary.
(713)
Ottawa Transportation Company, limited.
^ Ottawa, Ont., December 28, 1909.
copy oTBillVo or! tt0-fiaCjkn?TIed f TeCeipt °f y0U1' circidar of 27th instant, also
WoJks.’ N 21* 6ntltled’ An Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public
As to my opinion of the proposed Act, I may say that I do not consider that H
per dly6 Men^hTlT-3 ^ ^ ““ tbemselves to limit their hours of labour to eight
f Sh°uld’ in my 0Pmron, be paid by the hour, and the length of the dav
should be from nine to ten hours according to the season of the year, when he would
ttaW;\frbm,S V5 ^ CCTt more pay day than if he w^ked only eight
• ’ , whlch w°uId be of more benefit to him than to shorten the day. My ewriencp
per *
Then there are cases where work is required to be done in a hurry, and the Bill
exceed ° T" t0 W°rk overtime if they feel disposed. They cannot
firp fln 5 a hours per day except m cases of extraordinary emergency caused by
whip dff°,i danfr °f lfe °r pr,operty- Tbere are timea when men are scarce, and
where a little rush is necessary, but which can be accomplished by the crew with a
little overtime, without engaging temporary hands. This is often the case, and to
take away this privilege from the contractor may be to deprive him of the power of
working to advantage, without causing any inconvenience to the men.
My idea is to make a minimum rate of wages per hour, but to leave the number
ot hours the men shall work to agreement between the men and the contractors.
here work is as diversified as with the government, covering a territory where there
are different rates of wages in different localities, this may not be possible, but to
make an inflexible eight hours per day is not, I think, either in the interests of pro-
duction, the workingmen, or the contractors.
Yours truly,
D. MIJRPHY,
President.
692
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
(714)
Plant Line, Canada Atlantic and Plant Steamship Company, Limited.
Halifax, N.S., January 12, 1910.
Sir,— I beg to acknowledge your communication of December 27 inclosing copy
of Bill No. 21, an Act respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.
I desire to call attention of the committee to the fact that in the opinion of this
company the passage of such a Bill would be against the best interests of employers.
If it became law so far as the public works of Canada are concerned, it would be a
precedent and follow in private works. Furthermore such a law would not be agree-
able to our employees. There are certain seasons of the year, and certain extra-
ordinary congestions of business at times when continuous work on the part of
labourers is necessary for several days. If such a law were enforced and not more
than eight hours allowed to be worked by any one man in any one day, it would mean
cutting down the wages which each man now receives, and work great hardships upon
the labourers’ earnings. It would furthermore necessitate the employment of a larger
number of men for rush work, and at such times if numbers were not obtainable it
would mean a serious handicap to business.
For these and many more reasons, this company opposes the passage of such an
Act, and considers it is against the interests of the employee as well as of the employer.
H. L. CHIPMAN,
Eastern Manager.
(715)
(Special.')
Deputy Minister, Department Railways and Canals.
Ottawa, Ont., January 26, 1910.
My Dear Mr. King, — In the matter of Bill No. 21, before the House of Commons,
relating to an eight-hour day on all work done for the government.
As Deputy Minister and Chief Engineer of the Department of Railways and
Canals and Chairman of the Government Railways Managing Board, I feel that this
would not be a wise or prudent measure to put through. It involves an enormous
increase in the cost of all work that may be required from time to time; and had
such a Bill been law the cost of constructing the Transcontinental Railway would have
been increased twenty per cent on the labour bill alone. The several articles of manu-
facture which go to make up the mechanical end of the proposition would have been
increased to a still greater extent. It should be borne in mind that in running a
plant to manufacture machinery, the labour end ought never to exceed forty per
cent of the cost. Under the proposed provisions of thd Bill, tools and shops would
be idle, and the burden or overhead charge, which now amounts to one hundred per
cent of the cost of labour, would be increased by at least twenty per cent. It is a
most revolutionary proposal, and one that in the practical working out, will, I think,
be found most difficult.
Let me illustrate by taking a contract — say for rails. The plant is of a character
lhat has to run for the full twenty-four hours; and I may add that cement plants
are similarly situated. Three shifts of men are necessary, under this law, whereas
only two are required on commercial work. The consequence would be that when
government work is being handled through such plants, three shifts of men would
need to be employed, and two shifts on commercial work. Where the additional shift
would be secured, no one would pretend to say. The fact is, as I see the matter, that
such business would have to be surrendered to foreigners entirely, where you could
not control the hours of labour of those producing the goods. I regard it as a most
serious handicap on Canadian industry to pass any such measure at this stage in the
development of Canada.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
693
APPENDIX No. 4
As Second Vice-president and Genera] Manager of the Dominion Iron and Steel
company and the Dominion Coal Company, another phase of the question appeals
to me. We, of course, expect to supply the government with large quantities of coal
for the railway service, and the Department of Marine and Fisheries ; and such other
points as we can reach. It is utterly impossible to apply the eight-hour day to coal
an„d utterly impracticable. In the steel making, as I pointed out above, the
dimculties are unsurmountable.
I am sure that when you have considered all the phases of the question, you will
agree with me that the Bill ought not to become law.
Yours faithfully,
lion. W. L. Mackenzie King, C.M.G.,
Minister of Labour , Ottawa.
M. J .BUTLER.
ERRATA.
Page 720. “Agreements, Material:” should be “Agreements, Mutual:”
Page 736. “Addition cost under,” should be “Additional cost under,”
2684— p. 695.
INDEX
TO
C 0 M M U N I C A T 1 0 N S .
4 — 45
INDEX
TO
COMMUNICATIONS
4 — 45
9-10 EDWARD VII.
APPENDIX No. 4
A. 1910
INDEX
TO
COMMUNICATIONS.
BOARDS OF TRADE.
No. OF
Communication.
Page
tin
Part
II.
Name •:
c
o
£
Against.
Conditional.
Non-
Committal.
427
Alberton, P.E.I
15
428
Annapolis, N.S
20
429
Belleville, Ont
19
430
Chicoutimi, Que
31
430
Edmonton, Alta
. . . .
16
430
lHort William, Ont •. . .
11
431
Halifax, N.S
13
431
Hamilton, Ont
25
432
Kingston, Ont
17
432
London, Ont
12
433
Montreal, Que. (Board of Trade) .
14
433
Montreal, Que. (Chambre de Com-
37
merce.)
434
Moosejaw, Sask
29
134
Neepawa, Man
28
434
North Bay, Ont
34
435
Orillia, Ont
22
435
Owen Sound, Ont
8
435
Quebec, Que
33
436
Resina. Sask
27
436 iSackville, N.B
3fi
437 St. John, N.B
24
1 32
438 Strathcona. Alta
9
: : : :
438
21
438
Victoria, B.C
35
439
23
439
26
440
18
440
3
. . . 1
441
30
. . .
441
Winnipeg, Man
10
Remarks.
, Would encroach on rights. Favour ten hours.
Would force old men out of work. See resolution
.Premature legislation.
Restricts rights of working men.
No further action of.
Arbitrary number of hours per day.
If Bill applied to excavations, Ac. See letter
Manufacturers could not do Government work
Principle of, objected to.
Strongly opposed.
Could not compete for Govt, contracts. Would
intensify lack of labour.
Principle unacceptable.
Detrimental to the West. Scarcity of labour
-Not m best interests of Canada.
Desire nine hours.
Not beneficial.
Premature legislation.
General objections.
Would prejudice local conditions.
Opposed to treating public works diffe rently from
private enterprises.
Inevitable trouble re hours of labour. Detrimental
to farmers.
filled labour none too plentiful.
.,ot in sympathy.
Possibilities of competition would be lessened
Employer and employee should arrange. Legisla-
tion unwise.
4 — -45i
697
698
COMMITTEE RE BILL JSfo. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
DOMINION GRANGE.
No. OK
Communication.
Page
in
Part
II.
Name of
441 Amherstburg, Ont [ • • • • 46
442 Braemar, Ont .... 44
5 ( Letter and resolution.)
Camlachie, Ont. .... 47
(Epworth Society.)
Cedar Grove, Ont _ .... 50
( Letter and resolution.)
Churchill, Ont - 43
(Lake Simcoe Society.)
Clarksburg, Ont 40
Crown Hill, Ont.
Forest, Ont
Gamebridge, Ont
Glencoe, Ont
445 (Heathcote, Ont..
445 Oil Springs, Ont ,
445 (Palmerston, Ont (••••[ 51
(Willow Grove Assn.) |
440 iStrathburn, Ont • • ■ ■ j 48
442
443
443
444
444
444
444
445
Conditional.
Non-
Committal.
38
i i
Remarks.
serious uujcuuuua.
Leave conditions as at present.
Would tend to aggravate labour problem.
Would aggravate difficulty in securing farm labour.
Lobour would gravitate toward city.
Unwise legislation.
Would influence farm labour problem.
Disapprove attempt to shorten 10 hour day.
446
446
446
FARMERS’ INSTITUTES AND BREEDERS’ ASSOCIATIONS.
. . Endorses proposal.
. . 'Favours eight-hour day.
. . General objection.
98
Agassiz, B.C ......
(Kent Association.)
Albemi, B.C | 97
Aylmer, Ont. ■■■
| (East Elgm Farmers Institute. )j
447 Beachville, Ont
447 I Bowden, Alta
447 Brome, Que
(County Association.)
448 (Carlyle, Sask • ■ •
(Moose Mountain Society.)
448 (Clifford, Ont
448 |C6te St. Emmanuel, Que ' ■ • • •
(Soulanges Co.)
449 (Grenfell, Sask
449 jGuelph, Ont
449 (L’Assomption, Que | ■ • • •
• (Co. Association.) »
450 Le Bic, Que
450 Lotbinifere, Que
(Lotbiniere Co. Assn.)
450 Louisville, Que I ... .
(Maskinongd Ag. Society.)
451 Macaulay, Ont j ... .
(South Muskoka Ag. Society.)
451 Malbaie, Que
(Charlevoix Ag. Co. Society.)
451 Manilla, Ont
] (Eastern Ont. Dairymen s Assn.)j
451 Morden, Man 67
452 Nicolet, Que
95
75
81
77
93
89
55
87
53
73
(General objection.
Not applicable to farmers.
| In favour of ten hours.
Farmers and labourers generally would suffer in
west from shorter hours. .
65
63
58
64
79
Norwood, Ont
{Letter and resolution.)
Nova Scotia (Durham, N.S.)..
(Provincial Association.)
Oak Lake, Ont
452
452
453
454 Pilot Mound, Man.
(Mountain Society.)
454 Port Sydney Ont
(Central Muskoka.)
454 Red Deer, Alta
454 Rougemont, Que
(Rouville Co. Association.)
57
69
70
72
83
61
84
62
. . . .
74
work.
Favours old condition.
Favours ten hours.
Favours ten hours.
Could not compete in foreign markets, if passed.
Necessary for labouring men to have more leisure.
Thinks workmen amply protected by fair wage
clause.
Generally opposed.
Detrimental to farmers’ interests.
Favours ten hours as the least. working day for
farmers.
Detrimental to farmers.
Favours ten hours.
“That mechanics and labourers should work as
long hours on public works as on private
contracts.
Generally opposed.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
699
APPENDIX No. 4
FARMERS INSTITUTES AND BREEDERS’ ASSOCIATIONS — Concluded.
I
No. OF
| Communication.
Page
in
Part
II.
Name of
t-l
O
£
Against.
Conditional.
Non-
Committal.
Remarks.
*455
Sackville, N.B
94
Detrimental to farmers.
Generally opposed.
Favourable.
Generally opposed.
Favour eight hours in certain cases.
455
St. Mary’s, Ont
90
....
455
(So. Riding Perth Ag. Society.)
St. Isidore, N.B . .
88
....
455
(Gloucester Co.)
Sunnidale Corners, Ont
68
456
Stetler, Alta
99
456
(United Farmers Union.)
Surrey Centre, B.C
96
456
Thames ville, Ont
82
Generally opposed.
456
(East Kent Association.)
‘Weekly Sun,' Toronto, Jan. 19, 10
66
457
(Editorial, W. L. Smith.)
Winnipeg, Man
76
Prejudicial to farmers.
(Springfield Society.)
MANUFACTURERS .
457
A.
Alaska Bedding Co., Winnipeg,
364
458
Man.
Alaska Feather Down Co., Mon-
310
458
treal, Q.
American Bank Note Co., Ottawa,
386
458
Ont.
Ames-Holden, Ltd., Montreal, Q.
115
459
Amherst Foundry Co., Amherst,
323
459
N.S.
Andre, Cushing & Co., St. John,
112
459
N.B.
Andrew Malcolm Furniture Co.,
308
460
Kincardine, Ont.
Andrew Muirhead, Paints, &c.,
236
460
Toronto, Ont.
230
460
461
Anglo-British Columbia Packing..
293
461
Auer Incandescent Light Co., Mon-
247
462
treal, Que.
B.
Bain Wagon Company, Ltd.,
220
462
Woodstock, Ont.
Ban well, Hoxie Wire Fence Co., \
102
Hamilton, Ont J
223
463
Barber & Sons, Chas., Meaford,
219
464
Ont.
281
465
Beatty & Sons, M., Welland, Ont.
336
466
Bechtels, Limited, Waterloo, Ont.
386
466
313
466
Belding, Paul & Co., Montreal, Q.
240
467
Belleville Pottery Co., (The) Belle-
218
467
ville, Ont.
Bell & Son, B. (Ltd.), St. George,
189
467
Ont.
Berlin Interior Hardwood Co. (The)
282 j
46S
Berlin, Ont.
Big River Lumber Co., Ltd, Prince
376
468
Albert, Sask.
Berry Brothers, Ltd., Detroit, U.S.
271
Climatic conditions.
Makes it harder for Canadian labour to compete
with foreign. _
Eight hour day in force since established, with half
Saturday.
In favour of present hours of labour; fair to both
employer and employee.
Would result in disarranging our working hours.
Generally opposed.
We export; hence our competition with cheap
labour.
Serious injustice to people.
Not in interests of trade.
Suggest insertion of certain words in Bill.
Against public interests generally.
| Favour present conditions.
Premature legislation.
Tanning process impossible under two times
systems.
Not possible for a factory to work portion of
I eight hours per day, and remainder ten.
Premature legislation.
Interferes with liberty of individual.
Reduction of hours would entail loss of 20 per
cent.
Such a measure would affect labour hours gen-
erally.
Impossible to work part of labourers eight hours,
and the remainder ten.
Could not compete for Government contracts.
Generally detrimental.
Generally detrimental.
700
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
MANUFACTURERS — Continued.
No. OF
] Communication.
Page
in 5
Part
II.
Name of
o
£
i
m
.9
<
Remarks.
469
470
471
471
472
472
472
473
473
473
473
474
475
476
476
478
479
479
B — Con.
Booth, J. R., Ottawa, Ont
Bowes, Jamieson and others, Ham-
ilton, Ont.
Boyd, W. J., Candy Co., Winni-
peg, Man.
Blouin, J. B. & Fils, Levis, Que. .
Bradshaw’s, Limited, Toronto, Ont
Brass and Steel Goods, Ltd
Breakey, John, Breakeyville Levis
Co., P.Q.
Breithaupt Leather Co., Berlin,
Ont.
British American Dyeing Co.,
Montreal, P.Q.
British Columbia Lumber and
Shingle Manufacturers, Ltd.,
Vancouver, B.C.
British Columbia Marine Railways
Co., Ltd., Victoria, B.C.
| British Columbia Marine Railways
] Co , Limited Victoria, B.C.
jBruce, Stewart & Co., Charlotte-
I town, P.E.I.
[Builders’ Exchange, Montreal, Que
Builders’ Exchange, London, Ont.|
Builders’ Exchange, Ottawa [
Burrell-Johnson, (New) Yarmouth!
N.S.
Butterworth Foundry, Ottawa,
Ont.
287
277
375
307
188
209
Impossible to work two sets of men in same factory
one an eight hour, and the other ten.
Our competitors employ cheap labour.
309
Would discourage initiative ambition.
Would increase cost of production.
Some of our industries could not compete.
Would not affect us.
139
Favour ten hours.
305
We consider it unworkable.
144
Except cases where health may be impaired.
143
340
Should be left to employers and employees to
settle.
Would favour it if made universal at all competing
points.
Would be detrimental to their business.
255
381
3S8
149
Would interfere with the personal liberty of the
subject.
Would interfere with the personal liberty of the
subject.
Against public policy, and interfere with liberty
of the subject.
Premature legislation.
334
Would be impossible to work two classes of em-
ployees in same factory.
C.
480
481
482
482
483
484
484
4S5
486
486
488
489
490
490
491
491
Caine, C. (Biscuits), London, Ont.
Canada Axe and Harvest Tool Co.,
St. Paul, Que.
Canada Cycle and Motor Co, West
Toronto, Ont.
Canadian Furniture Manufacturers
Woodstock, Ont.
Canada Linseed Oil Mills, Mont-
real, Que.
Canada Paper Co., Windsor Mills,
Que.
Canada Producer and Gas Engine
Co., Barrie, Ont.
Canada Screw Co., Hamilton, Ont.
Canada Bridge Co., Walkerville,
Ont.
Canadian Car and Foundry Co.,
Montreal, Que.
Canadian Consolidated Rubber
Co., Montreal, Que.
Canada Foundry Co., Toronto, Ont
Canada Furniture M’frs, Wood-
stock, Ont.
Canadian Gas, Power & Launches,
Toronto, Ont. •'&
Canadian General Electric Co .
Toronto, Ont.
Canadian Hart Wheels Co., Ltd.,
Hamilton, Ont.
160
192
140
216
Premature legislation.
Would be impossible to work part of staff eight
hours, and remainder ten.
Would be detrimental to them as against foreign
competition.
290
257
270
177
221
392
225
348
167
349
126
Premature legislation.
Would handicap in foreign competition.
Would handicap their industry.
Impossible to work one portion of staff eight
hours and remainder ten.
Would not be possible to do Government work
on eight-hour system, and private work on ten.
Would disarrange whole work to have two shifts
of men.
331
. j Impracticable to work part of staff on Govern-
ment work and remainder on private.
. | Cannot afford to restrict labour to eight hours
per day.
. jFavour general principles, but strongly opposed
j to 1st and 2nd sections of Bill.
. j Impossible to work eight hours on Government
J orders and ten hours on private contracts.
. I Decidedly detrimental to their business, on account
of foreign competition.
in
Par
II.
492
492
492
493
493
494
494
495
496
496
497
497
49S
498
499
500
501
501
501
502
503
603
504
504
505
505
505
508
509
509
510
510
511
511
511
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
ENDIX No. 4
701
MANUF ACTURERS — Continued.
Name of
No. OF
Communication.
C— Con.
Canadian Linotype, Ltd., Mont-
real, Que.
Canadian Locomotive Co., Kings-
ton, Ont.
Canadian Manufacturers Associa-
(Nova Scotia Branch), Halifax,
N.S.
Canadian Shovel and Tool Co.,
Hamilton, Ont.
Canadian Westinghouse Co., Ham-
ilton, Ont.
Carter & Co., E. T., Toronto, Ont.
Castle & Son., Montreal, Que
Chicoutimi Pulp Co., Quebec, Que.
Christie Bros. & Co., Amherst, N.S.
Christin J. & Co., Montreal, Que. .
Clark, W. H. & Co
Clinton Knitting Co., Clinton, Ont.
Colin McArthur & Co., Montreal,
Collingwood Shipbuilding Co.,
Collingwood, Ont.
Commercial Oil Co., Hamilton,
Ont.
Coniagas Reduction Co. (The), St.
Catharines, Ont.
Consolidated Mining & Smelting
Co., Trail, B.C.
Cowan Company (The), Toronto,
Ont.
Crescent Man’fg Co., Montreal
Que.
Crothers, W. J. Co., Kingston, Ont.
lavidson Manufacturing Co. , (The)
Montreal, Que.
>avis & Son, A., Kingston, Ont.
•ennis Wire Iron Co., London
Ont.
•ickie Lumber Co. (The), Stewi-
acke, N.S.
lodge Manufacturing Co., To-
ronto, Ont.
lominion Bridge Co., Montreal,
Que.
'ominion Car and Foundry Co.,
Montreal.
'ominion Corset Co., Quebec, Que.
'ominion Oil Cloth Co., Montreal,
Que.
rake, Francis, New Glasgow, N.S
uclos and Payan, St. Hyacinthe,
unlop Tire and Rubber Goods
Co. (Ltd.), Toronto, Ont.
E.
aton & Sons, J. R., Orillia, Ont.
ckardt, A. J. H., Toronto, Ont. .
clipse Whitewear Co., Toronto,
Ont.
117
361
166
222
283
185
ISO
357
337|
157
327
300 ;
169
374
245 1 .
294d
379 .
264 .
171
324 .
a
ij
£
Remarks.
Have fifty-five hour week, with Saturday half
holiday.
Unwise and not practicable.
Objections. See Exhibit G.
291 .
328
127
That it would create an impossible manufacturing
condition.
Same objections as in Manufacturers* circular.
See Exhibit G.
Unnecessary and uncalled for.
Inoperative and impracticable.
Same objections as Manufacturers Association
See Exhibit G.
Impossible to work part of staff eight hours, and
remainder ten.
Would incite workingman to spend money he
should keep for family.
Would be detrimental to our interests in the future.
Would restrict tendering for Government con-
tracts.
Opposed to principle of class legislation.
Would not be able to compete against cheap
foreign skilled labour.
Same objection as Manufacturers’ Association.
See Exhibit G.
Inadvisable.
We are competitors; cannot afford to lose Cana-
dian business.
Opposing because will in time become general.
Interfering with the liberty of the individual.
Two shifts under different hours system in same
factory, not possible.
Detrimental on account of foreign competition.
Two shifts under different hours system of labour,
impossible.
Discriminating provisions objected to.
133; ........ Impossible to compete with foreign opposition.
215
. 27S .
. 101 .
. 152 .
354 .
. 151 .
. 350 .
211
360
184
. ! Impracticable to make distinction in hours of
( labour.
. ; Impossible to work different hours on Government
and private contracts.
. j“In this, case, eight hour day would be put out
of business in one year.”
. jWould be very detrimental.
. ! Have nine-hour system.
. jWould interfere with liberty of the individual.
. | Opposed to an eight-hour day on general principles.
. (Might be possible for outdoor work, but impossible
for indoor.
“Detrimental to our interests ”
Injurious to manufacturers. Interferes with
liberty of employes.
Work 49 hours per week, with half holiday Sat-
urday.
in
Part
II.
512
513
513
514
515
516
519
517
517
518
518
518
518
519
519
519
520
520
521
521
522
522
522
523
523
523
524
524
525
525
526
527
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
MANUFACTURERS— Con tinned.
No. OF
Communication.
Name of
o
to
<
Remarks.
o— 1
E — Con.
3ddy Company, E. B., Hull, Que. j
Sllis & Co , P. W. (Ltd.), Toronto,!
Ont,
imerson & Fisher, St. John, N.B.
Smployers’ Association, Toronto,
Ont.
Swing & Sons, S. H., Montreal,
Que.
F.
'airbauks & Co., E. & T., Sher-
brooke, Que.
i'airbanks-Morse Canadian M’fg.
Company, Toronto.
'inlay & Sons Co., Norwood, Ont.j
Sord, J., & Co., Port-JNeut station,
Que.
Sortier, J. M., Montreal, Que
foundry of Plessisville, Plessis-|
ville, Que.
?rost & Wood Co., Smith's Falls,
Ont.
Galibert, Son & Co., Montreal, Que. j
1 al t Knitting Co., (The) Galt, Ont;.
Gananoque Bolt Co., Gananoque,'
Ont.
Georgian Bay Milling & Power Co. ,
Meaford, Ont.
biddings & Co., H. F., Granby,
Que.
Gidley & Co., H. E., Penetang-
uishene, Ont.
Tilley Bros., New Westminster,
B C
Goldie & McCullough Co., Galt,
Ont.
Gilmour Bros. & Co., Montreal,
Que.
Gilson Manufacturing Co., Guelph, .
Ont.
Gosselin, Joseph, Levis, P.Q
Gravel Lumber Co., (The) A , .
Etchemin Bridge, P.Q.
Great West Saddlery Co., Winni- .
peg, Man.
Greening Wire Co., Hamilton, Ont. .
Greey, Wm. & J. S., Toronto.
Griffin & Richmond Co., Hamilton, .
Ont.
Guertin Printing Co., Montreal,
Que.
Gurney Scale Co., Hamilton, Ont.
Gutta Percha & Rubber M’fg. Co.,
Toronto, Ont.
H.
Hadley Lumber Co., Chatham,
Ont.
359
109
314
252
200
332
213
198
320
196
123
137
212
250
319
106
233
3S4
295
341
30
165
154
159
237
114
390
227
104
346
273
....
122
Same objection as Manufacturers’ Association cir-
cular. (See Exhibit G.)
Handicapped already, by men working 52 hours,
against competition of 60 hours in U.S.
Legislation premature.
Bill invades the rights of private citizens.
| Disastrous results to them would follow, from
change in working hours.
Would be compelled to cease bidding on Govern-
| ment work
[Would make it impossible to compete for Govern-
j ment work.
Impracticable to work one portion of staff 8 hours,
and rest ten. t|
. I" It would disarrange our entire system.”
Would be detrimental to us in foreign competition.
Strongly opposed.
Would be forced to reduce wages, or close our
doors. * ,
[Impossible to operate plant, with two shifts of
j men, on a different hour system. .
Would restrict individual liberty, and ambition.
"Effect on our business would be revolutionary.
Opposed to discrimination.
Impossible to have part working eight hours, and
remainder ten.
. [Not applicable to our conditions.
. Could not compete under proposed measure.
. jWould be handicapped by foreign competition.
. Convinced Bill has not sympathy of better class
of labourers.
. [Not applicable to our conditions.
. [Strongly opposed.
. Detrimental, particularly to the West.
. jCould not compete under proposed measure.
. (Eight-hour day has prevailed with them for five
j years, and experience unfavourable.
. [Premature legislation.
Work fifty-five hours per week, with Saturday
half holiday.
Would prohibit tendering on Government con-
tracts, in their line of goods.
. . Not practicable.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
703
APPENDIX No. 4
MANUF ACTURERS — Continued.
No. OF
Communication.
Page
in
Part
II.
Name of
•S
(-1
o
d
bn
£
<
H — Con.
527
Hamilton Bridge Works Co., Ham-
148
ilton, Ont.
528
Hamilton Cotton Co., Hamilton,
280
Ont.
528
Hamilton Steel and Iron Co. ,
246
Hamilton, Ont.
629
Harry W. de Forest, Ltd., St.
312
John, N.B.
529
Heaps & Co., E. H., Vancouver,
383
B.C.
530
Helderleigh Nurseries, Winona,
265
Ont.
531
Hewson Woollen Mills, Amherst,
321
N.S.
532
Hinton Electric Co., Vancouver,
372
B.C.
532
Hiram L. Piper & Co., Montreal,...
356
533
Hiram Walker & Son, Walkerville,
318
Ont.
533
Howell Lithographic Co., Hamil-
100
ton, Ont.
534
534
I.
Imperial Extract Co., Toronto,
Ont.
Ingersoll Packing Co., Ingersoll,
276
243
Ont.
535
International Harvester Co. of
104
Canada, Hamilton, Ont.
535
International Varnish Co., To-
301
ronto, Ont.
536
J.
James Pender & Co., St. John,
311
N.B.
535
Jolley & Sons, Jas., Hamilton, Ont.
286
536
John Bertram & Sons, Dundas,
365
Ont.
537
John Inglis Co. (Ltd.), Toronto,
317
Ont.
537
241
538
539
539
John McDougall Caledonian Iron
Works Co., Montreal, Q.
John McPherson Co., Hamilton,
Ont.
....
333
178
275
K.
540
Kerr & Coombes Foundry Com-
261
pany, Hamilton, Ont.
540
Kinleith Paper Co., Toronto, Ont.
205
541
Knight Bros. Co., Burks Fal Ont
363
L.
542
Laidlaw Lumber Co., Toronto
Ont- . . .
Laing Packing & Provision Co.
253
542
197
Montreal, Que.
358
543
Lake Superior Corporation, Sault
Ste. Marie, Ont.
s
, I
oO
£
Remarks.
Not applicable to our conditions.
Could not compete with foreign competition.
“Would make it impossible for us to undertake
Government work.”
Frequently have rush orders to catch steamers.
Would be detrimental to competition, either in
home or foreign markets.
Scarcity of labour.
Present hours give us margin of 3 p,c. profit only.
Thinks nine hours sufficient, for men paid by hour.
Not practicable.
Cost of production would be increased.
“Would practically put us out of business.”
Detrimental competition from foreign houses.
Would conflict with Government work, as well as
other.
Premature legislation.
Shorter hours mean shorter pay envelope.
Not possible to separate Government goods from
others.
Would make the question of skilled labour more
difficult.
Would have to forego Government contracts, or
sell at loss, on account of foreign competition.
Would not figure on any Government contracts, if
Bill becomes law.
Opposed to fixed legal times and contracts between
people.
Would not be able to go into the field with foreign
i competitors.
Premature legislation.
Would not be able to compete with Americans
i running 59 hours per day.
Would have to increase price for Government
work 20 per cent, on tenders. _
So far as they are concerned, impracticable and
unworkable.
Objections, see exhibit G.
Climatic conditions, forbid.
Would disorganize labour and increase price of
goods. . ....
Would handicap Canadian industries m foreign
competition.
704
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
MANUF ACTURERS — Continued.
Page
in
Part
II.
Name of
L — Con.
543 Lamontagne, Limited, Montreal
Que.
544 Leonard & Sons, E., London, Ont.
545 I ippert Furniture Co., Berlin, Ont.
546 Lowndes Co. Toronto, Ont
546
546
547
547
548
548
549
549
549
550
550
551
553
553
553
554
554
ti3
555
556
556
«««;
557
557
558
559
559
M
560
550
M.
McColl Bros. & Co., Toronto, Ont.
McCordick, F. C., St. Catharines,
Macdonald & Co., Halifax, NS...
Macdonald Manufacturing Co.,
Toronto, Ont.
McDougall & Co., R., Galt, Ont. .
McIntosh Granite Co., Toronto,
Ont.
Mclver and Mooney, Scotstown,
Que.
McLaren Belting Co., Montreal
and Toronto.
Malcolm & Souter Furniture Co . .[
No. OF
Communication.
Manitoba Bridge & Iron Works,
Winnipeg, Man.
Manitoba Windmill & Pump Co.,
Brandon, Man.
Marsh & Henthorn and others,
Belleville, Ont.
Marsh Co., Wm.A., Quebec, Que.
Maritime Nail Co., St. John, N.B.
Martin-Senour Co., Montreal, Que.
Mason & Risch Piano Co., Toron-
to, Ont.
Maxwell & Sons, David, St.
Mary’s, Ont.
Massey-Harris Co., Toronto, Ont .
Metallic Roofing Co., Toronto Ont.
Moffat Stove Co., Weston, Ont. . .
[Montreal Carriage Leather Co.,
| Montreal, Que.
Montreal Lithographing Co., Mont-
real, Que.
Montreal Rolling Mills Co., Mont-
I real, Que.
Montreal Steel Works, Montreal,
Que.
Montreal Street Railway, Mont-
real, Que.
Montreal Watch Case Co
Munderloh & Co., Montreal, Que..
N.
561 [National Breweries, Quebec, Que.
561
561
562
562
563
National Rubber Co
National Table Co
New Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Co., Millerton, N.B.
(Niles, W. P., Wellington, Ont. . . .
Nordheimer Piano & Music Co.. . .
a
aj
0O
55
Remarks.
190
253
234
229
187
201
351
141
242
173
113
195
202
339
342
325
269
256
231
203
266
326
238
239
249
366
136
128
316
248
304
Amendment suggested: “Only made operative
during short days of year, viz.: 4 months, ad-
ding to the long days, the loss in short ones.”
Objections, see exhibit G.
Would be detrimental to their business.
Work at present, 49 hours per week; impossible
to compete with foreign countries.
Would not be able to tender for Government work.
Detrimental to fruit growers, &c
Favour nine-hour day, but opposed to compulsion.
Impossible for factories in Canada to adopt them-
selves to eight hours.
Favour ten hours.
Employees work forty-nine and half hours per
week, half-holiday Saturday.
Would interfere with rights of employee as well as
employer.
Would be detrimental to employees as well as em-
ployers.
Will add considerably to the cost of Govern-
ment. ”
Would be prohibitory, from climatic causes
chiefly.
Would make it impossible to meet foreign com-
petition.
Objections, see Exhibit G.
Would increase United States exports to Canada.
Would increase certain expenses 20 per cent.
Would be detrimental to employers of labour,
working in Government contracts.
Would be impossible to share in Government con-
tracts.
Would prevent contracting for Government work.
Impossible to meet foreign competition.
Strongly opposed.
Raw products used are exported. Finished pro-
ducts used, imported.
Impossibility of competing in foreign markets.
Would prohibit all from accepting orders from the
Government.
Consider the Bill an impracticable proposition.
Climatic conditions.
Objections, see exhibit G.
Suggest insertion in Bill of “Payment per hour.”
Would make it impossible to share in Government
business.
168
284 !
259 !
352
179
175 ... .
Would place Government employees in different
position from others.
Measure, if enacted, will be unfair.
Strongly opposed.
Would impose burdens impossible to bear.
Would be detrimental to his special industry.
Strongly opposed.
Pagi
in
Pari
II.
563
563
564
564
=4
565
566
<4
566
»!
567
567
m
56S
569
569
569
570
571
"’4
571
562
572
572
573
573
s.
574
575
575
576
576
577
577
578
578
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
705
ENDIX No. 4
MANUF ACTURERS — Continued.
No. op
Communication.
Name of
O.
Ontario Iron and Steel Co., To
ronto, Ont.
Ontario Paper Box Manufactur-
ing Co., Toronto.
Ormsby, A. B., Ltd., Toronto,
Ont.
03hawa Canning Co., and others,
Oshawa, Ont.
Oxford Foundry and Machine Co.,
Oxford, N.S.
P.
204
120
135
315
Remarks.
a o
oO
Z
174
. jObject to section 2 of Bill.
. Shorter hours would lessen output.
. ^Favours creating eight or nine-hour day, by
mutual agreement with employees.
. Would interfere with liberty of the subject.
. Impossible to work part of men eight hours, and
remainder ten.
Page Wire Fence Co., Walkerville, .
Ont.
Parry Sound Lumber Co., To-j .
ronto, Ont.
Paton Manufacturing Co., Mont- j.
real, Que.
Pauz<5 et Fils, Montreal, Que ! .
Payette & Co., P., Penetan-I.
guishene, Ont.
Payne, J. Bruce, Ltd., Granby, .
Que.
Penmans, Limited, Paris, Ont. . . . j .
Perrin Plough & Stove Co., Smith’s .
Falls, Ont.
Peters, J. Henry, Co., Toronto, .
Ont.
Phoenix Bridge & Iron Works . . . . !.
Poison Iron Works, Toronto, Ont.
Pouliot, J. S., & Frfere, Quebec, Que .
Proteau & Carignan, Quebec, Que. [ .
Q.
Jueen City Oil Co.
R.
tea & Co., A. E., Toronto, Ont.. .
tideau Manufacturing Co., Ot-
tawa, Ont.
tiordan Paper Mills, Ltd., Mont-
real, Que.
titchie, John, Co., Quebec, Que. .
tobb Engineering Co., Amherst,
N.S.
tobert Mitchell Co., Montreal,
Que.
tobinson & Co., O. E., Ingersoll,
Ont.
lock City Tobacco Co
toden Bros., Toronto, Ont
tolph & Clark, Toronto, Ont.,
toss Rifle Co., Quebec, Que. .
262
163
131
124
232
Would prove “to be an iuj u / go many manufac-
turing concerns. ”
Impossible to keep two sets of men in mill, in
different times
Work 54 hours per week, for five days, half holiday
on Saturday.
“ Our 330 workingmen never asked for a reduction
of hours.
Climatic conditions.
274
132
226
217
289
162
161
155
345
207
164
194
210
343
292
224
268
297
228
335
Have experimented with eight-hour day and nine-
j hour, employees preferred ten.
[Under this Bill, impossible to manufacture certain
goods in Canada.
Should be no discrimination between Government
labour and others.
“Will simply mean elimination of general and
keen competition. ”
“Would prohibit our firm from tendering in Gov-
't emment contracts.”
“AH shipyards in Canada might as well be closed. ”
Would not be able to meet foreign competition.
Impossible to work two sets of men in different
time.
Bill is objectionable in principle and detail.
“Unfair from every standpoint. ”
Would be compelled to close down factory, if Bill
is enacted.
Would handicap in foreign competition.
Would cause an unfair disadvantage in foreign
competition.
Objections, see exhibit G.
“ Other markets will undersell us, taking away the
j workers’ earning power. ”
Would be impossible to tender for Government
work.
Strongly opposed.
Would be detrimental in competing with foreign
competition.
Suffering from foreign competition.
Would not be able to complete“annual amount of
1 output.
706
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
Page
in
Part
II.
579
579
580
581
582
582
583
583
584
584
585
585
586
586
587
588
588
589
590
590
591
591
592
592
593
593
59 1
595
595
596
596
596
597
597
598
599
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
MANUFACTURERS- -Continued.
No. OF
Communication.
Name of
Remarks.
St. Charles Condensing Co., St.
Charles, 111., U.S.A.
St. Lawrence Paper Bag Co., Que-
bec, Que.
St. Lawrence Saw and Steel Works
Co., Sorel, Que.
Sandford, W. E., Co., Hamilton,
Ont.
Savoie-Guay Co., Plessisville, Sta-
tion, Que.
Seaman Kent Co., Meaford, Ont. .
Shawinigan Carbide Co., Montreal,
Que.
Shurley & Derrett, Ltd., Toronto,
Ont.
Simms & Co., T. S., St. John, N.B.
Simonds Canada Saw Co., Mont-
real, Que.
Simon, Labrie & Sons, Isle Verte,
Smart-Turner Machine Co., Ham-
ilton, Ont.
Smith, D., Engraving and Litho-
graphing Co., Toronto, Ont.
Stanley, Frank, Toronto, Ont
Stauntons, Ltd., (Wall Paper)
Toronto, Ont.
Stevens Co., Ltd., Galt, Ont
Stevens-Hepner Co., Port Elgin,
Ont.
Sutherland, Innes Co., Chatham,
Ont.
Sutherland Rifle Sight Co., Ltd.,
New Glasgow, N. S.
T.
Talbot & Co., A., London, Ont
Tallman Brass & Metal Co., Ham-
ilton, Ont.
T. H. Taylor Co., Ltd
Tebbutt Shoe & Leather Co..,
Three Rivers, Que.
Thomas Organ Co., Woodstock,
Ont.
Toronto Carpet Manf’g Co
Toronto Paper Manf’g Co., Tor-
onto.
Toronto Whip Co., Toronto, Ont.
Tourville Lumber Mills Co., Mont-
real, Que.
Truro Condensed Milk Co., Truro,
N.S.
Turnbull Co., C., of Galt, Ltd.,
Galt, Ont.
Turner & Sons, J. J., Peter-
bouorgh, Ont
Tweedale, J. Fletcher, Perth, N.B.
V.
Victoria Clothing Co., Victoria-
ville, Que.
Victoria Machinery Depot Co.,
Victoria, B.C.
Vineberg, H. & Co., Montreal,Que_.
Vulcan Iron Works, Ltd., Winni-
peg, Man.
336
244
208
296
329
285
191
258
344
129
142
279
176
385
260
362
107
306
105
Would be unable to compete for Government
orders.
Objections. See Exhibit G.
Objections. See Exhibit G.
Would have to abandon Government work alto-
gether.
‘Impossible in their business to adopt eight-hour
: plan.
" Would absolutely prohibit our export business.”
Would prohibit from competing on Government
orders.
Would be impossible to take Government business.
Would be prohibitory so far as Government worn
is concerned.
Objections. See Exhibit G.
“Better to increase wages and keep ten hour day.”
"‘Agreeable if certain suggested insertions be
! added to Bill.”
. Would be unable to meet foreign competition.
. 'Premature legislation.
. Would be a fatal blow to our business.
. Confusion would follow. No serious objection to
eight hours.
. I Impossible to meet present strong foreign com-
{ petition, if passed.
. Detrimental as to foreign competition of Southern
States.
. Objections. See Exhibit G.
389
254
263
272
307
182
118
214
206
353
267
199
377
Unable to contract for Government works.
Would be a great handicap.
Not favourable to eight hours at present.
Strongly opposed.
Might be wise in certain cases.
Impossible .to separate materials necessary for
Government orders from private.
Would favour nine-hour system, or fifty-four
hours per week.
Have adopted nine hours for some time past.
Objections. See Exhibit G.
Labour would accomplish 20 per cent less work
under eight-hour system.
"A shorter working day would mean increased
cost of production.”
jUnfair to manufacturers and employers of labour.
Uncalled for; would seriously affect the industrial
life of Canada.
158
146
183
145
Strongly opposed.
Would destroy chances of meeting foreign com-
petition successfully.
Would make competition impossible.
Climatic conditions unfavourable.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
707
APPENDIX No. 4
MANUFACTURERS — Concluded .
No. OF
Communication.
Page
in
Part
II.
Name of
W.
o
In
oj
' S3
a g
o o
Remarks.
599
Waterous Engine Works Co.,
Brantford, Ont.
251
599
Westminster Iron Works, New
Westminster, B.C.
380
600
Wilkinson, J. E. Co., Ltd., Tor-
onto, Ont.
....
302
600
William Hamilton Co., Peter-
borough, Ont.
288
600
Winnett & Wellinger, Toronto,
Ont.
186
601
Winnipeg Paint & Glass Co., Ltd.,
Winnipeg, Man.
338
601
Wood Bros., St. Catharines, Ont.
168
601
Woodruff, Welland E., St. Cath-
arines. Ont.
393
602
Parmelee, C. H (special)
393a
Unless made universal, would be very objection-
able.
“Would put us out of business altogether.”
Strongly opposed generally.
Strongly opposed generally.
Would prohibit from tendering for Government
work.
Climatic conditions of West against.
Strongly opposed.
'See letter to Mr. Parmelee.
MARINE.
B.
1
603
704
Would result in driving business to older countries.
D.
602
707 . . .
U.
603
Union Steamship Co. of British ....
706
Impossible for Act to apply to shipping.
Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
503
Upper Ottawa Improvement Co., ....
705 .... 1 ... .
Vigorously protest against change in present re-
Ottawa, Ont.
gulations.
TRADES AND LABOUR COUNCILS AND UNIONS.
B.
604
Bakers’ Journeymen, &c
No. 204, Toronto, Ont.
529
604
Boiler Makers, &c
No. 478, Moosejaw, Sask.
634
604
Boiler Makers, &c
No. 417, North Bay, Ont.
606
604
Boiler Makers, &c
No. 529, Rivers, Man.
644
605
Boiler Makers, &c
No. 128, Toronto, Ont.
52S
605
Bookbinders, &c
No. 91, Montreal, Que.
655
605
Bookbinders, &c
No. 28, Toronto, Ont.
602
605
Bookbinders, &c
No. 160, Winnipeg, Man.
Bricklayers & Masons, &c
No. 2, Brandon, Man.
601
606
524
606
Bricklayers & Masons, &c
No. 2, Alta., Calgary, Alta.
561
506
Bricklayers & Masons, &c
No. 1, Alta., Edmonton, Alta.
558
559
607
Bricklayers & Masons, &c
No. 1, Ont., Hamilton, Ont.
654
Favourable.
Unanimously in favour.
Unanimously support the Bill.
Unanimously in favour.
Recommend adoption of Bill.
Full adhesion to Bill.
Endorsed by every member present.
Heartily endorsed the proposed Act.
Heartily in favour.
In favour of eight-hour day.
See Resolutions.
Heartily in accord .
708
Pag
in
Par
II.
607
607
608
608
608
608
609
609
609
610
610
610
610
610
611
611
611
611
613
613
613
613
614
614
614
615
515
616
616
616
616
616
617
617
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD Vli., A. 1910
TRADES AND LABOUR COUNCILS AND UNIONS — -Continued.
Name of
B— Con.
3ricklayers & Masons, &o
No. 10, Kingston, Ont.
bricklayers & Masons
No. 5, London, Ont.
bricklayers & Masons
No. 5, Alta., Medicine Hat, Alta.
bricklayers & Masons
No. 33, Sarnia, Ont.
bricklayers & Masons
No. 16, Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.
bricklayers & Masons
No. 22, Woodstock, Ont.
bridge Structural, &c
No. 4, Toronto, Ont.
builders' Labourers, &c
St. Jerome, Que.
builders’ Labourers, &c
St. Jerome, Que.
builders’ Labourers, &c
No. 1, Toronto, Ont.
No. op
Communication. |
, S
JS
Remarks.
574
513
535
486
498
I
499
597
595
C.
Carpenters, &c
No. 933, Ange-Gardien, Que.
Carpenters, &c
No. 553, Berlin, Ont.
arpenters, &c
Brantford, Ont.
arpenters, &c
No. 1325, Edmonton, Alta.
arpenters, &c
No. 1220, Fernie, B.C.
arpenters, &c
No. 1498, Fort William, Ont.
arpenters, &c
No. 1744, Grand Mfere, Que.
arpenters, &c
No. 83, Halifax, N.S.
arpenters, &e
No. 18, Hamilton, Ont.
arpenters, &c
No. 815, Hamilton, Ont.
arpenters, &c
No. 1946, London, Ont.
arpenters, &c
No. 1127, Montreal, Que.
arpenters, &c
No. 1244, Montreal, Que.
irpenters, &c -
Montreal, Que.
irpenters, &c
No. 134, Montreal Q.
irpenters, &c
No. 713, Niagara Falls, Ont.
irpenters, &c
No. 93, Ottawa, Ont.
irpenters, &c j
No. 38, St. Catharines, Ont.
irpenters, &c I
No. 1160, St. Johns, P.Q.
.rpenters, &c !
No. 919, St. John, N.B.
rpenters &c I
No. 730, St. Sauveur, Q.
rpenters, &c I
No. 1825, Sault Ste. Marie.
rpenters &c J
No. 171, Sorel, Que.
rpenters, &c ]
No. 1677, Thorold, Ont.
469
607
587
478
5S4j
495|
449
448
221
446
564
425
434
453
567
539
516
518
476
445
420
585
458
470
566
682
Heartily endorses.
Have had an eight-hour day for three years.
Unanimously in favour.
Endorse Bill by resolution.
Unanimously endorsed.
Favourable, providing an increase of wages’ob-
tained.
Heartily endorsed.
Strongly favour the enactment.
Favourable to, if no reduction in earnings.
Unanimously in favour.
Unanimously endorsed.
Heartily endorsed.
Unanimously in favour of.
Heartily approve of the Bill.
Strongly endorses.
“Advisable for welfare of workmen in general,”
“Unanimously declare in favour.”
Strongly urges its adoption.
"Endorse and approve Bill 21.”
Strongly in favour of.
"Heartily endorse.”
Entire concurrence.
Strongly in favour of.
. “‘Give unqualified approbation.”
. / ‘Favours it, and wishes to extend’it to allftndus-
tries.”
. Heartily approved.
"Unanimously endorsed.”
“Heartily endorsed the provisions of Bill.”
Strongly in favour.
Unanimously in favour of.
‘AH in favour of.”
Strongly approve.
. (Strongly in favou
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ko. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
709
APPENDIX No. 4
TRADES AND LABOURS COUNCILS AND UNIONS — Contimied,
No. op
Communication.
Page
in
Part
11.
Name of
C
Against.
o
+3
fl
!
§1
1 ^
o
Zo
C — Con.
1
617
Carpenters, &c
473
618
No. 803, Toronto, Ont.
Carpenters, &c
638
618
Victoria, B.C.
Carpenters, &c
667
618
No. 343, Winnipeg, Man.
Carpenters, &c
481
618
No. 814, Winnipeg, Man.
646
619
No. 663, Peterborough, Ont.
Cigar Makers, &c
429
i
619
No. 58, . .ontreal, Q.
Cigar Makers, &c
543
619
No. 140, St. Catharines, Ont.
556
619
No. 27, Toronto, Ont.
Civic Employees of Montreal, . . .
505
620
452
620
No. 705, Montreal, Q.
Cotton, Spinners, &c
450
621
*No. 1736, Valleyfield, Q.
542
621
Beriin, Ont.
Council, Trades and Labour
408
621
Calgary, Alta.
Council, Building, &c
568
623
Edmonton. Alta.
404
627
Hamilton, Ont.
412
627
Toronto, Ont.
Council, Building, &c
433
624
Vancouver, BiC.
416
621
Kingston, Ont.
435
623
Halifax, N.S.
426
624
Hamilton, Ont.
410
625
Lethbridge, Alta.
440
625
Montreal.
464
625
Port Arthur, Ont.
423
625
Quebec, Que.
438
626
Regina, Sask.
424
626
Revelstoke, B.C.
413
626
St. Catharines, Ont.
430
627
Sydney, N.S.
405
628
Vancouver, B.C.
441
630
Victoria, B.C.
444
442
Windsor, Ont.
E.
634
635
635
565
No. 664, St. Thomas, Ont.
487
No. 674, Stratford, Ont.
432
No. 581, Vancouver, B.C.
Remarks.
Unanimously in favour of.
Heartily endorses.
Meets with approval.
“Wholly in sympathy with.”
Premature legislation.
“Already in force in nearly all cigar factories.’
“Thoroughly in aecord.
Adopted 8 hours in 1886.
Strongly approve.
Unanimoulsy adopted.
“Was unanimously endorsed.”
Heartily endorsed.
Emphatically endorse.
Favour eight hours per day.
Heartily endorses.
Strongly in favour of.
Favour the insertion of word in Sec. 3 of Bill.
Unanimously endorse.
Strongly in favour.
Heartily in sympathy.
Suggests addition to Bill.
Favourably endorsed Bill.
Heartily endorses Bill.
Strongly in favour.
Emphatically support.
Entirely in accord.
Thoroughly in accord.
Heartily endorse Bill.
Heartily endorse.
Unanimously in favour.
710
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
Page
in
Part
II.
630
632
633
633
634
635
630
631
631
632
633
635
633
630
631
636
631
636
637
637
637
637
637
638
639
638
638
639
639
539
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
TRADES AND LABOUR COUNCILS AND UNIONS — Continued.
No. OF
Communication .
Name of
.a
d
a
<
Remarks.
o S
° 5
Zo
E — -Con.
Engineers, Lacomotive
No. 243, Fort William, Ont.
Engineers, Locomotive
No. 750, Lethbridge, A1 a.
Engineers, Locomotive
No. 689, Montreal, Que.
Engineers, Locomotive
Moosejaw, Sask.
Engineers, Locomotive
No. 388, Quebec, Q.
Engineers, Locomotive
No. 67, Sault Ste. Marie.
Engineers, Marine
No. 13, Dartmouth, N.S.
Engineers, Marine
No. 4, Kingston, Ont.
Engineers, Marine
No. 5, Lachine, Que.
Engineers, Marine
No. 12, Midland, Ont.
Engineers, Marine
No. 10, Owen Sound, Ont.
Engineers, Marine
No. 1, Toronto, Ont.
Engineers, Stationary
No. 7, Ottawa, Ont.
Engineers, Steam
No. 398, Belleville, Ont.
Engineers, Steam
No. 404, Kingston, Ont.
Engineers, Steam
No. 356, Toronto, Ont.
Engineers, Railway
No. 14, Halifax.
570
639
454
622
475
629
589
485
443
523
—
640
521
666
586
648
417
F.
Firemen and Enginemen
No. 69, Brockville, Ont.
Firemen and Enginemen
No. 635, Calgary, Alta.
Firemen and Enginemen
No. 321, Chapleau, Ont.
F iremen and Enginemen
No. 521, Moosejaw, Sask.
Firemen and Enginemen
No. 181, Palmerston, Ont.
Firemen and Enginemen
No. 341, Revelstoke, B.C.
Firemen and Enginemen
No. 329, Sydney, N.S.
Fisherman’s Union
No. 27, Canso, N.S.
Fisherman’s Union
No. 15, Port Morien, N.S.
Fisherman’s Union
No. 15, Port Morien, N.S.
Fisherman’s Union
No 23, Sambro, N.S.
G.
Gas Workers (Stokers). . .
No. 9, Ottawa, Ont.
Glass Workers, &c
No. 21, Toronto, Ont.
624
488
503
569
623
554
512
632
610
6201
534'
594
551
Unanimously support the Bill.
Meets with approval.
Favour the passing of the Bill.
Strongly in favour.
Heartily support.
Favourable to the Bill.
Heartily support.
In favour of adoption of the Bill.
Favour nine hours.
“Not in favour, unless applied generally to all
classes of labour."
Unanimously in favour.
Against constitution of charter to express an
opinion.
‘ All unanimously in favour of.”
Favourable to Bill.
Unanimously endorsed.
Strongly in sympathy.
‘ Heartily approves.”
Strongly favour the passing of the Bill.
‘Approve an eight-hour day.”
Providing Act will not decrease wages current
each locality.
Strongly in favour.
Strongly in favour.
Favourable to the Bill.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— FOURS OF LABOUR
711
APPENDIX No. 4
TRADES AND LABOUR COUNCILS AND UNIONS — Continued.
Page
in
Part
II.
No. OF
Communication.
Name of
I £
c o
cO
640
640
640
640
641
L.
Leather Workers, &c
Quebec, Que.
Leather Workers, &c
No. 93, Toronto, Ont.
Leather Workers, &c
Victoria, B.C.
Letter Carriers, Federated, &c. . .
No. 14, Calgary, Alta.
Letter Carriers, Federated, &c. . .
Victoria, B.C.
M.
407
533
457
600
642
642
642
643
643
643
644
644
644
644
645
645
645
645
646
646
646
646
647
647
647
648
648
648
648
649
649
649
Machinists, &c
No. 357, Calgary, Alta.
Machinists, &c
No. 115, McAdam, N.B.
Machinists, &c
No. 52, Moncton, N.B.
Machinists, &c
No. 413, North Bay, Ont.
(Machinists, Ac
{ Quebec, Que.
Machinists, &c
No. 656, Rivifere-du-Loup, Que.
Machinists, &c
No. 103, Stratford, Ont.
Machinists, <$rc
No. 723, Winnipeg, Man.
Machinists, &c
No. 189, Winnipeg, Man.
Machinists, cfcc
No. 12799, Fort William, Ont.
Maintenance of Way
No. 210, Ashcroft, B.C.
Maintenance of Way
No. 579, Bunelody, Man.
Maintenance of Way
No. 214, Caledon, Ont.
Maintenan e of Way
No. 70, Cutler, Ont.
Maintenance of Way
Cutler, Ont.
Maintenance of Way
No. 3, Englehart, Ont.
Maintenance of Way
No. 136, Finch, Ont
Maintenance of Way
Maintenance of Way
No. 323, Hanan, Man.
Maintenance of Way
No. 350, Humbolt, Sask.
Maintenance of Way
No. 322, La Broquerie, Man.
Maintenance of Way
No. 197, Langenburg, Sask.
Maintenance of Way.
No. 528, Mahone Bay, N.S.
No. 244, Maintenance of Way. . . .
Mattawa, Ont.
Maintenance of Way
No. 488, Morden, Man.
Maintenance of Way
No. 223, Ottawa, Ont.
Maintenance of Way
No. 217, Palgrave, Ont.
Maintenance of Way
No. 145, Portage la Prairie, Man.
-46
661
484
652
579
42S
455
605 .
511 .
496 .
591 .
651 .
6S1 .
642 .
522
Remarks.
Strongly approve.
Will give verbal evidence.
Heartily in accord.
Strongly support.
Strongly endorse.
Suggest inserting a clause.
“Stand as a unit for same.”
Heartily endorse the Bill.
Favour Act being made universal.
Strongly endorse Bill.
Unanimously approved.
Strongly in favour.
Resolution passed in favour.
Unanimously endorse.
Unanimously in favour.
Strongly support Bill.
Strongly in favour of.
643
693
612
695
701
6S4
691
4S9
699
668
|
696
690
676
688
1
643( ....!“ Prefer more help and better wages.
697 j Not interested.
All in favour of Bill.
Resolution in favour of Bill.
Strongly in favour of.
Favourable.
Heartily endorsed.
Strongly favour.
F avourable.
F avourable.
“Should include all railroad work in Canada, &e.J
age
in
Part
II.
650
651
651
651
652
652
652
653
653
653
654
654
654
654
655
655
655
656
656
656
657
657
657
657
658
658
658
658
659
659
659
660
660
660
661
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ro. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
TRADES AND LABOUR COUNCILS AND UNION S — Continued.
Name of
No. OF
COMMUNICATON.
s
, 6
c o
oO
Remarks.
M— Con.
laintenance of Way
Shediac Road, N.B.
laintenance of Way
Salmon Lake, Que.
laintenance of Way
St. Jerome, Que.
laintenance of Way
St. Louis, Mo., V.S.
laintenance of Way
St. Louis, Mo., U.S.
lo. 456, Maintenance of Way. .
St. Tite, Que.
lo. 399, Maintenance of Way. .
Sutherland, Sask.
4o. 232, Maintenance of Way. .
Thurso, Que.
lo. 262, Maintenance of Way. .
Udney, Ont.
laintenance of Way.
Vancouver, B.O.
No. 373, Maintenance of Wray. .
Wetaskiwin, Alta.
Vo. 535, Maintenance of Way. .
Wolfville, N.S.
Vo. 21, Metal Polishers, &c. . . .
Toronto, Ont..
Metal Polishers Trades Council .
Toronto, Ont
vJo. 2163, Mine Workers
Blairmore, Alta.
No. 709, Mine Workers
Bridgeport, N.S. _
No. 146, Mines’ Union
Codal , Ont.
No. 950, Mine Workers
(Dominion No. ) N.S.
So. 2314, Mine Workers
Fernie, B.C.
So. 1263, Mine Workers, Ac
Frank, Alta.
No. 695, Mine Workers
Glace Bay, N.S.
No. 180, Mine Workers
Grand Forks, B.C.
No. 100, mine Workers
Kimberley, B.C.
No. 1233, Mine Workers
Lille, Alta.
No. 2304, Mine Workers
Michel. B.C.
No. 71, Mine Workers
Moyie, B.C.
No. 69, Mine Workers
Nelson, B.C.
No. 550, Mine Workers
New Aderdeen, N.S.
No. 1366, Mine Workers
Port Hood, N.S.
No. 2052, Mine Workers. ......
Parsburg. Alta.
No. 2672, Mine Workers
Roche Perce, Sask.
No. 81, Mine Workers
Sandon, B.C.
No. 69, Mine Workers
Springhill, N.S.
No. 32 , mine Workers
Sydney, N.S.
No. 1959, Mine Workers
Taber, Alta.
No. 362, Moulders, Iron, &c. . . .
Carleton Place, Ont.
678
657
669
635
653
679
687
689
603
694
477
673
593
621
619
552
460
403
462
480
641
562
532
490
483
492
560
588
510
662
506
581
530
637
493
536
In favour of an eight-hour day.
Strongly support Bill.
Provided wages would not be reduced.
Strongly supports the Bill.
F avourable.
Favour the proposed Bill.
Meets with full approval.
Would not favour if meant reduction of wages.
Contented with ten hours.
Strongly in favour.
Would favour if wages were not reduced.
Suggest an amended form.
Heartily endorses Bill.
Would approve of principle, if any public work
carried on underground.
Heartily endorse the Bill.
Unanimously endorsed.
Unanimous in support.
Opinion Bill does not go far enough.
Heartily approves.
Heartily in accord with Bill.
Strongly in favour.
Hearty concurrence.
Unanimously in favour.
Suggest a provision in proposed Bill.
Would favour extension to all industries.
Endorsed the Bill.
Unanimously endorse.
Heartily in accord.
i
In favour of the Bill.
Strongly favour.
Unanimously endorsed.
Thoroughly approves of.
Heartily endorses principle.
Already work eight hours, and consider the ex-
periment most successful.
Strongly in favour.
667
667
668
669
669
675
675
676
676
COMMITTEE RE BILL Vo.
21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
N DIX No.
4
TRADES AND LABOUR COUNCILS AND UNIONS-CanfcW.
Remarks.
fo. 19], Moulders, Iron, &c
Peterborough, Ont
fo. 189, Moulders, Iron
Port Hope, Ont.
o. 201, Moulders, Iron
Smith’s Falls, Ont.
o. 26, Moulders, Iron
Hamilton, Ont.
o. 472, Moulders, Iron
Welland, Ont.
o. 407, Painters, &c.
St. Catharines, Ont
0. 349, Painters, &c.
Montreal, Que.
ittern Makers, &c,
Winnipeg, Man.
r. 44, Photo Engravers
Ottawa, Ont.
'. 35, Photo Engravers
Toronto, Ont.
). 34, Pianos, &c,
Guelph, Ont.
>. 334, Plasterers, &c
Winnigeg, Man.
1. 186, Plumbers, &c.
Brantford, Ont.
'• 488, Plumbers, &c.
Edmonton, Alta.
'. 56, Plumbers, &c.
Halifax, N S.
. 67 Plumbers, &c
Hamilton, Ont.
. 289, Plumbers, &c
London, Ont.
■ 170, Plumbers, &c
fancouver, B. C.
. 62, Plumbers, &c
Vinnineg, Man.
■ 173, Printing, &c
-ondon, Ont.
35, Provincial Workmen’s As
oc., &c., Sydney Mines, N.S.
8, Provincial Workmen’s Asso-
lation, &e., Sydney Mines, N.S
14, Provincial Workmen’s As-
3e., &c., New Aberdeen, N.S.
tective Association, &e
ictoria, B.C.
tective Association, &c
ictoria, B.C.
Q.
rrymen’s, &c
Graniteville, Que.
R.
way Telegraphers
itndon, Ont.
2, Railway Telegraphers
mdon, Ont.
. 1 , Railway Telegraphers. . . .
ilan, Que.
R., No. 42, Railway Tele-
graphers,
uland, Man.
Unanimously endorsed.
Most heartily endorsed.
Heartily approved.
Strongly in favour.
Unanimously endorsed.
.Unanimous concurrence.
J Favourable to Bill.
■ Unanimously approve.
(Desire it universally extended.
.Heartily endorsed.
Entirely in sympathy.
[Heartily concurs.
. Favourable to Bill.
Heartily endorse.
[Unanimously endorsed.
431 1 Heartily approved of Bill.
533 • • • • i 'Already work under eight-hour system.
615
463 .
547'
515[
553 !....!..
504 .J.
501:
692'
686: . .....
592:
548
549
671
680
. P'- J
Entirely endorsed, its- <4
wse
Unanimously adopted a resolution in favour.
Strongly approves.
Heartily approved.
Strongly endorsed Bill.
I Favourable to Bill.
Favourable to Bill.
Favourable.
Favourably disposed.
“Very strongly in favour.’’
Strongly support.
Hearty approval.
-M
714
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
Pago
in
Part
II.
676
677
677
678
679
679
6S0
680
680
681
681
681
670
671
671
672
672
672
669
673
673
673
673
674
674
674
674
675
682
682
682
683
683
683
683
6S4
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
TRADES AND LABOUR COUNCILS AND UNIONS — Continued.
No. OF
Communication.
Name of
R — Con.
Ldvis Div., 64 Railway Telegraph-
ers, St. Pierre, Que.
C.N.R. Div. 43, Railway Tele-
graphers, St. Raymond, Que.
Railroad Telegraphers, (3rd Vice-
President) Toronto, Ont.
No. 131, Railroad Telegraphers,
Tring Junction, Que.
C.P.R., Div. 7, Railroad Tele-
graphers, Viscount, Sask.
Div. No. 7, Railroad Telegraphers,
Winnipeg, Man.
Railway Trainmen, East Pubnico,
N.S.
Railway Trainmen, Fairville, N.B.
No. 785, Railroad Trainmen, Leth-
bridge, Alta.
No. 415, Railroad Trainmen, Lon-
don, Ont.
No. 168, Railroad Trainmen, Monc-
ton, N.B.
Railroad Trainmen (J. Maloney)
Montreal, Que.
No. 173, Railway Carmen Cran-
brook, B.C.
No. 167, Railway Carmen, Halifax
N.S.
iNo. 248, Railway Carmen, Monc-
ton, N.B.
No. 182, Railway Carmen, Mont
real, Que.
No. 98, Railway Carmen, Nelson,
B.C.
No. 58, Railway Carmen, Van-
couver, B.C.
No. 464, Railway Conductors,
Brandon, Man.
No. 440, Railway Conductors,
Lethbridge, Alta.
No. 214, Railway Conductors,
Moncton, N.B.
No. 13, Railway Conductors, St.
Thomas, Ont.
Railway Employees, Halifax, N.S.
Railroad Employees, Levis, Que.
No. 279, Railroad Employees,
Ottawa, Ont.
No.113, Railway Employees (Elec
trie), Toronto, Ont.
No. 7, Railroad Telegraphers, Agin
court, Ont.
No. 39, Railroad Telegraphers,
Coatsworth, Ont.
No.249, Railroad Trainmen, North
Bay, Ont. .
No. 129, Railroad Trainmen, Ot
tawa, Ont.
Rock Drillers Ass’n, Amherstburg,
Ont.
S.
No. 21, Stereo typers, &c., Toronto
iSheet metal Workers, St. John, N.B
No. 134, Sheet Metal Workers
| Victoria, B.C.
,Sec. 5, Ship Labourers, Quebec, Q.
Stonecutters, Ac., Branch of
I Brownsburg, Que.
647
674
Against.
1
Conditional.
Non-
Committal.
41S
616
....
....
436
. .
) . . . .
) . . . .
....
. . . .
) . . . .
L . . . .
573
2 ... .
9 . .
578
7 . . .
s
0 . . .
3 ... .
1 . . .
2 . .
7
Remarks.
Would like to see scope of Bill enlarged.
Strongly approve of Bill.
See letter of.
Unanimously endorsed.
Endorses Bill.
Recommend adoption of Bill. See communica-
tion of.
Favour universal eight-hour day.
Favour nine-hour day.
F avourable.
Favourable to Bill.
See letter.
Strongly in favour.
Premature legislation.
Strongly in favour.
Strongly in favour.
Heartily in favour.
Favourable to Bill.
“Heartily endorse.”
Fully in sympathy.
In favour of the Bill.
Fully concurred in.
Does not seem broad enough.
“Endorse Grand Officers proceeding.” See pro-
ceeding.
Fully approved.
Unanimously endorsed.
Heartily approved.
Meets with hearty approval.
Would not assist their order any.
Favourable to Bill.
Strongly favour the Bill.
Heartily in accord.
Favourable to Bill.
Heartily endorsed.
Recommend the Bill.
Are enjoying eight hours.
COMMITTEE RE BILL Eo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
715
APPENDIX No. 4
TRADES AND LABOUR COUNCILS AND UNIONS-
-Continued.
Page
No. OF
Communication.
in
Part
II.
Name of
0
Against.
Conditional.
Non-
Committal
S — Con .
684
Stonecutters, &c., St. Thomas
519
685
Branch, London, Ont.
Stonecutters, &c. (Monarch Br’ch)
625
685
Monarchi Alta.
Stonecutters, &c. (Montreal Br’ch)
447
685
Montreal, Que.
Stonecutters, &c., Peterborough,
5S0
685
Ont.
Stonecutters, &c., Branch of Ter-
468
686
rebonne, Que.
Stonecutters, &c., Victoria, B.C. .
614
686
No. 26, Stonemasons’ Union, Tor-
537
onto, Ont.
T.
686
No. 235, Tailors’ Union, St. Cath-
526
687
arines, Ont.
No. 132, Tailors’ Union, Toronto,
474
687
Ont.
No. 708, Textile Workers, Magog,
633
687
Que.
Textile Works, Montreal, Que. . .
520
688
Typographical Union, Chatham,
631
688
Ont.
No. 133, Typographical Union,
541
688
London, Ont.
No. 201, Typographical Union,
618
Victoria, B.C.
u.
6SS
Upholsterers’ Union, Berlin, Ont.
563 '
w.
6S9
Workingmen’s Party, Montreal,
69S
690
Que.
Workingmen’s Club, Montreal,
700
J
Que.
Remarks.
F avourable,
Wish no decrease in wages.
Endorse the Bill.
Unanimously in favour.
Unanimously approve.
Already have eight-hour'day.
Heartily endorse.
Favourable to Bill.
Strongly approve.
Approve principle of Bill.
In hearty sympathy.
Favourable to Bill.
Favourable to Bill.
Unanimously favour.
TRANSPORTATION.
G.
690
710
Grand Trunk Railway System, W.
Wainwright, 2nd Vice-President
Reply to W. Wainwright, G.T.R.
System.
708
710
O.
691 Ottawa River Navigation Co
Montreal, Que.
691 Ottawa Transportation Co., Otta-
wa, Ont.
P.
692
Plant Line Steamship Co., Halifax,
N.S.
S.
692
Butler, M. J. (Special), Ottawa,
Ont.
712
713
Opposed to limiting labour to eight hours on pub-
lic works.
To make an inflexible eight-hour day not in inter-
ests of production, employer or employee.
714
Against best interests of employers and employees.
715 Representations as Chief Engineer of Government
Railways: also, as General Manager of Dominion
Iron and Steel and Coal Companies.
INDEX
TO
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCE.
9-10 EDWARD VII.
APPENDIX No. 4
A. 1910
INDEX.
Accidents :
Happen last two hours of working day
Be explosives used in quarrying
Be long hours in factories
See Act, Workmen’s Compensation.
. . (Draper)
(Doolittle)
. . (Guyon)
Act, Combination’s Investigation, Canada:
Be benefits; organizations of capital. &c., quoted from Labour Gazette
(Lauer)
Act, Industrial Disputes:
Be settlement of grievances between Shipping Federation and Longshore-
men (Robb)
Act of 1868, United States:
Attorney General’s declaration re labourers, &c (Skelton)
Congress reduced hours for public employment to eight per day. .
Rot apparently enforced
President Grant’s proclamation in 1869 re ‘no reduction in wages,’ &c. .
Act of 1888; United States:
Application of— to Public Printer, (Skelton), 23; to
carriers in cities
Overtime re letter carriers not forbidden
employees ;
to letter
Act of 1892, United States:
1. Exceptions re application of —
Cases of ‘extraordinary emergency’ (Skelton)
Channel dredging in an ocean harbour
Contractor building barges under certain conditions
■Contracts, pending
2. Penalties for infraction of provisions of — •
Rot to exceed one thousand dollars (Skelton)
Or imprisonment, or both
3. Scope of application of —
To contractors and sub-contractors on public works (Skelton)
To contracts if building is put up by the government
To include District of Columbia
To labourers, mechanics, &e., employed upon any public works....
(Stephenson)
337
214
160
266
23
22, 56
23
23
23
23
23, 30
_ 25
25
23
23
23
23
25, 56
23
23
309
719
720
COMMITTEE RE BILL So. .21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Page.
Act of 1892, United States: — Continued.
To penalty clause re (Stephenson) 309
To public buildings, wharfs, piers, &c., in the possession of or owned
by the government (Skelton) 25
To public works characterized by six essential attributes 25
4. Stipulation necessary when tenders are called for by government,
(Skelton) 25
5. What does not constitute emergency —
Climatic disturbances (Skelton) 30
Difficulties to secure labour and material 30
6. What constitutes cases of emergency —
A grave, uncommon, exceptional happening (Skelton) 30
Act of 1900, United States:
Letter carriers to work not more than 56 hours per week.. ..(Skelton) 24
Act of 1901-2, United States:
Eight hours per day to apply to certain irrigation works (Skelton) 24
Act of 1907. United States:
Interstate traffic re employees in transportation and common carriers.
(Skelton) 22
Not more than nine hours per day for telegraphers and train despatchers. 22
Not more than sixteen hours without a rest 22
Upheld as constitutional 22
Act of 1908, United States:
See Act, Workmen’s Compensation, 1908, &c:
Affiliated Trade Unions, Great Britain:
Joint conference with engineering employers (Lauer) 258
Minutes of committee quoted 258-9
Agreements, Contractual:
Application of Bill No. 21 to, (Skelton) 28
Agreements, Material:
Between Master Carpenters and Independent Builders’ Exchange, (Tweed) 287
How affected by adoption of Bill No. 21 (Robb) 378
Re Coal miners (seventeen) include the eight-hour day (Watkins) 299
Re Longshoremen and Shipping Federation (Robb) 378
Re Typographical Union-, Board of Trade, &c., at Montreal, ..(Francq) 353
Signed between contractor and employees, re building trades, for wages,
&c (Nesbitt) 276
Agricultural Work:
See Work Farm or Domestic:
COMMITTEE RE BILL Iso. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
721
APPENDIX No. 4
Alaska: See Coal Mines, 1.
Aliens: See Isthmian Canal.
American Federation of Labour:
Officer of, re text indicating- present labour law of United States
(Stephenson)
Apprenticeship :
Establishment of system.
No system of, at Quebec.
. (Tweed)
(Nesbitt)
Aqueduct, New York State: See New York State Aqueduct.
Arsenals, Navy Yards, Ordnance Factories:
Legislation covering work in,
United States law of 1908 re employees in,
(Skelton)
Articles, Specified:
Application of New York law to direct contracts for, (Skelton)
Association, Grain Growers’:
Knowledge of, re hours of labour (Stephenson)
Association of Builders, Canadian National:
Affiliated with Builders’ Exchange, &c., (Nesbitt)
See also Builders’ Exchange, &c.
Association of Employers, Toronto:
Certain Bill condemned by (Draper)
Attorney General, United States:
Opinion of, re meaning —
‘ Labourers, workmen, mechanics’ (Skelton)
Australia and New Zealand:
Eight-hour day in private establishments of; attitude of government..
(Skelton)
Eight-hour day in Victoria for building and iron trades
Eight-hour day not universal in (Bobb)
Factory employees, specific law (Skelton)
Forty-eigh-hour week now uniform, except for agriculture
Eight-hour day not universal in, (Robb)
Workmen improve themselves
See also evidence of Skelton pp. 366-7.
Page.
309
284
274
22
22
51
321
270
324
23
7, 20
366
379
367
367
379
Authority Legislative: See Federal Government of United States.
722
COMMITTEE RE RILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
B
Bakeries :
Law restricting hours per day, New Jersey, re employees in
Page.
..(Skelton) 36
Barge Canal; New York:
Eight -hour day enforced on, (Skelton) 75
Work done on eight -hour basis 53
Barges, United States:
Building of, for sale to government, not covered by Act of 1892, (Skelton) 25
Building of, not a public work .* 34
Battleships, United States:
Connecticut, built on eight-hour basis (Skelton) 69
Louisiana, built on ten-hour basis 69
Besults, favourable to eight-hour day 69
Bill No. 21, Canada, (1909-10):
Advantages of (Tweed) 281
Applicability of, to sub-contracts (Armstrong) 145
Applicability of, to supplies to be furnished to the government (Skelton)
24, 25, 27 ; (Armstrong) 144
Applies to contracts by the Transcontinental Railway Commission,....
(Skelton) 53
Benefits of, if enacted (Draper) 336-7
Clause one of, unworkable (Draper) 341-2
Compared with New York Bill as to provisions, <fcc., . . (Skelton) 25, 26, 28, 63
Effect of —
Re charges on production of material (Johnston) 202
Re contracts and factory work (Ainey) 300-1
Re restricted hours in unloading steamships under contract (Robb) 377
Enforcement of, compared with that of Fair-wage clause (Draper) 336-7
Extent of Application of — -
To all labourers, &e., employed by a contractor whether on government
or private work (Skelton) 29, 30, 60
To building and construction 27
To contracts for groceries. 26
To contract for fishery cruiser, &c 61
To contracts let in foreign countries if stipulations are inserted. ... 62
To contracts for transportation unless stipulated otherwise 54
To dredging 26,27
To goods furnished for a building 27, 28
To goods ordered, not in stock 61
To mail contracts. 54
To paint, glass, &c., for building 28
To structural material and supplies answering to certain specifications. 29
To ‘ twelve kegs of nails ’ advertised for by a contractor 29
To wharfs, piers, breakwaters 27
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
723
APPENDIX No. 4
Bill No. 21, Canada (1909-10) : — Continued.
Page.
Extent of approval of —
By organized workmen (Draper) 322-5, 347
By resolution endorsing proposition (Ainey) 301
Providing wages were same as for long hours (Post) 198
Re principle of measure (Murray), 246; (Franeq), 352
With certain limitations (Nesbitt), 279; (Tweed) 283
How certain agreements would be affected (Robb) 379
How community would be affected (Lauer) 267
How viewed by miners (Watkins) 292
Interpretation of — (Armstrong), 141; (Guyon), 153; (Evans), 184;
(Johnston), 202; (Nesbitt), 270 ; (Stephenson), 309 ;
(Franeq), 352.
Re contracts for government, &c (Skelton) 26, 29, 59
Re work at coal mines (Watkins) 291-3
Re work in rolling mills (McKune) 167
Limited scope of government establishments in Canada to apply, (Skelton) 374
Limits a man’s earning capacity (Lauer) 268
Necessity for a workable measure (Draper) 349
Not to apply to —
Cases of emergency 7 ..(Skelton) 28, 29, 62
Certain materials bought in open market 28, 29,30,60
Goods in stock ordered by contractor; goods purchased from stock. 61
Supplies not answering certain specifications 29
Objections to (McKune) 163, 171
Other governments might enact laws re labour in public contracts (Guyon) 159
Overtime not permitted in (Lauer) 263
Possibility of amendment of (Draper) 340-2, 345
Practicability of, and scope (Ainey) 299, 300
Provides for eight hours of work on government contracts.. ..(Draper) 328
Provisions of, re furnishing of supplies 341
Re crews of steamers (Robb) 379
Refers to two classes of contracts (Skelton) 19
Regulations re transportation not practicable (Hall) 306
Scope of, compared with Ontario enactments (Armstrong) 142
Scope of, applicable to contracts in factories (Guyon) 15S
Should apply to sub-contractors (Draper) 345
Should not apply to navigation companies re certain contracts,. . (Robb) 376
Title of, not part of stipulations in sections (Draper) 343
Unable to apply provisions of, in quarry work (Doolittle) 20S
Unopposed to principle of measure (Murray) 246
What it proposes to do re public works (Armstrong) 143
What workmen of Ontario would accept 1U
Workmen that would be affected in the employ of a contractor or sub-
contractor (Skelton) 62
Work that would be affected by, (Skelton) 59, 60
Would make certain exceptions to provisions of, (Murray) 241
Would prefer an amended Bill, should No. 21 be impracticable (Draper) 340-2-5
See Bill No. 21, page 15.
724
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
Bill of 1897, United States:
Amendments proposed, not carried.
Applicability of, to sub-contractors.
What it aimed to correct
Bill of 1898, United States:
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
( Skelton) 64
34
34
Applicability of, to any public works
Emergency clause —
Covering- fire, flood, danger to life and property;
in time of war
Work done by contract or otherwise
(Skelton) 31, 65,396
naval works, &c.,
31
31
Bill of 1901-2, United States:
Applicability of, to contracts for public works; exceptions in, (Skelton) 24,65,397
Bill of 1906, United States:
Applicability of, to part of work contemplated by contract, (Skelton) 31,32
Effect of, on internal organization in shops ’ o9
Bill of 1909, United States:
Restricting hours of labourers, &c., on work done for United States..
(Skelton) 398
Bill of 1910, United States:
Contracts made by or in behalf of the government to contain certain
Clause (Skelton) 399
Bill Re Store and Street Railway Employees, Nova Scotia:
See Nova Scotia Commission, &c.
Bills Re Labour, United States:
Thirteen, introduced since 1897 ; none enacted (Skelton)
Boards of Trade:
Circulars issued to,
Communications re, Prescott, Sherbrooke,
Scotia, read
See also pp. 427-442.
(Murray) 220
Walkerville, Windsor, Nova
(Murray) 240, 241
Bohnen V. Metz:
Judgment by Court of Appeal, 1908 (Skelton) 51
Materials purchased not within law 53 76
Boots and Saddles, Civilian and Military:
L ontracts, private and public, how to keep separate (Armstrong) 140
Breakwaters, Construction of:
See Works, Public.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
725
APPENDIX No. 4
Brick-kilns and Brickyards:
Law does not contemplate impossibilities (Skelton)
Bricklayers :
Could not agree to uniform rate of pay (Lauer)
Hours and wages of — See Ex. ‘ D ’ pp. 400-410.
Hours in certain localities re (DuBreuil)
Hours per day in Toronto (Tweed)
Union of, in Monti-eal (Lauer)
Bridge Company, Lachine and Montreal:
Charges re production of contracts (Johnston)
Llour’s work in summer and winter
Private and public contracts
Production, cost, &c
British Columbia:
Law re coal mines and miners (Skelton), 20; (Stephenson),
Builders’ Exchange, Employers’ Associations:
Attitude of, in Montreal (Lauer)
Dealings with, by mechanics (Ainey)
Disposition of, re wages (Tweed)
Manufacturers’ Association not connected with (Murray)
Not willing to treat with organized labour (Ainey)
Number of employers, members of (Nesbitt)
Objects of, resolutions adopted (Lauer)
Resolution of Quebec, quoted (Nesbitt)
Trades connected with (Ainey)
Working week, 54 hours (Lauer)
See also Association of, &c.
Builders’ Labourers:
Hours and wages — See Ex. ‘ D ’ pp. 400 to 410.
Hours in certain localities (DuBreuil) 87, 90,
Buildings, Public: See Works, Public; also evidence of Skelton
Building Trades: See Trades.
Bureau of Labour: See Labour Bureaus and Departments.
C
Canadian, Naturalized:
See pages 181, 184, 381.
Page.
76
256
85-93
290
255
202
201
201
200
312
269
306
290
244
306
270
248-9
270
306
251
91-3
25
Canal Zone : See Isthmian Canal Construction :
726 COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
n i Page.
Caretakers, Janitors, Messengers and Prison Guards:
iSTot included as labourers, mechanics, &c., re provisions of Act of 1892,
ni, ; •••; (Skelton) 33,35
Oklahoma Act covers janitors and prison guards re direct employment. . 41
Opinion of Attorney General re status of 35
See also p. 386.
Carpenters :
Agreements with, re hours and wages (Tweed) ^87
Conditions of, re hours and wages, Ontario. . 2S9
Furnishing of tools . (DuBreuil) 85
Hours and wages in cities g-
Hours in Montreal and Quebec g«
Hours _ of, in Toronto ’ ' . ‘ ‘ V. V. V. (Tweed)' 281, 285
In Prince Edward Island (DuBreuil) 84
1 ercentage of, idle in winter (Ainey) 302
Percentage of, working eight and nine hours per day (Tweed) 988
Wages per day \. .. .‘.(DuBreuil) ~85
See also pp. 86-93 and Exhibit ‘ D ’ pp. 400 to 410.
Cement Factories:
Xecessity of short hours in (DuBreuil) 108
Children and Women Employees:
Eleven and twelve hours, in factories, excessive for. (Guyon) 161
Federal laws in United States regulating hours of employment of, (Skelton) 23
forty-eight hours per week, fixed in Australia and Xew Zealand, in 1873. 367
Hours per week shortened to 45 in Australia and Xew Zealand in 1901. 367
Hours to be changed for, in Quebec factory work (Guyon) 160
Laws restricting hours of work for, in various states of United States.
(Skelton) 36
See also pp. 366-7.
Clerical Employees:
Excluded from the Eight-hour Law (Skelton) 35
Climatic Conditions Re Labour:
Do not constitute cases of emergency (Skelton) 30
Effect of, on operations (McXiven) 125
Effect of, on building trades (Lauer), 268; (Tweed), 282, 283
Govern number of —
Hours’ work per day in Quebec (Xesbitt) 272
Months’ work per year in Ontario (Tweed) 282
necessitate concentration of work at certain seasons (Skelton) 371
COMMITTEE Tie BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
727
APPENDIX No. 4
Coal Mines, Miners, Smelters:
Page.
conM lor c“,; — *• <w».ki„8)
Average pay per day to miners, &c
Effect of Pill No. 21 on operations in
Federal laws of United States regulating employment’ in Alaska,’ &c.',
Hours at Springhill and Pictou
Hours per day, not uniform at. .
Hours of work at
Law re, in British Columbia. . .
. (Skelton)
(Watkins)
(Skelton)
Laws restricting hours’ work
Should have restricted hours.
(Stephenson)
in ten states of United States, (Skelton)
(Draper)
291-2
298-9
299
291
22
295
293
361
20
312
36
339
Columbia, District of:
Act of 1892, (United States) applies to, .
Bills of 1898, 1906 applied to
Labourers, &c., employed in, covered by law
Laws regulating hours for children in. .
(Skelton)
23
30
33
22
Commissioners of Labour:
Commissioner of—
Kansas, re enforcement, interpretation and scope of law (Skelton)
.Massachusetts, his opinion of law re Labour Act.
41,44
oi jaw re labour Act. ... 44.
New York reports of as to law
New York, re application of law to specified articles.!’.’.’
Oklahoma, re interpretation of law
Wisconsin, declaration of,
39
51
41
40
Commission, Nova Scotia:
Bill re store and street railway employees recommended by, (Watkins) 297
Effect of an eight-hour day inquired into, by (Skelton) 70
Finding of, re eight-hour measure (Watkins) 296
Members composing the, &c.. . . „„„
296
Commission, Royal. Australia:
Report of, re labour. (Robb) m
Committee, Hours of Labour, Canada:
Appointment of. See page
Bill No. 21 referred to,
Members added to
Reports of, to the House
4 — 47
11
15
11
13, 14
728
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Page.
Committees on Labour, United States:
Action taken by, (Skelton) 66
Hearings as to adoption of universal eight-hour day 70
Nine, appointed between 1897 and 1902 05
Report of, (1908), re ‘Eight hours of labour on government work,’
(Stephenson) 308
Common Carriers, United States:
Law of 1907 prohibiting continuous hours on (Skelton) 22
Common Labourers:
Hours and wages — See Ex. ‘ D pp. 400 to 410.
Hours in certain localities (DuBreuil) 88-93
Communications re Hours of Labour:
Copy of letter sent to various organizations by committee 427
Number of replies received 721
Replies to letter of committee 427-693
Keport on, as to total received to date, viz.: February 6 78
Competitors, Foreign and Domestic:
Eight-hour establishments compared with ten-hour.— Effect on con-
tracts (Skelton) 68
Re Bridge Construction Company (Johnston) 204
Re Steel plant of Hamilton (McKune) 168, 178, 180
Some industries exposed to foreign (Skelton) 371
Congress, Dominion Trades and Labour:
See Trades and Labour Congress, Dominion.
Congress of United States: >
Contention in, re Acts introduced from 1898 to 1910 (Skelton) 31
May enact laws regulating conditions of employment 22
Proposals made since 1897 to extend Act of 1892 30,31
Contents, Table of : See pp. 5 to 10.
Contractor, Sub-contractor:
Application of Bill o. 21 to .(Skelton) 28, 29, 30
Declaration of Committee on Labour in United States. (Bill No. 30 <8,
1897) 33>34
Interpretation of, re scope in contracts (Stephenson) 309
Labourers, &c., in employ of, (Skelton) 62-66
Not released from penalties of U. S. Act of 1892 30
Penalties imposed for violation of contract 23
See also Ex. ‘ A (2)’ ss. 1 and 2, p. 385.
Refusing to tender (Skelton) i4
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
279
APPENDIX No. 4
Contracts :
1. Carrying Mail —
Extent of application of Bill No. 21 to
2. Corporation —
Case of re Esplanade, Toronto
Clauses in, re minimum pay per hour. .
Stipulation re hours of work
3. Direct —
Opinion of general secretary, U.G. Workers re uniforms, militia,
n -&C"- v (Skelton) 53
Opinion ot commissioner, New York state, re uniforms 53
Be specified articles, how far New York law would apply. ... ' . .’ ’ 51
4. Eight-hour Day with Ten-hour Manufacturers —
Contractors refusing to tender for (Skelton) 74
Difficulties re simultaneous operations under eight and ten hours... 74
Evidence of manufacturers 74
Increased cost of production 74
Public and private hours, assimilation of 74
5. Government —
Buttonmakers in factories re two hour systems and... .. (DuBreuil) 107
Coal for government railways, &c., re law governing, (Watkins). 294;
(Draper) . 339
Clause in, violation of, (McNiven) 114
Eight-hour law re (DuBreuil) 106
Extent of, in factories.. ..' (Guyon) 155
Extent of, and duration of, re stone (Doolittle) 210, 215
How to keep distinct from other work (Armstrong) 139
In factories. (McNiven) 129, 130-1
Manufacturing rifles under (Guyon) 154
Meaning of Bill No. 21 as to (Armstrong) 143
Private and, how to keep separate (McNiven) 130-1
Private contract work (Johnston) 201
Re Alberta, eight -hour conditions on (Lauer) 262
Re saddles and specific articles (McNiven) 129
Wage schedules re, require to be posted 129
With navigation companies re carrying mails (Robb) 376
6. Let outside of Canada —
No legislative jurisdiction; could insert stipulations re hours
(Skelton) 62
7. Materials, bought in open market — ■
Specifications in (Skelton) 62
8. Military or naval — •
Re Bill of 1902 (U.S.) an exception (Skelton) 65
4— 47i
(Hall) 300
(Armstrong) 140
. . . .(Ainey) 305
. . . . . . . . 304-5
730
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— E0VR8 OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Page.
Contracts : — Continued.
9. Pending—
Exemption clause in United States Act of 1892 (Skelton) pp. 23, 385
10. Public —
Eight-hour provisions (Skelton) 26,27
Labour on, restricted to eight hours 24
Legislative provisions re employment on, 17,19
Provisions as to, in Bills of 1898, 1906 31,32
New York law, scope of, re 53
Proposals to cover all, by extending provisions of Act of 1892.. .. 30
Provisions as to, in Bills of 1898, 1906 31, 32
Stipulation in, re contractor 25
11. Re Construction —
Average number of hours per day re work on; months in year at
Montreal (Ainey) 302
12. Specific —
Hearings before committees.. (Skelton) 70
13. Subsidiary —
Armour plates, boilers (Skelton) 67
14. Supplies —
Bill of 1902 (United States), an exception to (Skelton) 65
15. Transportation —
Bill of 1902 (United States), an exception to, (Skelton) 65
Cost of Living:
Increase of, compared with, wages received (Tweed) 286
Inquiry into cause of, 286-7
Meat and eggs, prices compared 286
Countries, Long-hour, V. Short-hour:
Alternatives to saloons (Skelton) 73
Test in government dockyards. 73
Cumberland Railway and Coal Company:
Agreement, 1907, with miners (Watkins) 298
Average of miner’s wages 297
Minimum wage, 75c. per day 297
Organization of employees 295
United Mine Workers of America 295
Custom House, Erection of:
See Works, Public; also.
(Skelton) 25
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
231
APPENDIX No. 4
Defences:
D
Page.
Exemption clause in United States Bill of 1898, time of war, (Skelton) 31
Dominion Grange:
Communications from — See pp. 441-446.
Dominion Trades and labour Congress: See Trades and Labour Congress, Dom-
inion.
Draughtsman :
Eight hours’ work per day, sufficient for, (Johnston) 200
Dredges and Dredging:
Channel in ocean harbour of United States not covered by Act of 1892.
' ■' ■’ ■’ I'.': (Skelton) 25,26
rive — three vote re decision given by Supreme Court
In cases of, where law would apply
Labourers working on, are seamen
Shorter hours re contracts for, (DuBreuil)
34
35
34
105
E
Economists :
Labour bills drafted in Diversity of Wisconsin (Skelton) 40
Effects, Moral and Physical, of Shorter Day:
Mental and nervous strain (Shelton) 73
Strong argument in favour of, 73
Eight and Ten Hours per Day Compared:
Navy yard at Brooklyn; Private yard at Newport, News; records re
rivetters, &c (Skelton) 69
Product almost precisely the same (59
Eight-hour Day:
Address on, by Professor Magill 410
Advantages of —
Beneficial to workmen (Francq) 353
Benefit to the country; of interest to employers 353
Agitation for, when commenced (Draper) 326
Aldermanic powers to stipulate regulations in, (Ainey), 304; (Stephenson) 315
At coal mines, in Pictou (Watkins) 295
Difficult to impose a uniform standard (Skelton) 371
732
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Page.
Effects of —
Its introduction in printing (Erancq) 354
On production (Skelton) 19
On wages (DuBreuil) 100
Extent of, re building trades (Armstrong) 137
Eeasibility of, in factories (McNiven) 128
For miners in Nova Scotia (Watkins) 299
Hearings by United States committees on adoption of, (Skelton) 70
Indirect methods of establishing an, (Stephenson) 315
Legal in British Columbia; obtained through agitation (Watkins) 295
Matter of settling question of, (Skelton) 371
Moral effect of, on workmen 380
Not universal in Australia (Robb) 379
Obtains in skilled trades, &c., in Canada . . (Draper) 320
Opinions of, in various countries (Erancq) 355
Practicability of, in steel plants (Evans) 186
Prevailing in certain localities in Canada for certain trades (Du-
Breuil) 86-93
See also Ex. ‘ O ’ pp. 400 to 410.
Reasons favouring an (Guyon) 152
Strong argument in favour of (Stephenson) 320
What conditions may arise (Draper) 329
Workmen who accepted an 327
Eight-hour Day, British :
Applies to collieries (Lauer) 257
Petitioned for mining unions 257
Quotations from journal F airplay 258
Eight-hour Day, United States:
Scope of — Public works limited to, (Skelton) 25,27
Eight-hour Day Law:
(a) Application of, to all industries, except farming (Tweed) 289
Immediate and ultimate effects of (McNiven) 125
Other exceptions—
Parliamentary house force in New York law (Skelton) 390
Property in danger, &c., in Massachusetts and New York laws.. .. 390
Purchase of materials, &c., in Massachusetts law 38, 390
Ee Kansas, 44; Massachusetts and Minnesota, 45, 392, 394; New
York 46, 47, 393
Synopsis of 386-7 to 390
Work done off the premises where buildings, &c. are constructed, (Wis-
consin law) 390
Would not offer objections to a standard under certain conditions,
(Murray) 247
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
733
APPENDIX No. 4
Page.
Eight-hour Day Law: — Continued.
(b) — Countries and Provinces which enacted an:
Australia, re building and iron trades; sheep shearing. . . .(Skelton) 17. 20, 366
British Columbia, re mines 20
France, re arsenal, navay yards, &c 17, 57, 363
Germany, re assistant station masters, station masters, telegraphers, &c. 366
Great Britain, re Admiralty workshops, army clothing, arsenals, dockyards,
coal mines 17, 36, 359, 361
New Zealand, re women and children in factories (1873) ; re manual
labour in construction and repair of public works 17, 20, 366
United States, re public employment (1868), 22; public printer, letter
carriers (1888), 23; labourers, mechanics, &c., employed by contrac-
tors and sub-contractors for public works (1892), 23, 24, 30, 33, 61;
letter carriers (1901), 24; irrigation works undertaken by Secretary of
the Interior (1901-2) 24
See also Exhibits CA’(1), £A’ (2), ‘A’ (3), p. 385; ‘ A ’ (4), p. 386;
and ‘ C ’ (1), ‘ C ’ (2), ‘ C ’ (3), ‘ C ’ (4), pp. 396-9.
(c) — States of the United States which enacted an:
Arkansas, re railroad telegraphers and train despatchers (Skelton) 36
Arizona, re mines and smelters 36
California, re public works 36, 38
See also Ex. ‘ B.’ p. 387.
Colorado, re public works, mines and smelters 36,38
See also Exhibit ‘ B,’ p. 387.
Connecticut, re railroad telegraphers, train despatchers 38
Delaware (City of Wilmington), re municipal workmen; re state employees 38
See also Exhibit ‘B,’ p. 387.
Hawaii, re public works or municipal labour 38
See also Exhibit ‘ B,’ p. 387.
Idaho, re public works 38 and (Ex. £ B,’ p. 387)
Indiana, re state or municipal labour 38 and (Ex. ‘B,’ p. 387)
Iowa, re mines, smelters 38
Kansas (1891), re state or municipal labour, materials furnished, &c., 38, 39, 41, 44
See also Exhibits £B’ (1) and ‘B’ (2), pp. 387, 391.
Maryland, re railroad telegraphers and train despatchers 36
Maryland, re municipal employees in Baltimore.. 38 and Exhibit ‘ B,’ p. 387
Massachusetts, (1907), re public contracts, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45, 59; For excep-
tions, &c. See Exhibits ‘B,’ pp. 388, 390 also £B’ (6), p. 394
Minnesota, (1901), re state and municipal labour with certain exceptions,
38,45; also Exhibits £B’ (1) and £B’ (4), pp. 388, 392.
Missouri, re mines and smelters
Montana, re mines and smelters
Also state or municipal labour
Nebraska, re certain cities for certain labour
See Exhibit £B’ (1), p. 388.
734
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
. Page.
Eight-hour Day Law: — Continued.
Nevada, re railroad telegraphers, train despatchers, mines, smelters, public
•works gg
See Exhibit ‘B’ (1), p. 388.
New York, (1906), re state institutions, public works contracted for, &c.
38, 39, 44, 45, 48, 59
See Exhibit ‘ B ’ (1), ‘B’ (5), pp. 388, 390, 393.
North Carolina, re railroad telegraphers, train despatchers 36
Ohio, re law of 1900, declared unconstitutional 39
Oklahoma, (1907-9), re state or municipal labourers, &c., prison guards,
janitors ' 38 41
See also Exhibits ‘B’(l), ‘B’(3), pp. 389, 391.
Oregon, (1907), re mines and smelters, state or municipal labour.. .. 36,38
Re penitentiary employees. See Exhibit ‘B’(l), p. 389.
Pennsylvania, re state or municipal labour, public contracts, public works. 38, 39
Also Exhibit ‘ B,’ p. 389.
Porto Rico, (1904), re direct or contract work paid out of municipal funds
&c 38
Also Exhibit ‘B’(l), p. 389.
Texas, re railroad telegraphers, train despatchers 36
Utah, re mines, smelters, public works, certain state contracts, penal in-
stitutions 36 38
See also Exhibit ‘ B ’(1), p. 389.
Washington, re state or municipal labour 33
See Exhibit ‘B’(l), p. 389.
West Verginia, re railroad telegraphers, train despatchers, public works. 36, 38
See also Exhibit ‘B’(l), p. 389.
Wisconsin, (1909), re railroad telegraphers, train despatchers, public
works 36, 38, 39, 40. 59
See also Exhibits (B’(1), ‘B’(7), pp. 389, 390, 395.
Wyoming (Constitution), re mines, smelters, public works (state or munici-
pal labour) on 36 38
See also Exhibit ‘B’(l), p. 389.
(d) Scope of, in various states of United States Re:
All public contracts let by state or municipality, &c.: Delaware Mon-
tana. New York. ; .‘ (Skelton) 38
All public work in city or state, &c. : Washington 3g
Any public work in city or state, &c. : Baltimore (Maryland), Minnesota. 38, 387
Any work contracted for or material furnished which is manufactured
in the state: Kansas gg
Any work direct or contract, paid out of municipal funds or school boards :
Porto Rico ' gg
Any work done on streets and in parks : Nebraska ' yg
COMMITTEE RE BILL Vo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
APPENDIX No. 4
735
Eight-hour Day Law '.—Continued. Page-
°£f0",i*’ Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho. Penn-
sylvania, Utah, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Wyoming 38
Gontracts f°r the performance of any work or furnishing any material
manufactured in the state: Kansas o8
C°n &r* w'isconstn ^ * ereCti°n’ const™ction,’ &c„ of any public works'.
Direct employment of labourers, &c„ and employment’ of’ labourers! &c", ^ ^
by contractors on various constructions: Oklahoma 41389
Every contract to which the state is a party: Massachusetts. . . ’38
Janitors of public institutions: Oklahoma “ 3g9
“f- UP°n any W°rk d°ne f°r the state: Minnesota," Massa-
Mechamcs, labourers or workingmen, on all works in which the’ state^45’ ^
municipality employs (some exceptions) : Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana,
Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Okolalioma,
regon, Pennsylvania, Porto Pico, Washington, West Virginia. 38, 387-8-9
Mines and smelters : Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, Utah, Wyoming gg
Penitentiary employees and prison guards: Oregon, Oklahoma. ", '38 389
Public works: California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah Wis-
consin, Wyoming _ ’ 38
Radroad ^ telegraphers and train despatches : Arkansas, Connecticut"
Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, Wiscon-
sin 00
Statute labour: 19 states ’ ’
Work carried on directly by the state or municipality: 4 states. 36
Work and undertakings aided by the state and local government- 3
states
(e) Scope of, Re employees in — (Federal)
Admiralty workshops, army clothing, in Great Britain (1894), (Skelton) 361-2
Arsenals, dockyards, &c., in France, Great Britain and United States
17, 33, 359, 360-1 ' 365
Assistant station masters in Germany 3gg
Breakwaters, piers, &c., in United States 33
Building and iron trades in Victoria, Australia 333
Certain employees of state railways in Germany 360
Certain establishments of Australia, France and Great Britain.. 47
Coal mines: of British Columbia 20
of Great Britain (494 hrs. per week) 354
Construction of postal apparatus in France, (1901) 364
Construction of public buildings, piers, wharfs, &c., for federal govern-
ment of United States, (1892) 23, 24, 25, 33, 390
Dockyards (48 hours per week) in Great Britain, (1894) 361
Fortifications in United States, (1892) 33
Irrigation works of United States, (1901-2) 24
Labourers, &e., directly employed by United States government, (1868) 385
Labourers, mechanics, &c., employed by contractors, sub-contractors,
(1892) 23, 33-4, 390
Letter carriers in United States, (1888) 23, 24
736
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Page.
Eight-hour Day Law: — Continued.
Manufacture of postage stamps in Prance, (1901) 364
Ordnance factories, (United States) 33
Printing Bureau, public, of United States 24,33
Public works, or any public work of United States (1892) 23, 33, 59, 385, 390
Sheep shearing in Victoria, Australia 367
Skilled aliens, citizens re Panama Canal 24
Station masters and switchmen in Germany (eight hours a day as a nde) 366
War Office of Great Britain (48 hours per week, 1894) 362, 363
Women and children in certain factories: Victoria, Australia (1874 — 48
hours per week), 367; New Zealand, (1873 — 48 hours per week; 1901
— 45 hours) 367
Eight-hour Regulations on Private Contracts:
Difficulties of application, (Skelton) 32; (McKune) 163
Effect on internal organization (Skelton) 32
Impracticability of, in rolling mills (McKune) 163-4
Interpretation of New York law re (Skelton) 49
Meaning of term ‘ upon such work’ 50
Not feasible in building trades 49
Eight-hour Systems:
Addition cost under, (Skelton) 72
Cost of output under, 72
Difficulties of, with ten-hour manufacturers 74
Earnings would be reduced under (Kobb) 378
Moral and physical effects on workmen (Skelton) 73 .
Electrical Workers:
Hours and wages — See Ex. ‘D’ pp. 400 410,
Hours in certain localities (DuBreuil) 86-93
Emergency :
Advantage taken of clause in law to escape penalty (Skelton) 66
Cases of, arise in transportation (Bobb) 379
Cases of, in time of war (Skelton) 31, 396
Certain cases of, (Johnston) 207
Clause re, in United States Bill of 1902 (Skelton) 65,397
Interpretation of, by United States Supreme Court 30
See also p. 386-49 Fed. Rep., 809.
Penalties not to be exacted in extraordinary cases of, 31
Provisions in law, (U. S. Act of 1892) 23, 28
Term of, used to render law inoperative 30
What cannot be held as cases of, 33,375
What constitutes cases of —
In Canadian Bill No. 21 28
In New York Bill. See 3 393
In United States Bills 32, 375
See also Ex. ‘B’(l) pp. 387-8-9 in col. exception.
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ko. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
737
APPENDIX No. 4
Employees: See Children and Women; See Labourers, Workmen, &c.
Employer and Employee:
Eight-hour-day Bill, if enacted would facilitate
Voluntary concessions on part of, expected
Employment, Private:
negotiations. .(Draper)
(Skelton)
337
371
Hours in Australia, &c„ (Skelton), 17; in Wisconsin, 40; in Kansas, 44.
JN o noticeable effects of law in Massachusetts v&.
Engineering Employers, Federated, British:
Affiiliated trade unions, joint committee with,
Strike in engineering trade
(Lauer) 258-9
258
Exemption Clauses:
Covering cases of emergency
Goods or materials bought in open market. .
In Federal Act of 1892 re pending contracts
Re certain works
Re transportation companies
(Skelton)
29, 31
29
23
45
25
F
Factories:
Conditions re space in, (Tweed) 289
Extra hour allowed in, for carpenters 289
Inspection, hours, &c., in. province of Quebec (Guyon) 151-160
Schedules posted in, (McNiven) 129
Fair-wage law, Canada:
Approves adoption of, by federal government (Stephenson) 311
Complaints investigated (McNiven) 114
How applied to subsidized railways 116
How enforced 115
Implies and is interpreted to mean fair hours (Skelton) 373
Insert clause re in contracts (DuBreuil) 77
Its provisions re employees on government work (Draper) 336
Might be well to adopt a fair hours supplement to the, (Skelton) 373
Similar to stipulation in public contracts of United States 25, 46-7
Stipulations basen on, .in city contracts of Montreal (Ainey) 305
Fair-wage Officers:
Affidavits furnished when required by (DuBreuil) 80
Complaints investigated by; their action 79, 81, 83, 84
Consult contractors 80
Duties of, and qualifications, (DuBreuil), 77, 78; (McNiven) 112-3
Local conditions govern actions of, 80
733
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1 S10
Page.
Fair-wage Resolution: See p. 420 Exhibit ‘H’(l).
Fair-wage Schedules:
How information is secured for preparation of, and how proceeded with,
. .(McNiven), 117; (DuBreuil) 77-8, 82-3
Minimum rate of pay set forth in,. . . (DuBreuil) 79,83
Number of, furnished (McNiven) 117
Required to he posted in factories 129
Subject to revision (DuBreuil) 83
Submitted to contractor before he signs 83
Total number of, prepared 82
When investigations are necessary 83
Farmers’ Institutes and Breeders’ Associations:
Communications received, See pp. 446-457.
Federal Courts, United States:
Decisions re term ‘extraordinary emergency (Skelton) 30 and ‘A’(4) p. 386
Federal Government, United States:
Constitutional relations of, and state governments re labour laws (Skelton) 68
Full power of, re legislation 22
Further Acts passed in 1900, 1901-2, 1905-6 24
Law of 1868, not strictly enforced. . . . 22-23
Laws re hours of labour do not cover certain supplies 54
Laws, federal and state, compared 54-55
Passed laws re employment of children 22
Pioneer for seventy years in reducing hours 22
Proposals made in congress to extend law 30-1
Power of, to regulate inter state commerce . 22
Work pertaining to, defined 34
Fine and Imprisonment: See Penalties.
Fire, Flood, Danger to Life, &c.: See Emergency.
Fortifications: See Works, Public.
France: See Legislation; Work shops.
G
Government Inspection :
Inspectors —
Duty of; reports re violations of contract (Skelton) 71,67
Works to which law re, does not apply 23, 24
Government Work:
What constitutes (Skelton) 34
See also Works, Public.
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
739
APPENDIX No. 4
Grant, President, United States:
Proclamation in 1869
Proclamation, re-issued in 1871. .
Great Britain : See Legislation. &c. :
(Skelton)
H
Hawaii :
Hours of labour —
Eight per day ; five on Saturdays
Hours and Wages:
(Skelton)
Acceptability of eight-hours’ pay (Armstrong)
Condition of —
Re building trades of Montreal ^ ,
Re factory and trades in Quebec,.. (Nesbitt), 274, 276; (Guvon)
Re rolling mills of Hamilton (McKune)
Re short hours and high wages (DuBreuil)
Considered inseperable
Effect of organized labour re
Problem of, and how to solve (Gu 'I
Shorter hours and lower wages in Quebec (Tweed)
Slight reduction of hours preferred rather than increase of wages
Under union (Evans)
Would not favour reduction of hours from ten to eight per day with pro-
portional decrease of pay (Stephenson)
Hours, Long, per Day:
Effect of, on workmen (Johnston)
In rolling mills,. Hamilton (McKune)
Law restricting continuous duty re common carriers. . . (Skelton)
Moral gain under (McKune)
Necessity of, for family support (Post)
Prevailing at Bridge Company, Lachine (Johnston)
Steadiest men work (McKune)
Twelve, experience at, (Post)
Twelve and more, experience at, (Stephenson)
Hours of Labour per Day:
Alternative measures re —
Provisions as to wages (Stephenson)
Kate of wages per hour in locality
Efficient period of, in a day (Doolittle)
Page.
23
23
37
148
301
151
164-8
94
111
94
158
283
146
189
317
207
168
22
174
196
203
171
194
307
318
319
216
740
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
Hours of Labour per Day: — Continued.
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Page.
Eight-hours — •
At mining in Nova Scotia (Watkins) 292-5-9
Eor citizens and skilled aliens (Skelton) 24
For employees at Irrigation works 24
For employees at public printer 23
For labourers and mechanics on public works. .(U. S. Act, 1892) 23, 25, 33
For labourers, &c., upon any pubic works, or work (U.S. Bill, 1898) 31
For labourers, &c., public employment by IT. S. government, 23 ; alsop. 385
For letter carriers in cities of United States (1888, 1900) 23
In arsenals, &c 42
In private establishments of Australia and New Zealand 17
In summer and winter (Skelton), 42; (Nesbitt) 271
In twenty-one states and territories re statute labour 36
In United States Bill of 1906. 31,32
In United States navy yard compared with ten-hour yard 69
Excessive for women and children in textile factories of Quebec. (Guyon) 161
For workmen in quarrying and stripping (Doolittle) 209
In Hawaii, 45 per week (Skelton) 37
Length of, in Ontario, compared to Quebec (Guyon) 157
Limited number of — •
For men in railroading, 36; in dangerous and exhaustive industries,
36 ; in absence of special contract, 37 ;
For women and children, 36;
For workmen in direct employment by state government, &c., 37;
For private contractors doing public work, 37.
On public roads, 36. Evidence of Skelton.
Maximum of (Skelton)
Nine-hour day for telegraphers and train despatchers (U.S. — 1907) ; inter
state traffic
Prevailing extent of, in Ontario (Armstrong)
Prevailing in Hamilton rolling mills (McKune)
Regulation of, re federal and provincial jurisdiction (McNiven)
Re mining for coal (Watkins)
Restriction of, in some form (Skelton)
Total number of, per week
43
22, 24
137
164
132
292
357
42-3
Hours, Short, per Day:
A necessary reform (Stephenson) 307
Agitation for, (McNiven) 118
As opposed to long hours. . ' (McKune) 171
Demand for, by textile workers (Murray) 238
Effect of —
In Ontario (Armstrong) 137
On buildings and cost (DuBreuil) 97
How best obtained (Armstrong) 138
How obtainable for effectiveness.. .(Tweed) 288
Improves a workman’s vitality (Stephenson) 315
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ho. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
741
APPENDIX No. 4
Hours, Short, per Day -—Continued.
Introduction of, re coal mines.
Moral and material gain under,
Output and production under,
Production under system of
Social and cultural effects of
Ten-hour day too long for building trades
Would prefer,
House of Representatives, United States:
Bills passed the, %
n ... , ’ T , (Skelton)
Committee ot, on Labour; recommendation in 1897
. (Watkins)
. (McKune)
. . (Lauer)
. (Francq)
. . (Skelton)
(McNiven)
. . . (Post)
I
Industrial Disputes Act: See Act, Industrial Disputes.
Intercolonial Railway:
Eight-hour-day law might apply to car shops of the, (Skelton)
Interstate Commerce Commission, United States:
Compared with power exercised by provinces in Canada.. ..(Skelton)
Irrigation Works, United States:
Compensation Act of 1908 to apply to workmen at, . .(Skelton)
Eight-hour law of 1901-2 declared to apply to
Minnesota law presumed to apply to
Isthmian Canal Construction, Panama:
Enactment (U. S. 1905-6) limiting application of Act of 1892 to citizens
and skilled aliens (Skelton)
J
Janitors: See Caretakers, &c.
Joiners:
How extra earnings are made by,
Hours and wages of, See Ex. ‘ D ’ pp. 400. . . .
Hours in certain localities
Wages of, at Quebec
K
Kansas Law of 1891 :
Case of certain supplies to be furnished under
Dead letter till 1891
Opinion of commissioner Johnson re
Scope of; enforcement of; observance of. .
Supreme Court decision in 1903
. . (Nesbitt)
(DuBreuil)
. (Nesbitt)
(Skelton)
Page.
296
173
264
356
368
127
193
30
33
374
45
22
24
45
24
280
410
86-93
274
76
41
44
44
41
742 COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Page.
L
labour Bureaus and Departments:
1. Canada —
Evidence of officials of, pp. 77-132. Labour Gazette, its educational
influence (DuBreuil) 85
2. Ontario —
Evidence of official of, pp. 133-151. Four bureaus in. . (Armstrong) 133
Record kept of unemployed, &c 134
Report of, re farm labour (Tweed) 287
3. Quebec — •
Evidence of official of, pp. 151-161. Factory inspection in, (Guyon) 151
Hours, &c ‘ 100
Provincial measures, its effectiveness 156
Textile workers, women, children 160
4. United States —
Correspondence with (Skelton) 44
Data obtained from 396 establishments re effect of reduced hours on
output 69-70
Director’s statement re Massachusetts 45
Investigation made by, in 1904 68-69
Opinions of officials of, secured 26
Pennsylvania re law 39
Report of Maryland Bureau re statistics 39
Report of New York state Bureau 39
labour, Cheap:
Necessity of, in certain work (Doolittle) 217
Labourers, Workmen, Mechanics:
Application of — •
Act of 1892 (United States) to (Skelton) 34
Bill No. 21 (Canada) to, 27-28 (Francq) 352
Bills of 1898, 1906 (United States) to (Skelton) 31,65
Average pay of, at mines (Watkins) 299
Classes of, affected (Skelton) 38
Classes of, to which law applies ..33,34
Complications re hours leading to dissatisfaction among 373
Condition of employment of — •
In British Columbia (McNiven) 118
In Hamilton rolling mills (McKune) 164-5
In Ontario, (Armstrong), 147; (DuBreuil) 98
Hours of work of —
In various trades (Armstrong) 137
Laws of United States regulating (Skelton) 22-3, 24
On government or private work 29
COMMITTEE RE BILL Yo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR 743
APPENDIX No. 4
P
Labourers, Workmen, Mechanics -—Continued.
Per week re Employers’ Association (Lauer) 251-2
Quarrymen, shop mechanics 261
Unskilled 7 1 . (Skelton ) 45
Interpretation of term ‘employee’ (Skelton) 46
Interpretation of, re public works
Might do more under hour system in some industries 370
Opinion of law officer in 1904 re 64
Position of unskilled 24; (DuBreuil) 104
Scope of New York Act re ' (Skelton) 48
Unions, their opinion re wages (DuBreuil) 104
Vitality of, exhausted under ten hour system (Draper), 337; (Stephenson) 314-5
What measure would be welcomed by, (Armstrong) 147
When underpaid, how remedied (DuBreuil) 81
When seamen, not labourers (Skelton) 34,35
Would benefit morally and physically. Title of papers. . (Stephenson) 320
Labour, Farm or Domestic:
Efforts made to include (Skelton) 47
Exemption clause in Massachusetts law (Skelton) 45, 388
Experience in, re long hours (Stephenson) 321
Extent of, compared (Tweed) 287
Nature calls for long hours, certain seasons 289
New York law makes exception for, unless otherwise provided 46
Not covered by state laws in Indiana and Minnesota.. .. (Skelton) 38, 387-8
Relative number of, engaged in farm work compared to other occupa-
tions (Draper) 323
Labour Laws:
Effects of, on productivity (Skelton) 68-9, 70
Meaning of, in cases cited 75
Precedents in; cycle of, &c., (Stephenson) 311
Scope of, in various states (Skelton) 38
Labour, Organized:
Number of men represented by Dominion Trades and Labour Congress.
(Draper) 322
Percentage of working classes in (DuBreuil) 109, 110
Personal experience with, (DuBreuil), 78; (McNiven), 113; (Armstrong),
133; (Guyon), 151; (Evans), 186; (Tweed), 281; (Watkins), 291;
(Ainey), 299; (Stephenson), 307; (Draper), 323; (Francq), 351, 2.
Unorganized labour —
Have the remedy to improve conditions (Stephenson) 316
Their opinion re wages (DuBreuil) 104
Lancashire, 1802-1902, England:
Conditions of workmen in, from moral and physical point of view,
(Skelton) 380
4—48
744
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Page.
Legislation Ee Hours of Labour:
Action of federal government might induce provinces to enact (Stephenson) 312
Applied to irrigation works (U. S., 1901-2) (Skelton) 24
Benefits of, re labour (Murray) 244
Compensating workingmen for injuries received, (U.S., 1908) 22
Covering worlc in —
Arsenals, &c., in France 17, 365
Government establishments in Great Britain 17, 36, 38, 359, 361
Declaring eight hours of work per day for letter carriers (U.S., 1888) .... 23
Defining terms ‘labourer, workmen,’ &c., opinion of Attorney General.. 23
‘Public works’ 386
Directing Public Printer to apply, law to employees (U.S., 1888) 23
Effectiveness of provincial ' (Guyon) 156
Enacting that certain provisions of Act of 1892 do not apply (1905-6) . . 24
Enforcement of —
By a commissioner of labour in Kansas 41
By inspectors who report violations 67
Efforts to secure the, 30
In certain states 39
In New York state 53,71
In Oklahoma 41
Extending provisions of, to contractors, etc 23,33
Interpretation of law in cases cited 75,76
Law, scope of provincial, compared (Guyon) 156-7
Ninety-five per cent of total, passed by United States (Skelton) 57
Non-observance of, in certain states 38
Proclamation by President Grant of United States, 1869, re wages; re-
issued in same form, in 1871 (Skelton) 23
Provincial and Federal power of —
As to mining (Watkins), 292; as to scope (Stephenson), 310-311;
(Draper), 328.
Reciting application of, on continent of Europe .(Skelton) 17
Reducing hours per day by, for public employment, United States, 1868. 22
Restricting hours re common carriers, letter carriers, telegraphers, train
despatchers, 1901, 1907, in United States 22,24
Six main classes of state laws 35,36-37
Ten-hour standard of 1840 in United States 22
V neons titutiona l —
The New York law of 1897 39, 393
The Ohio eight-hour law of 1900 39
Letter Carriers: See Act of 1901.
Localities wherein prevail Restricted Hours of Labour per Day:
Alberta : Calgary, pp. 89, 90, 93; Edmonton, 89, 90, 93, 408; Lethbridge,
89, 90, 93, 408; Macleod, 90, 408; Medicine Hat, 93. — (DuBreuil).
COMMITTEE RE BILL Eo. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
745
APPENDIX No. 4
Page/
Localities wherein prevail Restricted Hours of Labour per Day: Continued.
British Columbia: Ashcroft, 93; Chilliwack, 409; Corvitchan Lake, 91;
Cranbrook, 91, 93; Cumberland, 91; Fernie, 93; Grand Forks, 93;
Greenwood, 93; Ladysmith, 91, 93; Nanaimo, 91, 93; Nelson, 91, 93,
409; New Westminster, 91, 93; Osoyos, 91; Revelstoke, 91, 93; Ross-
land, 93; Vancouver, 93, 409; Vernon, 93, 409; Victoria, 91, 93.
Manitoba: Brandon, 93, 406; Neepawa, 88, 93; St. Boniface, 88, 93; Sel-
kirk, 88, 93; Virden, 406; Winnipeg, 88, 93, 406.
New Brunswick: Campbellton, 401; Moncton, 401; St. John, 86, 93, 401,
and 24 other localities, 93.
Nova Scotia: Glace Bay, 86, 93; Halifax, 86, 93, 400; Inverness, 400;
North Sydney, 86, 93; Sydney, 86, 93, 400.
Ontario: Berlin, 87, 88, 93; Brantford, 87, 88, 93; Brockville, 87, 88, 93,
405; Chatham, 87, 88, 93; Cornwall, 405; Goderich, 404; Guelph, 87,
88, 93; Hamilton, 87, 88, 93; Kingston, 87, 88, 93, 405; London, 87,
88, 93; Midland, 88; Niagara Falls, 87, 88, 93; Ottawa, 87, 88, 93, 404;
Owen Sound, 87, 88, 93; Peterborough, 87, 88, 93; Port Arthur, 87, 93;
St. Catherines, 87, 88, 93; St. Marys, 87, 93; St. Thomas, 87, 88;
Sarnia, 87, 88; Sault Ste. Marie, 87, 88, 93; Stratford, 88; Toronto,
87, 88, 93, 404; Windsor, 87, 88, 93.
Prince Edward Island: Ten-hour day is general, 93, 402.
Quebec : Iberville, 87, 93 ; Levis, 87, 93 ; Maisonneuve, 87, *93 ; Montreal,
87, 93, 403; Rimouski, 403; St. Henri, 87; St. John’s, 87, 93; St.
Louis, 87; Three Rivers, 93; Valleyfield, 87, 93; Westmount, 87, 93.
Saskatchewan: Maple Creek, 88; Moosejaw, 88, 93; Prince Albert, 93,
407 ; Regina, 88, 93, 407 ; Saskatoon, 93, 407.
Yukon: See Exhibit ‘D10,’ p. 410, also p. 92.
Longshoremen of Montreal;
Agreement with Shipping Federation - (Robb) 376
Table showing earnings of 378
Wages reduced under eight-hour system 378
M
Machinery v. Labour:
Labour lost on (Ainey) 303
Relative output by, in eight and ten hours 303
Magill, Professor, Halifax:
Address on ‘ Eight-hour Day ’ — Exhibit ‘ E,’ p. 410.
Manufacturers’ Association, Canadian:
Certain Bill condemned by (Draper) 324
4 — 48-J
746
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Pace.
Manufacturers’ Association, Canadian : — Continued.
Circulars — •
Action taken on (Murray) 241
Issued to boards of trade 219
Issued to members of 220
Number of, issued 221,244
Communications received from, See pp 457-602
Evidence of secretary of the, pp 219-247
Memorial read by secretary of 221-237
Percentage of manufacturers belonging to 239
Manufacturing Establishments:
Law of 1908 (United States) re employees in (Skelton) 22
Marine Association:
Communications received from, ,See pp. 602-604
Maryland :
Bureau of Statistics, report of (Skelton) 38,39
Work to which law applies, defined 33
Workmen, to whom law applies 38
Masons :
r
Hours and wages See Exhibit ‘ D/ pp. 400-410
Hours of, in certain localities (DuBreuil) 85-93
Massachusetts:
Certain employees to whom law applies (Skelton) 38
Exemption clause 45
Law governing hours per day, per week. . . 43
Law is enforced in, 39
See also 1 B ’(6), p. 394.
Material for a Public Building:
Beyond scope of law of 1892 when bought in open market.. ..(Skelton) 34
Conveyance of, under U. S. Bill of 1898 31
Difficulty to obtain, does not constitute emergency 30
How Bill No. 21 applies to —
If purchased in open market 28-29
If specially contracted for, 27, 28-9
Law re manufacture and delivery of 44
Memorials :
By secretary of Canadian Manufacturers’ Association (Murray) 221-237
By secretary of Dominion Trades and Labour Congress. . . . (Draper) 324-338
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
747
APPENDIX No. 4
‘ Methods of Industrial Peace ’ :
Re reduction of hours of labour (Watkins) 296
Military Works:
Exemption clauses re — •
In United States Bills of 1898, 1906 (Skelton) 31,32
Mills, Textile:
Extracts quoted (Murray) 233
Hours bady arranged for women and children in (Guyon) 160
Hours excessive in Quebec 161
Shorter hours demanded for workers in (Murray) 238
Mines and Smelters:
Hours at Springhill and Pictou (Watkins) 295
Laws limiting hours of labour at, in ten states (Skelton) 36
N
‘National Vitality’; Its Wastes and Conservation:
Complete depletion of energies (Stephenson) 315
Fatigue —
Causes abnormal frame of mind; deadened by use of alcohol, tobacco,
&c., starts a vicious circle (Stephenson) 315
Naval Works or Defences:
Exemption clauses re, in United States Bills of 1898, 1906.. ..(Skelton) 31,32
Not within legal intendments of Act of 1892. (Opinion of Attorney
General of United States, August, 1906). See Ex. ‘A ’(4), p. 386.
Navy Yards: See Arsenals, &c.
New York State:
1. Aqueduct —
Effect of eight hour’s work re, on farm labour (Skelton) 75
Work done on, by a commission 53
Work done on eight-hour basis 53,75
2. Court of Appeal — •
Judgment in case of Bohmen v. Metz 51
Law not to apply to production of raw material
Material to produce doors, &c., not within scope of law
Provisions of labour law in contracts
Stipulated facts not within provisions.
748
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Page.
New York State: — Continued.
3. Eight-hour Law —
Comma omitted (Skelton) 27
Compared to Bill No. 21 27 28 46
Covers public works and printing ’53
Does not apply to persons employed re materials ultimately used.. . 53
Does not apply to supplies purchased in open market 51
Employees excepted 47
Enforcement of 77
Extent of application of 54
Of 1897 declared not constitutional in 1901; constitution amended;
re-enacted in 1906 39, 45
Opinion of commissioner re specified contracts 53
Opinion of secretary of U. G. Workers re uniforms 53
Provisions of, re payments and persons employed 47
Purpose of amendments made to Bill in 1902 48
Wage provision and piece work 46,58
4. Legislature —
Amendment passed in 1909 (Skelton) 53
Power to pass laws regulating hours of labour.. ' 49
Work done by a commission, state or municipality must be on eight-
hour basis ' 53
New Zealand: See Australia, &c.
Nine-hour Day Law:
Certain municipalities in Massachusetts (Skelton) 37
Italy re government dockyard 366
Not too long in building trades (Lauer) 267
United States, re telegraphers and train despatchers in 1907. . . .(Skelton) 22
Nova Scotia Commission: See Commission, Nova Scotia.
0
Ohio:
Eight-hour law of 1900, not constitutional (Skelton) 39
Oklahoma Act Be Labour:
Application of Act of 1908 to any public works (Skelton) 41
Covers labourers in direct employment; prison guards and janitors. ... 41
Effect of, on wages; cases cited 75
Strict enforcement of 44
See also Ex. ‘B’(3), pp. 391-2.
Open Market:
Materials bought in, not affected under proposed measure (Skelton) 28
Materials purchased re application of United States Bill, 1906, to. . . . 32
Purchase of materials in, by contractor 29
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
749
APPENDIX No. 4
- Page.
Ordnance Factories: See Arsenals, &c.
Output; Productivity:
A falling off, causes reduction of material dividend (Skelton) 370
A falling off, due to various causes 369,370
Cost of, under two and three shifts compared (McKune) 165
Effect of restricted hours on —
Evidence of (Skelton), 68, 70; (DuBreuil), 97; (McNiven), 122;
(Watkins), 295; (Stephenson), 315; (Francq), 354.
In winter and summer (Nesbitt) 272
Increase of, due to increased energy (Skelton) 370
Be printing matter (Stephenson), 313-14; (Francq) 354,5
Machinery output in eight and ten hours compared (Ainey) 303-4
Keport of pressman, table showing results of (Francq) 354-5
Two calculations, made re cost and output in manufacturing. (Skelton) 70
Overtime :
Arguments advanced for (Skelton) 71
Extra pay for, in Quebec (Nesbitt) 273
Necessary in some industries (Skelton) 371
Not forbidden, by U. S. Act of 1888 re letter carriers in cities 23
Not permitted in Letter Carriers Act of 1901 (United States) 24
Prevented by Bill No. 21 (Lauer) 263
Prohibited rigidly (Skelton) 70,71
Re interpretation of 375
Sometimes desired by men 71
P
Painters :
Hours and wages of — See Exhibit ‘ D ’ pp. 400-410.
Hours of, in certain localities (DuBreuil) 85-93
Paint Factories:
Necessity of short hours in (DuBreuil) 108
Pattern Makers and Moulders :
Hours of labour per day (Armstrong) 139
Private work v. government work 139-140
Penalties :
Clause imposing fine and imprisonment in U. S. Act of 1892. . (Skelton) 20
See also Ex. ‘A ’(2), sec. 2, p. 385.
Clause in U. S. Bill of 1906 re 32
Clause in Wisconsin law of 1909 re 39a
See also column 4, Ex. ‘B ’(1), p. 390.
750
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
Penalties : — Continued.
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Pare.
Exceptions made as to 09
Not imposed in U. S. law of 1868. See Ex. ‘A’(l), p. 385.
Payments withheld gg
Report of U. S. Labour Committee quoted re (Stephenson) 309
See also Ex. ‘B'(l), p. 387-390.
Pennsylvania :
Report of Bureau of Statistics (Skelton)
Piece Work and Piece Workers.
Can be introduced in some trades
Communication from New York official re
Does not affect output so notably as the day-work system.
Indifferent as to length of hours _
Rates of pay of
Tendency of, to increase
(Skelton)
. .(Guyon)
. (Skelton)
Piers, Costruction of:
370
75
370
155
50
76
Considered as pertaining to public works (Skelton) 25
Included with wharfs, breakwaters, &c., as within scope of law re public
works (Skelton) 27,33
Plants, Competitive:
Hours of work per day in American, Belgian,
Labour conditions in
English and German,
(McKune)
178-9
180
Plasterers:
Hours and wages of, — See Exhibits ‘ D,’ pp. 400-410.
Hours of, in certain localities (DuBreuil) 85-93
Plumbers :
Attitude of, in Winnipeg (Murray) 238
Hours and wages — See Exhibit ‘ D,’ pp. 400-410.
Hours of, in certain localities rrmUrcmin sc as
Organized in Prince Edward Island
Position of, at Winnipeg (Murray) 241
Rules of Local Union of Winnipeg ^34.
Work nine hours at Charlottetown (DuBreuil) 86
Printer, Public, United States:
Directed to apply provisions of law of 1888 to employees (Skelton) 23
Printers, Canada:
(Armstrong) 135
• .. 134
(Stephenson), 307, 313; (Francq), 353-357
(McNiven) 120
Causes of short life of
Eight-hour union law.
Experience as a. .
Union law of,
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
751
APPENDIX No. 4
Printing Bureau, Canada :
Eight hours a day in; its good effect (Stephenson) 313
Private Work: See Work, Private.
Proclamation Re Hours and Wages:
By President Grant of United States in 1869; re-issued in 1871 (Skelton) 23
Public Works: See Works, Public.
R
Railroad, Construction of :
Eight-hour day, measure could be enforced on (Skelton) 374
Short hours re (DuBreuil) 105
Railroads :
Law in 25 states of United States governing hours of labour re employees
engaged on (Skelton) 36
Laws regulating safety appliances to protect men on 22
Rolling Mills:
Habits of workmen in, at Hamilton (Evans) 190
Production and cost, Canada and Pittsburg (McKune) 180-2-4
Work in, congenial (Evans) 189, 191
S
Saturday, Half-holiday :
Building trades at Quebec re, (Nesbitt) 273
Continuous work on, till midnight (McKune) 168
Defined; say hours of work per week; 48 or 44 (Skelton) 375
Experience re adoption of (McNiven) 124
Hours arranged for, at Hamilton and London (Skelton) 41-2
Hours on, at Hawaii 37
Provision for in law of Massachusetts 37,41
Saving Clauses:
Of some concern in a Eederal Bill. . . . (Skelton) 49
Seamen :
34
34-5
35
Labourers employed on dredges, interpreted as '.. .
Vote of Supreme Court, 5-3
Whether labourers or seamen, depends on locality of dredging
(Skelton)
752
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Senate, United States:
Page.
Bills re labour thrown out by
Bills not referred to
Bills killed in
.. 30
66
Committee on Education and Labour of —
Did not report on Bills
Interpretation of a certain clause in 1904 by
Opinion of, re Bill of 1902
Phrase added to Bill by
Thought necessary to introduce safeguards
63
48,49
49
Seven-hour Day Law:
In Italy re government tobacco establishments
. . (Skelton) 366
Sheet Metal Workers:
Hours and wages of . . . See Ex. ‘D,’ pp. 400-410
Hours in certain localities re (DuBreuil) 85-93
Shifts of Men:
Difficult to obtain
Three instead of two, necessary
. (Skelton) 30
75
Two in rolling mills (Hamilton), working eleven and thirteen hours
’ (McKune) 164-5
Shipbuilders, British:
Work nine hours per day (Skelton) 67
Shipping and Shipbuilding:
Conditions at Quebec (Nesbitt) 278-9
Labour is casual in (Robb) 378
Vessels longer in port in event of government cargoes 379 ■
Would be hardly practical as to crews 379
Shipping Federation of Canada:
Five year contract with Longshoremen re hours and wages (Robb) 376
Incorporated by Dominion Statute; steamship companies in 376
Object of; a Canadian organization 376-7
Tradesmen employed by 377
Ships, Construction of:
Opinion of commissioner re (Skelton) 53
Parts of, constructed in contractor’s shop 51
Shops, Internal Organization of:
Difficulties, under two-hour systems, (Skelton), 74; (,-McKune) 166-7
Effect of Bill of 1906 on (Skelton) 32
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ro. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
753
APPENDIX No. 4
Page.
Stair Builders:
Hours and wages of — See Ex. ‘ D,’ pp. 400-410.
Hours in certain localities re (DuBreuil) 85-93
State Laws, Scope of :
See Exhibit ‘B’(l), col. 3, pp. 387-9; also ‘B’(l), p. 390.
Statute Labour:
Hours of labour on public roads (Skelton) 36
Steamfitters:
Hours and wages of, — See Ex. ‘ D,’ pp. 400-410.
Hours in certain localities re (DuBreuil) 85-93
Stimulants :
Certain work conducive to (Evans) 191
Kegulations in steel plant governing use of 192
Stonecutters :
Hours and wages of — See Ex. ‘ D,’ pp. 400-410.
Hours in certain localities re (DuBreuil) 85-93
Ten-hours’ work per day necessary (Doolittle) 208
Union law re (McNiven) 120
Strikes :
Conditions in Cumberland county to coal mining before and after
(Watkins) 298
Supplies :
1. Brick and stone —
Schedules prepared (DuBreuil) 106
2. In time of war —
Exception in application of Bill of 1906 (Skelton) 31
3. Purchased in open market —
New York law does not apply to (Skelton) 51
Provisions in Bill of 1906 objected to. . . . 31, 32
Supreme Court, United States:
A 5 — 3 vote regarding term ‘seamen’ (Skelton) 34
Decision as to —
Application of law re dredging 25
Meaning of : ‘ any of the public works ’ 33
Term ‘extraordinary emergency’
Utility of following decisions of 3o
754
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
T
Telegraphers and Train Despatches:
Congress, in 1907, passed a law limiting the work of, to nine hours per
day re interstate traffic (Skelton) 22
Light states of United States limit the day’s work for railroad, to eight
hours
oo
Telephone:
Operators—
hive senses required; nervous strain of; short hours necessary, . (Skelton) 73
State-owned in United States ' 44
Ten-hour Day Law, United States:
Established in 1840 by President-
Applicable to labourers, &c., in all public employment. . ..(Skelton) 22
I11 Maryland, at mines and smelters 33
In New Jersey for bakeries 36
In nine states of, in case of absence of special contract 37
Trades and Labour Congress, Dominion:
Bill No. 21 approved by (Draper) 348
Copies of proceedings of, distributed 348
Existence of; how composed; its legislative purposes 322-5
General vice-president of (Francq) 351
Memorial prepared by executive of; read by secretary of 324-338
No desire to conflict with statements of (Stephenson) 321
Report of Halifax Convention re quoted (Murray) 223,238
Report of 1906, referred to for purposes of comparison 240
Trades Building:
Australia re building and iron (Skelton) 366
Conditions of, in Montreal, Quebete and Tor'onto compared, (Ainey),
299-301; (Nesbitt), 277-8
Eight hours in, at Toronto (Lauer) 268
Evidence re hours and wages in various localities for.. . . (DuBreuil) 85-93
See also Ex. ‘ D,’ pp. 400-410.
Minimum rate of pay for 85
Mutual agreements, signed . . ..(Nesbitt) 276
Prevailing opinion re hours for (McNiven) 127
Summer and winter rates of pay (DhBreuil) 90
Technical training deficient (Nesbitt) 274-5
Yearly earning power of (DuBreuil) 112
Trade Union Mark:
What it means. . (Stephenson) 315
Trades Unions:
Affiliated with American Federation of Labour (Tweed) 281
Best agency to secure shorter hours (Skelton) 372
COMMITTEE RE BILL Ho. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
755
APPENDIX No. 4
Trades Unions:— Continued.
Communications received from 604-690
Discrimination against (Ainey) 302
Legislative intervention re (Skelton) 371
Members of, get higher wages (Stephenson) 316
Not recognized by Builders’ Exchange (Nesbitt) 275,279
Train Despatchers: See Telegraphers, &c.
Training, Technical:
Want of, in building trades (Nesbitt) 274-5
Transportation :
Bill No. 21 not applicable to crews engaged in (Robb) 379
Communications received from pp. 690-693
Not covered by U. S. Act of 1892 (Skelton) 25
Not inclined to state as to application of measure to (Draper) 339
Not to apply in certain cases —
Bill of 1906, United States (Skelton) 32
Bill of 1902, United States 65
Scope of American laws re (Robb) 379
United States Bill of 1898 re (Skelton) 31, 65
Typographical Union:
Agreement between Board of Trade and Master Printers of . . (Francq) 353
Member and president of (Armstrong) 133
Member of, evidence thereto (Stephenson) 307
Member of, as an employer and employee (Francq) 354
Members of, on executive of Dominion Trades and Labour Congress.
(Murray) 238
U
Unemployed:
Reduction of hours’ work per day offers no solution to . . . . (Skelton) 370
Uniforms:
New York law applies to, under direct contract agreements. . (Skelton) 51
Opinions of —
Secretary of United Garment Workers 53
State Commissioners of New York 53
Parts of, law does not apply to 51
Unions:
Incorporated — •
No objection to treat with
(Lauer)
254
756
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Unions : — Continued.
International —
Arguments and experience re printers and (Stephenson) 315
Trades — See Trades Unions.
U nincorporated —
Objections to (Lauer) 254
United States Federal Government:
Extent of power to legislate re hours- of labour (Skelton) 22,23
Power to restrict conditions and hours in interstate traffic 22
^Research into labour laws of 27
United States State Laws:
Classification of (Skelton) 36
See also Exhibit ‘B’(l), pp. 387-390.
Wage provisions in; See col. 4, pp. 387-389.
Utilities, Public:
Law as to —
In Canada; in United States (Skelton) 45
W
Wage Labour:
Laws in 21 states not applicable to (Skelton) 36
Wages:
At coal mines per hour for certain men (Watkins) 294
At Montreal, for carpenters, &c (Ainey) 300-1
At Hamilton for rolling mill men (McIIune) 165
At quarrying, scale of (Doolittle) 214
At Quebec, scale of ("Nesbitt 1 272-4
At Springhill, to miners (Watkins) 297
At Toronto (Tweed) 284
At steel plants, scale of (Evans) 188
Based on tonnage basis 285
Current rates of, how obtained (DuBreuil) 84-5
Decrease of, its effect on standard of living (McNiven) 127
Difficult to make on tonnage basis (Watkins) 297
Effect of eight-hour measure on (DuBreuil) 100
Effect of law re per day (Skelton) 75
Effect on cost of production (McKune) 177
Explicit provisions for (Skelton) 40
Incorrect scale of, made right (Armstrong) 138
Increase of —
Be lumbermen (Tweed) 285
Re printers (Armstrong) 134-5
Secured in two ways (McUiven) 127
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21— HOURS OF LABOUR
757
APPENDIX No. 4
Page.
Wages : — Continued.
Leave out of proposed measure the question of wages. . . . (Stephenson) 319
Not in favour of stipulation re in Bill (Draper) 346
'No reduction’ provision would be welcomed (McNiven) 127
On public and private contracts (Skelton) 40
Per day, per hour — Evidence of Skelton 41, 47, 50
Provisions for in New York law 46
Query as to, in research made 18
Bates of, under Fair-wage clause (DuBreuil) 81
Satisfaction re expressed (Post) 198-9, 200
Summer and winter rates (DuBreuil) 90
Ten-hour, re eight hours’ work (Skelton) 47
What an official says re 59, 75
Wages and Hours — Statements:
For various mechanics in —
Alberta, Exhibit ‘D’(8), p 408
British Columbia, ‘D’(9), p 409
Manitoba, ‘ D ’(6), p 406
New Brunswick, *D’(2), p 401
Nova Scotia, ‘ D,’ p 400
Ontario, ‘D’(5), pp 404-5
Prince Edward Island, ‘ D ’(3), p 402
Quebec, ‘D’(4), p 403
Saskatchewan, ‘D’(7), p 407
Yukon, 'D’(IO), p 410
Wharfs, Piers, Breakwaters: See Piers, &c., and Works, Public.
Wisconsin Law of 1909:
Confines provisions of re labour to work on the spot (Skelton) 375
Covers erection and repairs of public buildings 39
Wage provision 40
Work performed on premises 40
Women Employees: See Children, &c.
Work, Government: See Works, Public.
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1908 (U.S.) :
Providing for —
Employees injured (Skelton) 22
Heirs to employees killed in arsenals, &c 22
Workmen, in Rolling Mills:
Hours, meals, wages (Mclvune) 164
Hours at home, at work 168
Meals, sleep, 175
758
COMMITTEE RE BILL No. 21 — HOURS OF LABOUR
9-10 EDWARD VII., A. 1910
Page.
Workmen, Unskilled:
Position of re labour and hours (DuBreuil) 104
Practice followed in protecting (McNiven) 114
Work, Private:
Eight hours a day observed in Australia, New Zealand. . . . (Skelton) 17
Eleven and more hours as a rule in 1840 in United States for 22
Fallen to ten hours for, in 1868 22
Is difficult to keep separate 373
Re government contracts (Johnston) 201
Work, Public:
Classification of (Skelton)
Definition of, to comprise, &c
Difference in meaning re certain pharaseology pertaining to
Exemption clause re hours on, in time of war (Bill of 1898)
Opinion re scope of application of law See ‘A ’(4), p.
Scope of U. S. Act of 1892 relating to (Skelton) 23,
Work beyond scope of law of 1892 ’
Work, part of, contemplated by contract— U. S. Bill of 1906
Would term include railways?
34
66
33
31
386
24, 25
34
31
374
Workshops, France:
Eightdiour day experiments in (Skelton) 57
Work, Sublet of :
Application of Bill No. 21 to (Skelton) 28
Work, Volume of:
Output of, in a year at eight hours per day as compared with, at ten
h°urs (Armstrong) 150
Speeding of machines re 151
©
o
GretagMacbeth™ ColorChecker Color Rendition Chart
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11