[Stage Direction]
Hon. RAYMOND MORAND (East Essex) moved concurrence in the second and final report of the special committee on radio broadcasting.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving concurrence I should like to take a few moments to explain some of the features of the report. First of all, let me assure the house that it has been a real pleasure to work with this committee, largely due to the wholehearted cooperation and assistance given by the members of the committee to their chairman. In fact, they took practically all the work away from me and as a result I found my task easy.
The evidence, coming from all parts of Canada and from practically every walk of life was well prepared. Your committee weighed the evidence, bearing in mind both its source and its kind. In a very short time after we had begun our work it became evident that radio was a weapon which if used in a destructive way, could do a great deal of harm, or was an instrument which, if well used could help to build culture and civilization. The science of radio is but in its infancy. A decade ago it was only a toy, and gradually it has gone through the various stages from the time when we tuned in or dialed to find out how far in geographical space we could reach and what stations we could find, until to-day when it has become a real utility of entertainment and education. It has developed as an aid to education more in the past two or three years than previously. We speak of it as a help in education not only because it may be used to teach the youngsters, but because it is a projected arm of education which helps to finish and instruct adults in their homes. To-day radio finds its way to the homes of the most distant frontiersmen on the very edge of civilization. With those facts in mind your committee undoubtedly realized that their efforts would have to be of a serious character, and that they would have to keep the future definitely in mind.
To-day radio is an adjunct or auxiliary to religious teaching; it is being used by the various churches. Some of us may listen to what is going on in our neighbour's church, without being caught at it, and while things may be running smoothly in our own churches 
we find, through the radio, that our neighbour's church is prospering just as well. Radio is a great help to the teaching of disease prevention, and the promotion of health measures throughout the country. Through the broadcast of weather reports it is an aid to agriculture and is most useful in police work and many other types of education and utilities.
Your references were very definite. We were asked first to study the Aird report. In 1929 a commission was appointed by the then government. It travelled throughout Canada, the United States and Europe making a study of radio, its methods of application and control in those various countries. A report was made in 1929, which until this day had not been implemented. We were very fortunate in having the help of the three men who made the investigations and prepared the report. They gave us valuable information, which could not be put into the short space of a report. Their work, however, I am satisfied, helped the committee to arrive at the conclusions now before the house.
Your second instruction was to provide a technical scheme that would give to Canada the type of broadcasting to which it was entitled. In order to do that it was necessary for your committee to obtain the help of technical advisers, and in the help we secured we were most fortunate-and I speak both of the advisers who were definitely attached to the committee, and from the department. A scheme is presented in our report which we believe will quite definitely give to Canada that type of radio broadcasting to which she is entitled. I shall take a minute or two to read and to comment upon a few of the suggestions we have made.
First of all we believe a thorough survey of the entire field should be made before anything definite in respect to changes should be contemplated. Secondly, your committee recommends that consideration be given to the use of five 50 kilowatt stations, one in each of the following provinces, namely, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and in the maritime provinces three 500 watt stations, one for each province, or one large 50 kilowatt station, as the commission may later decide. In Saskatchewan and Alberta we suggest two 5 kilowatt stations, in each province, synchronized on a common channel. Further, a 10 kilowatt station in northern Ontario and one in western Ontario, a 1 kilowatt station at Port Arthur-Fort William, a 500 watt station in Toronto, and a 1 kilowatt station at or near Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec.

Radio-Report of Committee
It might be of interest if in a short way I were to try to give, from a layman's standpoint, something of the business of broadcasting in its technical sense. Having had only six weeks' schooling in the matter I feel I am not very capable of going into the various technical points, but I shall explain it in the way it appeals to me. Dealing with the air, one would naturally believe that that is the one thing of which there is an unlimited amount. Hon. members may call it air, ether or space, whichever they wish. Strange however as it may seem, for purposes of radio broadcasting the air is of very limited quantity. The spectrum or the amount of space allocated or possible for broadcasting is, first of all, divided by international agreements or conventions into that used for commercial purposes, that used for ship-to-shore' work and that allocated to broadcasting. On the North American continent there are ninety-six channels, or we might call them highways in the air, and over those channels the human voice or music may be transmitted to be picked up by your radio receivers. By that I mean that if ninety-six stations of, say, 50 kilowatts, were placed on the North American continent there would be no further room for more stations. They would completely cover the allotted space of air, or ether, so far as radio broadcasting is concerned.
As we know, that space must be divided among the United States, Mexico, Cuba and Canada. By definite electric waves set at definite rates they are able to super-impose music or the voice and carry them through those channels, in much the same way that one goes over a highway in the country. Because of the large geographical area and the resulting difference in time it is possible to put stations upon the air w'ith lesser power, three or four on the same channel, providing that the power is not such that they interfere with one another. For instance, it is possible to put upon the same channel a station in California and another in the New England states, or one in the maritime provinces and another in Vancouver, provided the power is not so high that they interfere one with another. That accounts for the large number of stations now operating on the North American continent, most of which are on shared channels. Up to the present time we have been using for radio broadcasting a certain number of channels that were not in use in the United States. There was no definite written arrangement of any kind, but by a word of mouth agreement we were using certain channels. I propose to put on Hansard what channels we are using now and
what channels it will be possible for us to use in the future. At the present time under the so-called "gentleman's agreement" Canada has available the following channels:
Clear channels, no power limitations.. ..	5
Shared channels, power limited to 4 K.W..	1
That was shared, I believe, with another station near Washington.
Shared channels, power limited to 500 watts 11
Total channels	 17
On the five so-called clear channels, we are at present operating the following stations:
Stations of	5	K.W.	(power)	
3Stations of	4	K.W.	(power)	
1Stations of	1	K.W.	(power)	
1Stations of	500	watts	(power)	
6Stations of	100	watts	(power)	
4Stations of	50	watts	(power)	
1Total	
16
In other words these channels are really shared and not clear channels in Canada. On the remaining shared channels we are operating a total of 40 stations ranging in power from 500 watts down to 25 watts. In addition there are ten stations operating on "split channels." That is, we found it was impossible to place all the stations we wished on the channels available, either clear or shared, and some stations were put in between two others. I understand we have no right to use these split channels by any international arrangement. The stations have been operating fairly satisfactorily to date, but undoubtedly they will have to be discontinued.
Under the new proposed agreement the following channels would become available:
Clear channels, no power limitations.. ..	9
Shared channels, power limited to 1 K.W..	4
Shared channels, power limited to 500 watts 3 Shared channels, power limited to 100 watts 20
Total channels	 36
This means that under the new agreement we have increased by SO per cent the number of clear channels, and have now sufficient high power channels to set up a thoroughly satisfactory trans-Canada chain. This would not have been possible under any arrangement of the clear channels previously available. The four shared channels with a power limitation of 1 K.W. constitute a new type of channel not previously available to Canada. The coverage possible with the remaining twenty-three shared channels will be several times as great as the coverage available from the twelve shared channels previously in use.
Radio-Report of Committee
[Stage Direction]
In addition, these channels are ideal for the type of community stations so necessary in many parts of Canada.
In the new agreement, the channels for all our high power stations have been chosen from the best part of the broadcast band, namely the low frequency end. In addition, care was taken to see that both geographically and in so far as their relative positions in the spectrum were concerned, these channels were as far removed as possible from powerful United States stations.
The proposed technical scheme does not contemplate using at the present time all of the power that may be employed on these nine channels. In fact the number of clear channels available will provide for a population twice as great as that possessed by Canada to-day.
This agreement does not mean that Canada cannot again approach the United States for a further allotment of channels, should such action ever become necessaiy. In fact it definitely established a basis for the division of channels between Canada and the United States, should future radio conferences increase the number of frequencies allotted for broadcast purposes. I think it is only fair to say that in view of our desire to establish such a chain of stations in Canada, the willingness of the United States to clear these channels is a friendly act that should be taken cognizance of by this house.
On the North American continent the following channels are now available:
Available for high power stations-
U.S.A	 21
Canada	 9
Mexico	   4
Cuba	 2
Shared channels in use-
U.S.A	  87
Canada	 27
Mexico	 21
Cuba	 16
The difference between the possible power that we shall be able to put on the air now with the new channels compared with that under the old is 312'7 K.W. as against 41-25 K.W.
In the scheme of broadcasting certain things have been taken into consideration. Ample coverage for each province has been provided for. Further, 100 watt stations which give a coverage in daylight of at least a twenty-

five mile radius are provided for, and with the amount of available shared channels we are quite capable of establishing at least 175 of these.
After establishing the technical scheme the task which your committee was confronted with was to investigate and report upon the most satisfactory agency for carrying out such a scheme. A number of very definite problems presented themselves. First of all we did not have adequate coverage; secondly, there was no trans-Canada or interprovincial broadcasting; third, there was no body or machinery to plan or control programs or advertising; fourth, there was always the possibility of a monopoly being established. On this phase I would cite the words of Mr. E. W. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, who was kind enough to appear before the committee. Mr. Garland asked him:
You do regard radio, Mr. Beatty, as a natural
monopoly?
The Witness: I do, yes. I do not mean to say by that, Mr. Garland, that it is the only way in which it could be effectively dealt with.
Further, the chairman asked Mr. Beatty:
I think the committee are properly advised that you think that a Canadian national system of some kind is necessary in Canada?
The Witness: Nationwide, yes.
A number of witnesses gave very similar advice to the committee. It is rather interesting to note that in the United States at present it is considered by those who are studying the subject that there is being established very rapidly a radio monopoly. Before the United States interstate commerce committee Senator Wheeler stated that fifty-three of the favoured stations were given more than fifty per cent of the picked channels, while the balance of more than six hundred stations were assigned to the remaining thirty-eight channels. Senator Dill indicated that twenty-five of the forty cleared channels carried the National Broadcasting Company's programs, and twelve were on the Columbia chain, leaving three cleared channels for independent stations.
These were some of the problems which confronted your committee. Another feature which had to be taken into consideration was advertising. As all who listen to United States programs know, advertising is one of the primary factors in radio broadcasts in that country. In England advertising is not permitted at all, and that condition exists in other European countries as well. But because of the fact that we are in such close apposition to the United States it was felt by your committee that advertising should be

Radio-Report of Committee
permitted to a limited extent, since if it were entirely prohibited in Canada those United States industries having branch factories in this country or selling goods in Canada would have an unfair advantage over Canadian industries. Consequently your committee has recommended that five per cent of the time be the maximum permitted for advertising. Nothing is said as to the quality of the advertising, that being left to the commission, because much was said as to direct and indirect advertising, though no two similar definitions were given to your committee in this regard by any of the witnesses appearing before it. Undoubtedly that is something that will have to be dealt with entirely by the commission.
There is another point which I think cannot entirely be lost sight of; it is that the air is as much a natural resource as our waterways, our water powers, our crown lands or any other part of the public domain. Perhaps it is more important to consider this as a natural resource, since the purpose for which it can be used is very limited. It is possible for us to give away some of our other natural resources and still have plenty left, but in this instance the use to which this natural resource can be put is circumscribed.
Another problem which faced this committee, with which I think most members were familiar in more ways than one, was the question of the finances available for this purpose. In considering all these points your committee deemed it their duty to devise as simple a machine as possible to deal with these problems, so that a commission of three is suggested, with definite powers. These include power to regulate and control all broadcasting in Canada, including programs and advertising; to own, build and operate transmitting or receiving stations in Canada; to acquire by lease, purchase, expropriation or otherwise, any or all existing broadcasting stations; to enter into operating agreements with privately owned stations; to originate .programs, and to secure outside programs by purchase or exchange, and to make the arrangements necessary for their transmission. I should like to direct attention to this matter in particular, because telegrams which we are receiving as well as reports appearing in the newspapers indicate that the opinion is held that if this report is adopted it will mean the elimination of all programs coming from foreign countries. We also recommend that the commission be given power to determine the number, location and power of all broadcasting stations required in Canada; to control the issuing or cancellation of licences to broadcasting stations; to cancel the allotments of
channels to any stations, or to make substitutions of channels; to prohibit the establishment of privately owned chains of stations in Canada.
Mr. NEILL:: I have had a number of
telegrams protesting against that provision. What was the reason for it?


Mr. MORAND:: I think most hon. members have had telegrams in that regard. The fact that we have suggested that the commission be given power to prohibit these chains does not mean that the commission will not have the power to permit them also. They are simply given the power to prohibit in order that there may not be established, by the assembling of a number of small stations, a definite chain that would come in direct opposition with the. larger stations established under the commission. We certainly do not intend to prohibit the possibility of such a chain being set up.


Alan Webster Neill: Why not say the commission
have power to regulate such chains?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: The wording may have
been unfortunate, since it has been rather misconstrued, but we are simply asking that they be given power to prohibit if they think it necessary, and to regulate these various chains. We further recommend that the commission be given power, subject to the approval of the parliament of Canada, to take over all broadcasting in Canada and be vested with all other powers necessary or incidental to the fulfilment of the objects of the commission.
We have made some definite recommendations. The first is that it be the first duty of the commission to establish trans-Canada chain broadcasting, through the securing of the necessary land lines. It may be of interest to hon. members to learn that there are in Canada three distinct trans-Canada telephone lines that may be used for this puipose. Each railway has one, and by arrangement among the telephone companies there is a third direct telephone line from the Atlantic to the Pacific that may be used for this purpose. Your committee recommend also that a nationally owned system of radio broadcasting be instituted and that all stations required for its proper organization be eventually acquired, these to be financed from the revenues accruing through the business of broadcasting, without expense to the taxpayers through the public treasury.
I have noticed some comments in the press with regard to the revenues which may be expected to accrue from broadcasting. It is
Radio-Report oj Committee


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: It was not my intention to make any remarks on the presentation of this report, but on second thought, as a member of the committee, perhaps I might offer one or two comments. They should be few, I think, because the report speaks for itself. Moreover, the chairman of the committee has made a very complete presentation of the objects and purposes of the report.
Before I proceed further, I should like to compliment the chairman of the committee upon the ability and courtesy with which he presided over the deliberations of that body, There was complete and constant good feeling; in fact, there was probably never at any time a real difference of opinion, which, perhaps, was due to the suave methods of the chairman. I want to compliment him also on the method of presentation of the report itself, for it relieves me of the necessity of making any technical explanations such as he has given.

Radio-Report of Committee
Generally speaking, I think it may be said that we have followed fairly closely, although not too closely, the recommendations of what is known as the Aird report. The important principle which is recognized in the report, and was recognized unanimously by the committee and by almost all of the witnesses who were heard, was this: that radio is in itself a natural monopoly. One member of the house said to me, in the early stages of the meetings that we held, that radio was a use of the air and therefore should be as free as the air. Now that sounds quite plausible, but when you consider the facts, it is utterly impossible to suppose that radio can be as free as the air itself, because, as the chairman has explained, there are only so many channels that can be used, so that the number and the use of those channels are limited. Therefore, as he has said, since it is in every sense a great natural resource, there should be some sort of control over it. It having been established to the satisfaction of everyone that radio is a natural monopoly, then it was a question of deciding whether it should be a publicly owned and controlled monopoly or one privately-owned and controlled. It is perhaps unnecessary for me to say that I should be opposed to the establishment of a privately owned monopoly of radio. We were opposed to private monopoly. We also recognized this -and it is what we were trying to avoid in the presentation of the report-that present conditions might so develop that outsiders might acquire control of radio broadcasting in this country, which is something very much to be avoided.
Speaking briefly, the main objects we hope to attain if legislation is introduced based on the report, are these. First of all, we wish to give complete coverage so that every listener-in, practically every resident in Canada, will have an opportunity of listening in to the best kind of programs. We also hope to provide a reasonable control of programs. We hope to promote national sentiment, to encourage Canadian art and music, to promote education, to lead to an interchange of programs between various countries, because it is easily possible, I am informed, under the system we propose to establish, to obtain the very finest programs from other parts of the world: from Britain, France, Germany, Italy and other countries as well as from the United States.
I wish for a moment to remove some misconceptions and to answer some of the arguments advanced in support of the objections that have been taken to. the nationalizing, if I may so describe it, of broadcasting. It is a fact that under this system it will be possible
for any listener-in, any owner of a radio, to sit down and tune in just as he pleases on any United States or other program, whether it be a jazz program or one consisting entirely of classical music or anything else-Amos 'n' Andy or anything else he may wish to enjoy. He is not shut off from listening to the programs to which he has been listening in the past. In fact, I would say there is nothing in this report, if it is carried out that will [DOT]prevent the listeners-in in Canada from enjoying absolutely all the privileges which they have to-day, unless they be modified by the fact that a necessary control of programs and advertising will be vested in the commission which is I hope to be established.
Another objection which was raised, and I think it was a very strong and a very fair one, was the fear that under this system of public ownership there would be some five or six or seven great broadcasting stations and that the smaller stations of 100 watts and under, operating in the smaller centres of population, would be abolished and could not ibe reestablished, so that the people in the smaller communities would be deprived of the privilege of listening to their own matters of local interest, whatever they might be, such as speeches, public addresses, report of hockey matches and things of that sort. There is provision made in this report that smaller stations may still be maintained, much as they are now, under private ownership, although their programs and the advertising remain under the control of the central commission.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Would
those smaller stations be permitted to go into a dominion-wide hook-up in the event of some national event being broadcast, or would they have to pay the transportation charges if they desired to come into such a hook-up?


William Daum Euler: That is a detail so far as the expenses are concerned on which I cannot inform my hon. friend, but there is no reason in the world, so far as I know, why the smaller stations cannot hook up with the big stations in the events of the kind my hon. friend speaks of.
The story went out all over Ontario in a circular letter that the nationalization of broadcasting would mean the expenditure of something in the neighbourhood of fifteen millions of dollars per annum, and the payment of a licence fee of $30 a year. The people of my province were sent a return post-card upon which to inscribe their names and thus enrol themselves, without any expense to themselves, as members of a certain
2S22
Radio-Report of Committee

radio league. There were some 50,000 enrolments under that particular little system, and I leave it to the judgment of the house whether it was not sufficient to make every person in Ontario who owns a radio set enrol when he contemplated that he would have to pay a licence fee of $30 a year under a government owned system.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Especially when there
was no fee to enrol.


William Daum Euler: Especially when there was no enrolment fee. That impression which went abroad caused a great deal of harm and uneasiness, and it is for that reason alone that I mention the matter now. I think I am right in saying that it is not likely that under the proposed system the licence fee would be very materially increased above what it is now. I do not see that that would be necessary. I wanted to remove the misconception in the minds of the public as to the excessive cost that might accompany the introduction of the new system.
Then, under the new system we hope to have the control of advertising by the commission, and I think every member will agree that that is very necessary. I am not sure whether the chairman mentioned the percentage allotted to advertising, but it is fixed at five per cent of the time of any radio program.


Mr. MANION:: What is the percentage in the United States?


William Daum Euler: I cannot answer that question.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: There are no restrictions
at all there.


William Daum Euler: There are no restrictions
there, but what the actual percentage consumed in advertising is I am not prepared to say.
Ihen there will be the control of programs.
I am well aware that some people feel that this radio commission will have ideas which will lead them to give to the people programs which they think the people ought to have, rather than what the listeners-in desire. I hope that that is not true. I hope that the national commission will certainly do something, indeed a great deal, to promote the things that I spoke of-national unity, if you like-promote the purposes of education and other very desirable things; but as I said before, the listener-in who does not desire to hear that sort of thing is under no compulsion to do so and may tune his own radio to whatever kind of program from Canada or the United States he chooses to listen to.

Finally we recommend, of course, that the control of radio broadcasting be placed under a commission, and that all the fees derived from licences be placed in the hands of that commission.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Will the commission be
non-partisan?


William Daum Euler: I am not sure, but I hope
so. Here was another objection. People wrere afraid that we would recommend a large capital investment in the establishment of these stations. That is not the case. Those who have read the report and have heard the chairman of the committee speak will know that we are recommending no capital expenditures to be made out of taxes, but that the whole of the expenses of the radio broadcasting commission be defrayed out of the receipts for licences, and perhaps from one or two other sources.
In passing I would say this, in the past, even with the old licence fee of one dollar the government saved out of the money thereby received over $1,000,000. I am not sure but that the old government had a hand in that as well as the present government; I do not know, but about 81,100,000 was saved out of those fees after paying for the work which the government did in connection with removing interference and giving services of that kind. Personally I think that that was not a fair thing to do. I think that the licence fees received from the listeners-in should have been expended in the interests of those listeners-in to give them a better service, eliminating interference and so forth.
My hon. friend from Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) asked whether this commission would be non-partisan. I said that I do not know whether it will be or not, but if the government are going to carry out all the other recommendations of this report, surely they will have no reasons for refusing to cany out what I think was the final one, that the commission should be of a non-partisan character.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what the committee had in mind was something that will make, not for the detriment of the listeners-in of Canada, but for the benefit of all of them, in greater degree than they have ever enjoyed before.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: I beg to lay on the table a copy in French of the twenty-third annual report of the Civil Service Commission of Canada. The English copy was presented a few days ago.

Questions



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: I desire to lay on the table orders in council Nos. 1095 to 1102 inclusive, pursuant to the provisions of The Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, all of which refer to payments of money under the act.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	Were employees of the Quebec post office placed at the disposal of a Mr. Laurent Tanguay?
2.	If so:	(a) what are the names of said
employees: (b) on what dates did they work for said Mr. Tanguay; (c) what was the nature of the work; (d) on whose instructions were they placed at the disposal of Mr. Tanguay?
3.	Was postal matter forwarded by Mr. Laurent Tanguay by making use of the franking privilege of Mr. M. S. Tanner Green, postal superintendent at Quebec?
4.	If so, on what dates and on whose instructions?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Stenographers from the office of the district superintendent of postal service, Quebec, have been placed at the disposal of cabinet ministers or their employees in Quebec-this procedure having been in operation at Quebec, for the past twenty years.
2.	(a) Miss A. M. Lefebvre, Miss Blanche Couillard; (b) They worked for cabinet ministers or their representatives when and as required; (c) Stenographic work; (d) The practice has been followed for some years and assented to by the Post Office Department.
3.	Correspondence has been given free transmission through the office of the district superintendent of postal service at Quebec.
4.	See No. 1.


CACOUNA, QUE., INDIAN AGENCY
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did Mr. A. F. MacKenzie, Secretary of the Minister of Indian Affairs, when he went to Riviere du Loup, last March, meet other persons than the four candidates for the position of agent of the Cacouna Indians?
2.	If so, what are the names of the persons he met otiier than the four candidates for the position above mentioned?
3.	Did the Minister of Indian Affairs inform other persons than the four candidates^ above mentioned of the visit of Mr. MacKenzie?
4.	If so, what other persons, and on what date?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. C. E. Dube, Mayor of Riviere-du-Loup; Mr. Marquis, ex-Indian agent; Chief Ahtanase, Chief of Cacouna band of Indians.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


LABOUR GAZETTE-CALGARY CORRESPONDENT
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	Has Mr. H. H. McKim, correspondent for the Labour Gazette for the city of Calgary, been dismissed?
2.	If so, what were the grounds of dismissal?
3.	What is the name of the person who replaced Mr. McKim?
4.	By whom was the said person recommended?
5.	Is the present appointee a veteran of the great war?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Political activity.
3.	Donald MacPherson.
4.	The federal member for the constituency of Calgary East.
5.	According to our information-yes.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY-COAL SUPPLIES
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	From what mines did the coal come which was purchased by the government for the Hudson bay railway for use at Fort Churchill, during the calendar or fiscal year, 1931?
2.	What was the quantity purchased from each mine, showing whether it was bituminous, lignite or anthracite?
3.	What was the average cost of bituminous, lignite and anthracite respectively, delivered at Fort Churchill?
4.	If any coal was brought in from the United States, what was the cost of such coal, showing same separately from other similar coals brought in from Canada?
5.	What is the rate per ton charged for freight rates on the Hudson bay railway on such coal and included in the cost?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Blacksmith coal: Black Knight Mines, Rawleigh, West Virginia; lignite, Drumheller Mines, Drumheller, Alta.; bituminous: Luscar Mines, Luscar, Alta.
2.	27 tons, 800 pounds blacksmith; 635 tons, 1,280 pounds lignite; 8,230 tons, 550 pounds bituminous.
3.	Blacksmith, $15 net ton, f.o.b. Churchill; lignite, $9.50 net ton, f.o.b. Churchill; bituminous, $10.50 net ton, f.o.b. Churchill.
4.	27 tons, 800 pounds of blacksmith coal were brought in from the United States at a cost of $411.
282 S
Questions

5.	Lignite, 30J cents hundred pounds from Alberta mines to Churchill; bituminous, 35 cents hundred pounds from Alberta mines to Churchill.


WHEAT AND WHEAT FLOUR EXPORTS
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the estimated quantity of wheat and wheat flour exported from Canada during each year 1924 to 1931, inolusive?
2.	What was the total value of same; and the average price per bushel during each of these years?


Robert James Manion: 1 and 2. The estimated quantity of wheat and wheat flour exported from Canada; and the total value and average export price per bushel during the fiscal years ended March 31, 1924, to 1932, were:
Fiscal	Quantity	Value	Average export price per bushelyears	bushels	S	S1924...	309,587,417	330,541,677	1 071925...	241,396,059	322,304,536	1 341926...	295,061,853	434,051,986	1 471927...	294,162,155	421,815,274	1 431928...	309,144,918	411,996,452	1 331929...	421,785,327	493,642,105	1 171930...	212,529,189	261,210,670	1 231931...	249,724,883	210,296,003	0 841932...	215,677,763	134,636,926	0 62


UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF-THREE RIVERS-ST. MAURICE
Mr. BOURGEOIS:: 1.	Has the Dominion unemployment committee, through the medium of the Quebec provincial government, received from municipalities of the county of Three Rivers-St. Maurice, requests which were refused, for funds in order to execute works pursuant to the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act?
2.	If so, what are the names of said municipalities and for what amounts, respectively, were such requests made and refused?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


DEPORTATIONS
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	How many people were deported from Canada during the past twelve months?
2.	To what countries were they deported?
3.	For what reasons?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Total deportations fiscal year 1931-32, 7,024.
[Mr. Manion.l
2.	Deportations from Canada showing countries to where deported for the fiscal year 1931-32: Austria, 53; Belgium, 50. British: England, 2,217; Northern Ireland, 404; Irish Free State, 146; Scotland, 1,162; Wales, 276; Australia, 12; British West Indies, 7; Newfoundland, 18; New Zealand, 1; South Africa, 5. Bulgaria, 8; China, 77; Czecho Slovakia, 311; Danzig, 3; Holland, 75; India, 3; Esthonia, 4; Finland, 256; France, 16; Germany, 222; Greece, 17; Hungary, 179; Italy, 24; Japan, 28; Jugo Slavia, 88; Latvia, 2; Lithuania, 29; Luxemburg, 1; Malta, 1; Palestine, 1; Poland, 500; Roumania, 150; Russia, 22. Scandinivian: Denmark, 142; Iceland, 1; Norway, 111; Sweden, 87. Spain, 1; Switzerland, 46; Syria, 7; Turkey, 1; UB.A., 260.
3.	Deportations from Canada showing causes of deportation for the fiscal year 1931-32:
Public charges	 4,507
Convicted of criminal offences.	930
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.	75
Mental causes-
Insanity	 285
Epilepsy	 6
Feebleminded	 12
Otherwise mentally defective.	27
Medical causes, including physically defective	 367
Misrepresentation and stealth..	230
Previously deported	 13
Other causes	 27
Accompanying	 545



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: 1.	Under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, and the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, what amount of financial assistance by way of loans or otherwise has been granted or committed for to each of the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, from February 26, 1932, to date?
2.	On what dates were advances made?
3.	For what purpose?
4.	What amount has been advanced to the Saskatchewan relief commission?
5.	What amount in each case is a loan?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. PRICE:: 1.	Is G. G. Playfair employed by the Canadian National Railways as an efficiency expert?
2.	Is he employed at the present time in the maritime provinces?
3.	How long has he been operating in the city of Moncton?

Motions for Papers
4.	For what period in other railway centres in the maritime provinces?
5.	How many employees has he dismissed, and [DOT]who are they?
6.	What salaries were paid those dismissed?
7.	What is Mr. Playfair's salary, and what is his expense account in quarters at the Brunswick Hotel, Moncton, New Brunswick, and Halifax and Truro, Nova Scotia?
8.	What departments are checked up by Mr. Playfair?
9.	How many years has Mr. Playfair been employed by the Canadian National Railways, and where was he previously employed in an official capacity on other railways?
10.	What are his qualifications for acting in the capacity of an efficiency expert?
11.	What savings have been effected as result of his operations compared with the expense of his employment?
12.	When is it expected his services in maritime provinces will terminate?
13.	What is his expense account to date, since operating in the maritime provinces?



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF-NORTH SYDNEY BREAKWATER

Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Who were the persons supplying logs in connection with the extension of the North Sydney breakwater done under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931?
2.	What was the price and amount paid, and the quantity supplied by each of such persons?
3.	What was the ordinary business and occupation of such persons?
4.	Were tenders called for the supply of such logs, and if so, from whom were tenders received, and at what prices?
5.	Were such tenders called for publicly, and if not, what method was adopted in giving possible suppliers an opportunity to hid?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
On the notice of motion:
Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of all orders in council in connection with aid to farmers, since August 1, 1930.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In the absence of the
hon. member for Temiscouata this notice of motion will stand.



FINANCIAL STATISTICS

[Stage Direction]
On the notice of motion:
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: For a return showing:-
1.	A copy of orders in council passed pursuant to section 3 of the Finance Act, being chapter 70, of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, including and since 1914.
2.	To what banks, what sums and on what dates, at what rate of interest and for how long the interest was paid on moneys advanced by the Dominion of Canada to the chartered banks of Canada.
3.	What gold reserves are now held in the
Dominion of Canada, showing:	(a) gold held
by the Dominion; (b) gold held by each chartered bank, covering the years 1910, 1914, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1929, 1930 and 1931, and as at March 31, 1932.
4.	A similar statement showing:	(a) the
amount of Dominion notes issued; (b) the amount of bank notes issued; (c) the amount of current notes in issue; (d) tbe amount of bank deposits owed by the banks to their depositors; (e) the amount of investments in: (1) Dominion bonds; (2) provincial government bonds; (3) municipal bonds; (4) current loans; (5) bank buildings at cost.
5.	The gross cost of operating the banking system of the Dominion of Canada in 1910, 1914, 1920, 1929 and 1931.
6.	The total cost of salaries paid to executive officers of the Canadian banking system for the years 1910. 1914, 1920, 1929 and 1931.
7.	The total amount of interest collected by the banks in 1910, 1914, 1920, 1921, 1929, 1930 and 1931.


Mr. RHODES:: Mr. Speaker, before you
put this motion, I may say it seeks in large part information which is not in the possession of the government. There is also the objection that, in certain respects, it is not limited in time. It is therefore unacceptable in its present form, but the hon. member for Skeena was good enough to confer with me with respect to the matter and a revised or amended resolution has been prepared which I believe is acceptable to the hon. gentleman and to the government. I would therefore move that the resolution be passed in this amended form.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: By consent, resolution
No. 2 on the order paper will be deleted and the following substituted therefor:


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	A copy of orders in council passed pursuant to section 3 of the Finance Act, being chapter 70, of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927. including and since 1914.
2.	For the past five years what sums have been advanced under the Finance Act by the Dominion of Canada to each of the chartered banks of Canada; what amount of interest has been paid by each bank, and what has been the rate of interest.
3.	What gold reserves are held in the Dominion of Canada-(a) by the dominion; lb) by the chartered banks.
Also the same data as at March 31st in the years 1910. 1914, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932.
4.	A similar statement showing-(a) the
amount of Dominion notes issued; (b) the amount of bank notes issued; (c) the amount of deposits in the chartered banks of Canada; Id) the amount of investments of the chartered banks in-	_
1.	Dominion and provincial government securities.
2.	Current loans.
Motion agreed to.

Privilege-Mr. Lawson



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. RALSTON:: For a copy of all payrolls, bills, vouchers and other documents in respect of repairs to the government wharf at East River, Sheet Harbour, Halifax county, Nova Scotia, done in the fall of 1931, under William J. Chisholm as foreman.



SHEET HARBOUR, N.S., HARBOUR MASTER

James Layton Ralston: For a copy of all orders in council, letters, telegrams or other correspondence, reports, recommendations, documents or other papers relating to the dispensing with the service of Henry Hall as harbour master for the Port of Sheet Harbour,. Halifax county, Nova Scotia, and relating to the qualifications, recommendations and appointment of a successor.



HOPETOWN, QUE., POST OFFICE

Mr. MARCIL:: For a copy of all correspondence between the patrons of the Hopetown. Quebec, post office, and the Post Office Department or any of its officials, complaining of the service at that office.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the constitution of a commission to be known as The Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, for the purpose of acquiring, operating, regulating and controlling radio broadcasting in Canada.
He said: Some question has arisen as to whether or not a measure of this kind should be preceded by a resolution, in view of the fact that it does not contemplate the expenditure of money other than that which may be collected by licence fees under the legislation. But I believe the better opinion is that the measure to be founded on the recommendation of the committee should be preceded by a resolution and we are following that course. His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. LAWSON (West York):: I rise
with respect to a matter affecting the privileges of the house. A member of the select

special committee on appointments and administration and operation of the Civil Service Act this morning called to my attention an interview or reputed interview appearing in the Ottawa Journal of this date in which the Clerk of the House is alleged to have passed with reference to the report a remark that in so far as the report dealt with the staff of the House of Commons, it was a joke.
I think it is unnecessary for me to read the article in detail in view of the fact that the Clerk of the House quite voluntarily delivered to me shortly before three o'clock a letter, which, in justice to him, I think should be read to the house. The letter is as follows:
May II, 1932.
.Dear Mr. Lawson:
I see in this morning's "Journal" an interview in which I am made to say that the civil service committee report is a "joke." Needless to say, I never permitted anybody to publish such a statement. It would be highly improper for me, as Clerk of the House of Commons, to allow such an expression of opinion to appear in the newspapers in connection with recommendations submitted by members for the concurrence of the house, I am the members' humble servant and I always endeavour to be courteous and respectful in all my dealings with them.
Yours very truly,
Arthur Beauchesne,
Clerk of the House of Commons.
I think that letter is sufficient to meet the situation.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: In view of the fact that this report has been referred to and will probably be before the house shortly, may I suggest that the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) be in a position to inform us as to the number of post offices where the revenue is less than, and the number where it is in excess of the $3,000 mentioned in the report, so that we may have this information before us when the matter comes up.
INQUIRY FOR RETURN On the orders of the day:


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: I want to address a question to the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) as to when I may expect a return for which an order was passed by the house April 25, and which was for copy of correspondence in connection with the post office vacancy at Ailsa Craig, Ontario.

Interim Supply Bill


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: The Postmaster General is out of
the house at the minute; I shall see that the matter is brought to his attention.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If certain members of the civil service are to receive their salary cheques on the fifteenth of this month and if certain of the public expenditures are to be met in due course during the month, it will be necessary that we have interim supply. I shall therefore ask for the unanimous consent of the house to grant one-twelfth in the. case of the main estimates and one-sixth in the case of the Canadian National Steamships and Maritime Freight Rates Act. If I may have that consent, I move, Mr. Speaker, that you do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: So far as the
official opposition is concerned, there is no objection whatever to the Minister of Finance having the supply for which he asks, on the usual understanding covering a partial vote in this way.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is distinctly understood
that the usual reservations are made.


Mr. VENIOT:: Before we go into supply-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can proceed only with
unanimous consent, and it will have no reference to a subsequent motion for supply at a later period in the day.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Ross in the chair.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Resolved. that a sum not exceeding 816.554,359.42, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1933, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament. be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1933.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,688,000, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted for Canadian National Steamships and Maritime Freight Rates Act, as set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1933, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1933.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
41761-178i


[Stage Direction]
Mr. RHODES moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account, of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1933, the sum of $1S,242,359.42 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
' Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 82, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1933.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
MEASURES TO RELIEVE DISTRESS	.
The house resumed from Monday, May 9, consideration in committee of Bill No. 72, respecting relief measures-Mr. Gordon-Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On section 3-Powers of governor in council.
Mr. HEENAN:: In view of the difference of opinion that seems to exists between some of the ministers of the Ontario government and the Minister of Labour with respect to the trans-Canada highway, I should like to have some information so we may get the matter cleared up and let the people of new Ontario know what they may expect. Answering a question of mine on May 3 with regard to the trans-Canada highway the Minister of Labour said:
I understand that a portion of it has been declared by the province of Ontario, moneys have been expended and the work is proceeding to completion.
I think that was a very fair position to take. Answering my friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) on May 9, the minister again indicated that so far as this government was concerned, they were prepared to go on with the trans-Canada highway. Is it still the intention of the government definitely to go on with this work through northern Ontario on a fifty-fifty basis with the province?
2828	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The basis upon which the trans-Canada highway will be constructed must of necessity be the subject matter of an agreement between ourselves and the provinces. I am confident there will be incorporated in the agreement with Ontario a provision that the building of the trans-Canada highway will be shared equally with respect to expense. The agreement is not in being, and I have not had the full benefit of the views of the provincial government on it, this proposed legislation not having been passed; but it is the desire of this government to proceed with the trans-Canada highway just as expeditiously as the stress and strain of these times, so far as finances are concerned, will permit. I do not think I can say anything further.


Peter Heenan: I bring this matter up because of the difference of opinion between this government and the government of Ontario. The minister has given a fair answer, but not a very definite one. At any rate it is quite evident that the federal government is willing to consider the contribution of money to the province of Ontario-I am speaking only of that province because I am more familiar with it-if the provincial authorities desire to go on with the work. I have brought this matter up several times already this session, and I am getting a little closer to the view of the minister, although, as I say, he has not expressed it definitely yet. On May 7 there appeared in the Kenora Miner and News, the official organ of the Conservative party in that section of new Ontario, a speech made by the Ontario Minister of Lands and Forests before the Kenora town council, the Keewatin town council, the Sioux Lookout town council and some of the representatives from unorganized districts. Very specifically he states his regrets that he is unable to go on with that work because of the fact that after a conference with the Prime Minister of Canada the federal government has refused to or cannot contribute any money towards it. That is why I am anxious for some frankness in the matter. I think the minister will admit that if he is willing to consider a contribution towards it by the federal government he ought not to have the Minister of Lands and Forests of Ontario misrepresent the position of this government. That gentleman said:
Last winter work had been arranged on the 'rans-Canada highway on a fifty-fifty basis with the Dominion government.
I am giving extracts from his speech, because it is very lengthy. He proceeded:
. . . but had since been discontinued and the dominion was not contributing any more.

That is a specific statement. The report continues:
^Stating that he felt bad about it, Mr. Finlayson went on to say that he had hoped to finish the trans-Canada to Fort William to give the big loop or at least to join up connections with the Dryden area, but unfortunately this could not be completed at this time, although he hoped to keep camps working on the roads under the new scheme.
That is, anyone without a home may go there and work for board and lodging and five dollars a month. Further, he said:
Last winter it cost approximately $100 per man per month to keep them working in the bush. Under the new scheme it -would cost about $50 a month to keep them at work in the same camps during the summer.
Again:
But they would not be able to go on with the work of the trans-Canada highway on the same scale.
I point out to the Minister of Labour what the Minister of Lands and Forests proposes to do for the unemployed in northern Ontario:
It was felt that the municipal councils should get to work and say "What cuts can be made?" I own councils, school boards and all municipal bodies should get busy and cut down on expenditures, and cut down on taxation. There would be little or no road construction, and they must plan to take care of their own needy. They can't load it on the governments. It is suggested that they go to the people with Bteady salaries and ask them to give so much to a central municipal employment fund. If the people of the town will raise this money the provincial and dominion governments would each add a like amount for immediate relief. "If you will do something of that kind, we will join with you in meeting the situation," stated Mr. Finlayson.
This is a new policy, Mr. Chairman. This bill provides what might be termed direct relief, or the "dole." We have been told by the minister that he is prepared to consider requests by any province for contributions from the federal government to carry on certain works. While this bill is before us we have the Minister of Lands and Forests going up into northern Ontario and telling the municipalities that they must take care of their own needy people, that they must not load them on the governments. He used the plural form. That is a strange situation after the way that some of us got pummelled around the political platforms less than a couple of years ago. But that is not the point. We have here a bill to provide relief by the dominion in cooperation with the provinces, and then we have the minister of one of the provincial governments telling the municipalities they must take care of their own needy. He said, "If you will get those

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
men who have steady work to contribute to a fund to assist the needy, the federal and provincial governments will augment that fund also." That is why I think we really should have some definite announcement from the minister.
Again I want to offer a suggestion. As everyone knows, we have been constructing highways since 1921 through the portion of northern Ontario which I have the honour to represent. When the provincial government changed in 1923, however, politics began to be played with the highway. Work was closed down, and they promised to reopen it and do so and so provided certain candidates were elected. We have managed to get on fairly well because we have had quite a number of elections. The people in my part of the country welcome an election, because that is about the only time we can get any work done. The more elections the more roads, so I go to my people and say to them, "Well, are you not glad? There is an election on we will get some more roads built. Let us get this election over with so that we can soon have another and get more roads."
At any rate, we have completed the highway from the Manitoba boundary to Kenora and it is being officially opened on July 1. There we have about 127 miles of road connecting Kenora with the province of Manitoba. There is a distance of forty-five miles from Kenora east through to a great farming district, where the farmers are hemmed in without connection with the main road. If we could construct a highway over that forty-five mile stretch, from Kenora to Vermilion Bay, we would provide an outlet for that great farming district, and if we continued that highway another sixteen miles east of Dyment we would get to Ignace. This would connect up the whole of new Ontario, with the . exception of Fort William and Port Arthur, with western Canada and also with the United States. Those sixteen miles of roadway could be constructed for about $35,000. I know something of that country; there is a little muskeg, but it is fairly level ground. The forty-five mile stretch from Kenora to Vermilion Bay would cost about $8,000 a mile, or a total of about $360,000. Would it not be better to spend that amount of about $395,000 in order to give that district connections with western Canada and with the United States, rather than to put men on direct relief? We are being asked to give the government the right to spend money at their discretion, and we have the minister standing in his place and saying that the government is willing to contribute towards the cost of
the completion of that highway. On the other hand we have the provincial minister of lands and forests saying in Kenora that the municipality must be responsible for their needy, but that if those who have steady jobs will contribute to a fund for the unemployed, the provincial and federal governments will contribute to the same fund.
Under these circumstances I think the minister, for his own protection, should indicate to the house what he is prepared to do, rather than have the provincial minister of lands and forests misrepresent the attitude of this government throughout northern Ontario.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I cannot subscribe to all the observations made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who says that the idea that municipalities and private individuals should subscribe to a fund for the purpose of assisting those worthy people who are inneed is a new policy. That is not correct. I know the hon. member would not make an incorrect statement knowingly, but in the city of Ottawa, for instance, there are organizations' which subscribe money for this purpose, and the city also helps. In my own riding private individuals have done the same thing; in fact the workmen of one camp subscribe so much per month to augment the fund provided by the municipality, the province and the dominion in order to look after their fellow workmen who are in distress. This is no new policy; it is nothing new for the people who have something voluntarily to assist those who have nothing. I therefore have no complaint to make against the provincial minister of lands and forests when he urges voluntary subscriptions to augment the fund which is to care for the needy in any municipality; of course this is no new policy.
I do not know that I could make any observation with respect to the conduct of the business of the province of Ontario, either by way of commendation or criticism, but coming as I do from the eastern section of northern Ontario I must say that I have never heard of the things that have been described by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I do not say this because the province of Ontario happens to have a Conservative administration, because the same thing obtained, so far as my part of northern Ontario was concerned, when , the farmer government was in power; the work proceeded. I know personally officials in the northern development branch and other branches of the public service, who were officials away back in the days of the Ross government. They have never been disturbed, and to-day they are just as stout
2830	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
Liberals as they were then. I cannot let the observations of the hon. gentleman in that regard pass without taking exception to them.


Peter Heenan: What observations are you referring to now?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. gentleman said, if I heard him correctly, that no money was spent on roads unless there was an election, that the more elections there were the more money was spent. I may have misunderstood the hon. gentleman's words, but that has not been my experience. I hazard the opinion that no other representative of northern Ontario will make such sweeping statements in condemnation of the provincial government as have been made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. Of course I want to keep within the rules of debate in this house, but I am almost persuaded to use more forceful language in describing a statement of that character, because that situation certainly does not obtain in the part of northern Ontario which I know very well, and that includes the greater part of that area. I should be very much surprised indeed if it obtained in the hon. gentleman's riding.
With respect to the trans-Canada highway, the Minister of Lands and Forests, Mr. Fin-layson, in his remarks as quoted in the journal to which the hon. gentleman has referred, stated-I gathered that this was the substance of it-that the work would not be discontinued but that .the camps that are now built ind re-equipped to take care of single men .vho otherwise would probably have nowhere to go, would be available to them and that they would be given food and clothing and some subsistence money and would be required to work. I do not think that policy should be condemned at a time like this. However, I do not want to continue the argument further than to say that this government has not yet entered into any agreement with the province of Ontario with respect to the work, for the very obvious reason that we have no authority; and while the subject has been discussed in an informal way with the representatives of that province, no agreement as to what can or cannot be done with regard to the highway has been entered into. I am just as anxious as any hon. member coming .from that part of Canada to see that the gap between the eastern part of Ontario and the western part of Quebec on the one hand, and Manitoba on the other, is bridged by a highway, just so soon as it can be constructed. But again, representing as I do a very large riding in that part of northern Canada, I am not going to take the attitude

of urging at a time like this that the road be built and that the province should contribute moneys which they, in their judgment, say they are unable at the present time to advance, sufficient to have the road built with any great expedition. In my view, the building of the road will continue, not, perhaps, as rapidly as the hon. member would like, but as rapidly as the conditions that confront us will allow. I do not think the hon. gentleman can ask me to go further than that, and I can assure him that so far as I am concerned every effort will be made to continue the work on some plan or another to be agreed upon which will ensure its continuance at the least possible expense and with as great a degree of expedition as possible under present conditions.


Peter Heenan: The last remarks of the
minister were, I thought, rather favourable, but I notice that in the course of his address he had to stop a little while because he could not find words with which to express himself in relation to some of the things I have mentioned.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not as great a
facility of speech as the hon. gentleman.


Peter Heenan: Had I been in the chair I would have said to the minister, "Go to it," because I could not myself find words with which to condemn the practice of the provincial government in northern Ontario. I am glad that the Minister of Labour does not experience in his riding what I have been experiencing for the last twelve or fifteen years in my riding. However, we have lived through it.
I want to point out to the minister again that the government is contemplating spending money in northern Ontario in direct relief. Is it a fair statement that the government does intend to spend money in direct relief in northern Ontario? I have heard him say that over and over again.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This government will not spend it directly, no; we have no contact with the municipalities. That is obvious. Undoubtedly, however, if a situation arises in northern Ontario necessitating the expenditure of money in direct relief, there is no doubt in my mind that a prompt submission will be made by the province to this government, and I am sure that this government will take the appropriate steps to relieve the situation.


Peter Heenan: Well, it is not a question of a situation that is going to arise; it has already arisen. They have laid off the men who have been working on these camps.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
They have not been doing anything for two years and there is now an offer to re-hire them if they will undertake to work in the camps for board and lodging and five dollars a month. The provincial minister told them in Kenora that the banks would not lend the municipalities more money. I do not know where he got the authority for that statement, but that is what he said, and he suggests that those who are in Steady employment should contribute to a fund to which the provincial and the federal governments would contribute a small sum to help it along.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: He did not say that that was a prerequisite to the provincial and dominion governments' subscribing-at any rate, not as reported in the press.


Peter Heenan: This newspaper, the Mines and News, would not misquote the Minister of Lands and Forests on a bet. This is what he said:
It was felt that municipal councils-
He did not say the council of Kenora.
-should get to work and say "What cuts can be made?" Town councils, school boards and all municipal bodies should get busy and cut down on expenditures, and cut down on taxation. There would be little or no road construction, and they must plan to take care of their own needy. They can't load it on the governments. It is suggested that they go to the people with steady salaries and ask them to give so much to a central municipal employment fund. If the people of the (town will raise this money the provincial and dominion governments would each add a like amount for immediate relief. "If you will do something of that kind, we will join with you in meeting the situation," stated Mr. Finlayson.
He is speaking there not only for the provincial government but for the federal government as well. I would point out to the minister that that town is composed chiefly of workingmen-railroad men, pulp and paper men, sawmill men, and flourmill men. The railway men are doing very little, because since this government came into power they have restricted trade, both imports and exports, to such an extent that there is nothing doing on the railways, with the result that the railway men are out of work, and any of them who have steady jobs have been sharing their work with the younger men who are less fortunate. They have therefore very little to contribute to any fund. The Minister of Lands and Forests is solely responsible for the Act that the pulp and paper mill in the town of Kenora is closed down. The Ontario government have an agreement with Mr. E. W. Backus, his heirs and assigns, whereby they have obtained certain concessions from the province of Ontario. I know something about it because I helped to get it; and they got
it under the condition that they would work the mill to full capacity ten months each year, employing one thousand men; otherwise the whole concern would revert to the crown. I am not unreasonable enough to say that we should force an industry to operate when it cannot sell its products, but that is the concern of the Ontario government, and if for some good reason the Ontario government released Mr. Backus from operating according to the agreement, then in all conscience the Ontario government is responsible for taking care of the thousand thus thrown out of work. But the way the Ontario government apparently intends to take care of them is by asking others who have steady jobs to contribute to a fund to which the Ontario government and the federal government will also contribute equally in order to keep these people happy and comfortable and prosperous up in northern Ontario.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Will the hon. gentleman
give me the date of the agreement with Mr. Backus?


Peter Heenan: I can give the hon. gentleman a copy of the agreement if he desires. There were two agreements, one dated September, 1920, and the other dated January, 1921, if I recollect aright-I will get the exact dates. These agreements provided for the operation of the plant for ten months in every year, during which time a thousand men were to be employed, and any evasion of the agreement rendered the whole contract null and void ipso facto. I repeat I am not unreasonable enough to suggest that there might not have been some good reason for the Ontario government releasing this concern from operating its plant, but I do say that when the Ontario government did that it should take care of the thousand men and see that they are employed in remunerative work.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Are not the Backus interests in bankruptcy now?


Peter Heenan: That is not in the agreement at all.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: But is it not a fact?


Peter Heenan: They are in bankruptcy,
but the receivers have to operate the plant according to agreement. That reminds me that the present Ontario government in 1923 told the people throughout the province that Backus had got millions of dollars' worth of materials for a song and that it was going to make him immensely wealthy. But today that gentleman, as the Minister of Labour has just said, is bankrupt; and instead of the Minister of Lands and Forests in the Ontario government insisting on the implementing of
2832	*	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
the agreement with the province, he has practically released him from doing so. If the Ontario government had not released him from his contract, all the water powers and the whole concern would have reverted to the province. However, that is another question which I shall be glad to discuss at any time that is appropriate, because I am very proud -of the agreement. My point is that the provincial minister is not insistent upon this agreement being carried out, and he now tells the people of Kenora that the road work is not going to continue and that the people there must look out for their own needy and not shift the burden on to the provincial or the federal government. He says that the proper thing for them to do is to organize a committee and ask men who are steadily employed to contribute to a fund, to which the Dominion and provincial governments- the Minister of Lands and Forests is not willing to allow the federal government to speak for itself-will contribute to assist the needy in that part of the country. When the present federal government appealed to the electors, one of the planks of its platform was that a highway would be built through northern Ontario at the hands of the federal government. The federal government have never attempted to do that. Instead they started out to contribute on a fifty-fifty basis with the province. It is a federal obligation since the last election that a highway be built through that part of the country, if only to carry out in a measure some of the election promises of the present party in power.
Further, if the federal government are going to contribute direct relief for unemployment, they should see to it that this piece of highway, totalling sixty-one miles and connecting up the town of Ignace and the farming district of Kenora and Dryden with western Ontario and Manitoba, is built. The sixty-one miles could be built at an expenditure of less than half a million dollars. It would be far better to spend that money in providing work and at the same time providing this country with an asset which will attract tourists, than to spend money on direct relief.


Mr. SANDERSON:: On April 22, when the estimates of the Minister of Labour were before the committee, I asked for some information concerning the number of men who had been placed on the farms in the province of Ontario during the last year, and the minister promised to give me the information by counties. Again, on May 3 last, when the resolution which preceded this bill was up for discussion, I asked the minister for that information, and he then thought that he could 
get it in a day or two. That was a week ago. I now ask the minister if he has that information for me, and if he has not, when may I expect it?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: After the interrogations
were made I consulted the officials who had this work in hand, and they explained to me that the divisions of the land settlement branch were not outlined having regard to counties or districts, but that there was one in Toronto, one in Sherbrooke, one in Winnipeg, one in Saskatoon, one in Edmonton, one in Calgary, one in Vancouver, and I am not just sure about the maritime provinces. The questions which were asked at that time were submitted to the officials of the department and to the representatives of the railways. I am told that it would be utterly impossible to segregate these placements by counties or districts, that it could be done by provinces only. I regret very much that the information is not available in the form in which my hon. friend desires it.


Frederick George Sanderson: I take it from the
remarks of the minister that he admits it is absolutely impossible to give that information to me in the form in which I asked for it, and in which he said he would give it to me. I am not concerned only as to the province of Ontario, and I am not concerned at the moment only with the older part of Ontario. The minister stated on April 22 that 4,165 men had been put on the land in Ontario under the land policy of this government, and surely therefore he can tell me where they have gone. They have not disappeared. Is it impossible for the minister to tell me where those men have gone?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is not impossible to
give the hon. member any information. We have an index of our placements, and when I say our placements I mean those who were induced to take up laud on their own account without any help or gratuity from the government. We have their names in alphabetical order, and there is no reason in the world, so	far as I can	see,	why	the	hon. membershould not have	access to	that	list, althoughit	is peculiarly	the	business	of these individuals themselves because they were under little or no obligation to this government. Probably they were prompted in a measure to	take the course	they	did	by whatever
efforts the railways and we could put forth. Whether it is desirable to have laid on the table of the house the names of those who have gone there is exceedingly doubtful, but

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
I have no objection to showing the list of names to the hon. member or to any other hon. member desiring to see it.


Frederick George Sanderson: That is fairly, but
not entirely satisfactory. I take it from the remarks of the minister that I can go to his department and his officials will permit me to make a list of those names.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: And where the men
are located?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If the information is avail-albe, as I think it is.


Frederick George Sanderson: Would it not be possible for the minister's officials to compile the list and send it to me? I really do not want to go down to his department and spend three or four hours copying a list of names. Surely he has staff enough there to get that information tabulated and sent to me. This is a request which is entitled to consideration. I am persistent because three or four weeks ago the minister said that he had the information and he would give it to me. He did not do so. Again, a week ago yesterday, May 3, I made the same request and he at that time replied that he had not the information but expected to get or would have it and give it to me in a day or two. I do not want to go down to the department of the minister and do that work myself. I do not like to say to the minister that he is acting on a dog-in-the-manger policy; that he does not want to give me the information. It is information to which any hon. member is entitled. Surely if one of the responsible ministers of the government of the day says that he has a back-to-the-land policy and that he has put 4,165 men back on the land in Ontario, and then if he says that he does not know where they are; that he is afraid he cannot get the information, there is something sadly lacking in his policy. May I in all seriousness ask the minister: Will he give me whatever information he has in connection with placing these 4,165 men back on the 'land in Ontario? If it is not all the information I require or asked for in the first place, I shall not bother him any more. Surely he can get it or instruct his officials to compile it and give it to me.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: By counties?


Frederick George Sanderson: I think the minister
said that he could not give it to me by counties. Is that correct? '


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I cannot.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then I shall waive the point of counties, although for the life of me I cannot see why he is not able to do that. I do not want to hold up this debate, but this is simple information and it is surprising to me the minister has haggled the way he has over giving it to me.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Does the
minister say that he does not know where these people are going to go? That is the point.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: To what people does the hon. member refer?


Edward Joseph Garland: The people who have been placed under this land scheme that is being discussed.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member is discussing placements of people on the land in the past. Where they are to go from there, I do not know.


Edward Joseph Garland: The experience of the past, I am afraid, tells us that, but I feel the question of the hon. member for South Perth is one that could be answered, because surely the minister or officials of his department must know precisely the present location of these people. While he may not be willing to go to the trouble of dividing the list by counties, I presume he can give the township or range or give the information by whatever method there is of determining the location in Ontario.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Whatever information there is in the department along that line, I can have prepared for the hon. member, but I do not think he is entitled to the names of the parties; that is the private business of each individual. I trust, if, on a review of the information, the hon. member finds that what I have said with respect to the numbers of those who have been placed on farms is true, he will not be disappointed.


Frederick George Sanderson: I think we are on
fairly common ground. The minister is not giving me all the information for which I asked in the first place, but when may I expect that which he says he will give me?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I cannot tell to a day, but I presume within a week or sooner, if it can be prepared.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister says that he cannot tell to a day, but it may be within a week. Perhaps n.ext week we may be told
2S34	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
it will be furnished next month, and then parliament may have prorogued. Will he give me the information before the end of the
session?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: I can accept in good faith the word of the minister that I shall get the information before the session ends?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I presume the hon. member will accept my word only with reservations.


Mr. HEAPS:: It appears from what the
minister and the Prime Minister have said in the house that the policy of the government this year is to be what is commonly termed direct relief. Therefore the question of giving direct relief to the many thousands of people who unfortunately will be compelled to accept the same, is very important. In giving this relief to the individual, is the Department of Labour or the government laying down any policy, or is this entirely a question for the municipalities or the provinces to settle?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can only repeat what
I said some weeks ago when the resolution upon which this legislation is founded was before the house. The policy that was agreed upon at the Dominion-provincial conference which was held in Ottawa on April 9, and which was in session something over a day, was this: it was agreed that the provinces and the municipalities could not longer afford to project works as had been the case during the past year and that this was also creating a heavy burden upon the dominion treasury. Every province -was in agreement that the difference between direct relief on a subsistence basis and the cost of works was very large; I do not think I need go into that in detail. The provinces and the municipalities, of course, are the only ones that are in touch with local situations, and how the direct relief will be applied must of necessity remain in almost complete measure with the municipalities and provinces concerned. Whether or not there will be anyone in an advisory capacity representing the federal government, has not yet been determined for the very reason that the agreements themselves have not so far been drawn up, and of course the situation differs in the different provinces. While we are not consensus ad idem on all features of the situation, yet just as soon as this legislation passes, I hope agreements will De entered into, satisfactory to the provinces and to the federal government, with a view

to ensuring that during this period of depression, which I hope will not last too long, we shall not have it said that people are starving and cold or have no home, no place to go. That is an unthinkable situation. To that end governmental forces in this dominion are going to direct their attention. I do not wish to be misunderstood, and ought to say that it is not the suggestion or the intention of this or, so far as I am aware, any other government to imperil the standards of living, wage scales or wage agreements in any shape or form. We must draw a distinct line between subsistent direct relief and wage rates and standards of living. I do not wish to suggest that we should hurry along with the bill, because I want to give all the information hon. members desire, but it is very desirable that this bill be passed, because the provinces are pressing. I can assure the committee that we are having a most difficult time, but can do nothing until the legislation goes through. I do not know what arrangements the other chamber may have made, but I believe there may be a short adjournment there, and it is very desirable that this legislation pass as soon as possible.


John Campbell Elliott: I should like to know if in the arrangements for unemployment relief in the coming year the government will follow the policy adopted last year of putting certain things which are really public works under the head of unemployment and farm relief?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The question of projecting works on tripartite agreements, namely among municipalities, provinces and the dominion, or on bilateral agreements between the provinces and the dominion, was discussed at great length with provincial representatves. There was unanimity of opinion that works of that character should not be projected, unless in very exceptional circumstances, the reason being, as frankly admitted by provincial representatives and recognized by this government, that it is extremely difficult for those interested in such works to raise the necessary money. There may be, likely are, places in Canada where money may be readily raised, but in such localities there is very little unemployment. For that reason alone, therefore, the projection of such works is not desirable. I assure the hon. member the decision is not to. carry on works as heretofore but to direct the main efforts of all concerned towards direct relief.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces


John Campbell Elliott: Evidently I did not make myself clear. I take it from his answer there are to be no works carried on by joint agreement of municipalities, provinces and the dominion.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No new works.


John Campbell Elliott: I take it, further, that it is settled that no new works are to be carried on the cost of which will be borne partly by the provinces and partly by the dominion.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not wish to be misunderstood. The camps to which reference has 'been made will provide work to which, through the agency of the provinces, this government will contribute. The works to which I have made reference however are those such as public buildings, and the like.


John Campbell Elliott: Those are the undertakings about which I have been speaking. I am referring to works such as those appearing at page 66 of the report of the Dominion Director of Unemployment Relief, namely harbour and river improvements. These are purely dominion public works, and last year payments were made for them out of dominion funds. The objection I made to the minister some time ago was that they constitute works which should go in the regular way through the Department of Public Works, and for which estimates should be placed before the house in the regular way. I asked the minister a couple of weeks ago if it was the intention during the coming year to depart from the practice followed last year, namely that unemployment relief works paid for by the dominion would not come under estimates for the Department of Public Works. What is the policy of the government for the coming year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not know that a policy has been set. I must say, however, I am in agreement with the hon. member that it is highly desirable that the public works estimates, in so far as it is humanly possible, should reflect the expenditures in that department. Why the work set out in the report of the director was done through the agency of the Department of Public Works, I am not well enough acquainted with that department to answer definitely. If my recollection serves me aright, when this matter was under discussion before the Minister of Public Works gave an answer. Occasion might arise where public works, for which provision was not made in the estimates, might be desirable in a locality in which unemployment existed, and where men
could be employed on useful public works for purposes of subsistence. I cannot say, however, that such an occasion will arise, and so far as I am aware the government has not considered the matter.


John Campbell Elliott: I should like to point out to the minister his remarks on April 28 of this year, as they appear in Hansard. I shall read my question and the minister's answer on that occasion:
Mr. Elliott: Perhaps I can make it simpler for the minister. He no doubt has before him the report of the director of unemployment relief. At page 66 he will see there are a number of items which are clearly public works. They appeared last year under the heading of unemployment and farm relief. Is it the intention to follow a similar policy this year, or has the minister reached the point where he is able to say what will be done?
Mr. Gordon: I am sorry I cannot give any direct answer to the question, but certainly before the legislation comes down I shall be in a position to do so.
The legislation is now down, and apparently the minister has no more light on the subject than he had previously. On that occasion he agreed with me it was not desirable to follow the practice I have indicated. I think he certainly had decided at that time that before the legislation came down a decision must be arrived at. The house is entitled to know, now that the bill is before it, what is in the mind of the minister and of the government in regard to the manner of operating under this act during the coming year. He agreed with me before that it would be decided before the bill was brought down. He is quite frank now in saying it is not decided, and he does not know. Again I protest against the system adopted last year by which the Minister of Labour, who is charged with the administration of unemployment relief, puts in his report these items, then when the report comes into the house and somebody asks about an item the answer is given by the Minister of Public Works. I refer particularly to the Haileybury breakwater. The answer is given:	I cannot tell where the demand
came from or what are the needs for that particular work, because it came in under unemployment relief.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is in my riding.


John Campbell Elliott: That is not the only one I object to, but I pick that out as an example of the folly of pursuing a course of this kind. A large item is dealt with without this committee having an opportunity to pass upon it at all. Then when the matter comes up in the house and my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough asks a question the Minister of Public Works says: I cannot tell
2836	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
about that because it came in under unemployment relief and was in another department. That was the implication. Then when I asked the Minister of Labour for an explanation on the 28th of April, the Minister of Public Works gave an explanation as to how these items came in. It is quite apparent that they got into that list without having been passed upon in the ordinary way that public works should be dealt with. I hope the minister will be able to assure the house before the bill passes that this policy will not be followed during the coming year. I think he agrees with me that it is an unwise policy. I should like to have that assurance.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can only give the
hon. member what my view is. I do not entirely disagree with him. I think it is highly desirable that in ordinary, normal times any proposed public work should be submitted in the way contemplated by the statutes and the rules of this house. If a work is carried on as an unemployment relief work, or in the way of providing work on a basis of direct relief and subsistence, it would be better to have it reported, when the report is made to parliament, as coming under this statute rather than coming under the Public Works department. When it is a purely public work-of course I speak subject to correction because I have not had the experience in the adminstration of governmental departments that other members of this committee have -while the money might be provided under this legislation, yet I assume that those in charge would likely be officers of the Public Works department. Whether that would give rise to any accounting difficulties I do not know, but my view is if the Dominion government initiate and carry out any work under the provisions of this legislation, then that work should be described in the report of the director of unemployment relief as coming under this statute and not under the Public Works department. I do not know that I can go further than that.


John Campbell Elliott: If that is the proper course, then the wrong course was adopted last year, because a work of that kind was done by the Public Works department, I am advised.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think so.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend can tell me why the matter has not received the consideration which he assured me two weeks ago it would receive before the bill was brought down. At that time he said:
Certainly before the legislation comes down I shall be in a position to do so.
Is there any reason why he is not able to implement that promise?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can only answer the hon. member by saying that if any dominion public work is initiated under this legislation and carried out, then it will be so styled in any report; it will not appear as a public work as such, but as a work carried out under this legislation. I do not know that we are arguing a very important point, at least it does not strike me as being so important, because whether a useful desirable work is done through the agency of the Public Works department or is earmarked as being done under this legislation is not so important to my mind-I may be missing the point-it is merely a matter of financing. If done under this act I assume it would not be charged up in the current year's expenditures. But what substantial difference does it make, if the work is useful and desirable and in a locality where there are people who need employment? Are we not rather arguing on formalities and not striking at the root of things?


John Campbell Elliott: I am glad the minister puts it that way, because evidently he does not get the point which I have been trying to make. As one department of this government we have the Public Works department-a very efficient department. That department has the experienced staff and the equipment for carrying out in a reasonable expeditious way public works that may be deemed desirable. I submit that department is in a much better position to do those works than any other department of government. At any rate that is the department that did them last year, according to the statement made by the Minister of Public Works.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is correct so far as I know.


John Campbell Elliott: But here is where the difference arises. When you come to ask, why did you do this, the answer is: That was started under unemployment relief. No responsibility apparently is taken for initiating the work, no reason for its being undertaken can be given by the minister, because he does not know who asked for the work to be undertaken or whether it was desirable to undertake it; simply the work came in under the Public Works department. My hon. friend will readily see this division leaves the responsibility really nowhere. But he has not answered the question with which I am concerned. About two weeks ago when we were discussing this he gave me a promise, as I understood, that he would have a definite answer on this subject before the legislation came down. He

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
said certainly he would have an answer ready. I would like to know why we are not able to get that answer to-day.


Alan Webster Neill: May I make a suggestion in order to end this matter and let us get on. If the hon. member will refer to page 2449 of Hansard he will find the following words:
Mr. Power: I do not see anywhere, in the authority which it is proposed to confer upon the governor in oouncil, the right taken by the government to carry on with purely federal public works.
Mr. Bennett: It is not there.
_ Mr. Power: Am I to understand that that is done because it is not the policy of the government to carry on with purely federal public works other than those which have been voted in the estimates?
Mr. Bennett: That is right.
I think that settles the matter. I do not see why the minister should not be aware of that very definite statement by the Prime Minister which certainly answers the question asked by the hon. member for West Middlesex.


John Campbell Elliott: I should think the minister in charge of the department should know if that is the decision of the government. That is the point I should like to have explained.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can give no answer
beyond what I have already said.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I want to ask just
one question and then make a very brief statement in regard to conditions in that section of the country which I have the honour to represent, and in regard to which I have some knowledge.
The question relates to a statement previously made by the minister with regard to highway work. Will this department be prepared to meet any province half way, where the province may find that it can employ married men with families in highway work, giving them a remuneration equal to *what they would receive under direct relief, in order to provide them with food and the actual necessities of life?
That is the question, and the statement I wish to make is based on what the minister said in regard to the advisability of getting this legislation through. I believe there is no part of Canada where the effects of prevailing conditions are felt more intensely than in that part of Canada along the transcontinental line in northern Ontario, where there are numerous small pulp mill and lumber towns which have been virtually abandoned. There are no municipal organizations; the
people are without churches and in many cases without schools, and there are no individuals better off than the others. They are virtually in a state of pauperism. In a very considerable section of that country we arranged last year for voluntary relief committees to administer general relief, and we secured assistance in the usual way from the provincial government. That assistance ended, however, on the last day of April. It was administered on a mere subsistence basis. There are many large families in that district at the present time who are absolutely in want, simply because for weeks past we have been discussing this and other legislation with regard to the question of relief.
I want to read one or two paragraphs from letters I have received in the past two or three days with regard to the conditions prevailing. I have this letter from the chairman of one of the committees:
There are people in this district who are actually starving. I am receiving pathetic appeals on every mail from parents, stating that their children are actually in want and without food. ... I got in touch with Mr. Morse early last week by telephone.
Mr. Morse is one of the members of the committee in one of the smaller localities.
I asked Mr. Morse to keep a close watch and advise me if any families were really starving. On Saturday Mr. Morse called me up and informed me that . . . one young girl had collapsed that day for want of nourishment and that ethers were on the verge of the same condition.
At the same time Mr. Morse also wrote me, because I asked these people to keep me. informed as to conditions. Mr. Morse said:
I may say that I went to Toronto last week in an effort to get a small interim grant to keep these people going, but was informed by Mr. Ellis that they could do nothing until the legislation was through in Ottawa.
Mr. Morse continues:
The two Tremblay families are starving. . . . There are many young children and a tragedy may occur there at any time. Nothing is being done and . . . they cannot hold out very long.
I have received many such representations. The situation is extremely acute, and while we take weeks to discuss the details, the methods and all sorts of questions, constitutional and otherwise, these people are actually starving to death because they cannot obtain relief.


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: There is one matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. I have received a communication from the unemployed, association of West Kildonan, which is a suburb of Winnipeg, and which is in my constituency. The secretary advises me that the standard of living has
2838	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
been cut down, and that the rations provided are not adequate for the proper subsistence of the children. I understand also that the school teachers in that section have been supplying some milk in order to properly nourish the children.
What I want to ask the minister is this: In making relief arrangements with the provinces in the future is there to be any standard of living specified? With this tri partite agreement between the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion, if we insist on too large a contribution from the municipalities the standard of living may not be adequate for the preservation of the health of the unemployed, and this is rather a serious matter. I do not know just where the responsibility lies, but it seems the government might insist, if they are to pay part of the cost of relief, that at least a uniform standard be set up. I should like to ask the minister if this question has been contemplated in connection with any agreement which might be made with the provinces. The first question is this: Is there a standard of living that should be insisted upon, and in the second place, where does the responsibility rest?
There is one other matter that arises out of this situation. I have received a communication from the clerk of the municipality to the effect that 108 homes of unemployed people will be offered for tax sale this spring. It seems to me if we are to loan money to the municipalities for direct relief the unemployed ought to be protected to this extent: First, that the relief granted be sufficient, and second, that the unemployed should not lose their homes or their little market gardens because of their inability to pay taxes. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to know if the government has any policy in this regard.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is obvious that the
matters to which the hon. member has referred come directly under the jurisdiction of the municipalities on the one hand and of the provinces on the other. It is utterly impossible for this government, without having contact with these details-and I do not use the word in the sense that they are not important-to have anything to do with these matters. I cannot conceive that the province of Manitoba, with the funds available for direct relief, would supply relief on which people cannot subsist.


Mr. REID:: I should like to ask a question of the minister in connection with the municipalities. On page 56 of the report of the director of unemployment relief there are
[Mr. J. H. Stitt.)
schedules of work approved in connection with many municipalities in British Columbia. I should like to ask the minister whether the municipalities will be allowed to complete the public works, such as roads and so on, that have been approved under these schedules. Many of these agreements were not given approval until December or January of this year, and I should like to know if these municipalities will be allowed to carry out those programs of work which have been approved.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This debate has gone on
so long now that I assume hon. members have forgotten what was said when we began. I made it plain then, as will be seen in Hansard, what works would be proceeded with and what works would not. Under three headings a telegram was sent to each province, setting out the works that would be gone on with, or discontinued as the case might be. That was done by agreement with the provincial authorities, and I cannot add more to what I have already said on the matter.


Thomas Reid: This is very serious and a
definite statement should be forthcoming. I have to-day received a telegram from one of the municipalities, indicating the seriousness of the situation there. In that municipality there is still unexpended the sum of $43,000.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Is that Burnaby?


Thomas Reid: Yes. I had an interview with the minister's secretary and was informed that if these projects, to the extent of $43,000, had been contracted for and there might be a lawsuit if they were not gone on with, they would be proceeded with. But, I was told, if it were simply a matter of carrying on road work under the agreement, it would be stopped. I took the trouble to telegraph to that municipality, inquiring regarding this matter so that I might have definite information, and a few minutes ago I received a telegram to the effect that timber and other material for the necessary trench work had been contracted for and that the situation would be quite serious if the work were not gone on with. They have also contracted for the macadam for the road. For that reason I should like to have a definite statement regarding the project.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I will try, from recollection, to state the terms of the telegram that was sent to British Columbia and all the other provinces. It covered three phases of the situation and was accepted by all the provinces of Canada as a correct reflection of the conclusion arrived at on April 9 at the conference to which I have already alluded.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
Worto that had been commenced, whereby loss would be occasioned if they were not completed, such as buildings, sewers and so forth, would be completed. Secondly, where undischarged contractual obligations existed- I used the term in its legal sense-that is to say, entire contracts, where the contractual obligation was apparent, it was obvious that the undertakings, no matter of what kind, would be completed. The message went on to say further that the provinces, the dominion contributing under arrangements to be made, would endeavour to take care of the situation in its entirety if possible by direct relief. Perhaps, in fact it is likely, I have not exactly quoted the telegram which was placed on Hansard when the resolution was introduced some weeks ago, but in substance I have given it correctly. If the situation in the municipality to which the hon. member refers is as he has stated it, the work will certainly have to be completed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I noticed what the minister said about the desirability of the legislation being passed with as little delay as possible, and what the hon. member for Algoma said with respect to people suffering at the present time, and the inability to have their needs supplied until this federal legislation was passed. I think it is only proper in the circumstances to point out that the government must take the responsibility for leaving until the end of the session a measure that should have been brought in at the beginning. This is the most important legislation that has been before us, and it is rather unfortunate that it should have been left until the concluding weeks of the session before being introduced. I do not think the discussion has been unduly protracted, considering the importance of the legislation; certainly on this measure, it has not been.
The purpose I had in view before the minister spoke was not, however, to direct his attention to that phase of the question but rather-it may surprise him to learn this- to approve of one feature of the legislation and to make a suggestion in reference to it. This section provides for special relief works and undertakings in the national parks of Canada. I think that is a very desirable form of relief where relief has to be given. The government has property in the nature of great national parks, and if in these difficult times the unemployed could be put to work in those parks I can think of no particular form of relief which could be more acceptable to them and which at the same time would serve the interests of the government and of the country so well. Where there
can be work rather than simply relief or doles, I am sure it is better for the recipient of such assistance, and also for the state, which has to foot the bill.
May I, in that connection, ask the minister whether, when the government is considering its program under this provision, it mighl not extend the conception of "national parks' to government properties in this capital citj of Canada: in other words, whether some of the relief moneys might not be used by the Federal District Commission for the improving of some of the government properties in the Canadian capital. I know that already some steps have been taken in that direction. I am sorry the Minister of Public Works is not in the house, because I should have liked to express appreciation of what I know he has started to do in that respect. There is, for example, the property on Wellington street, part of which was burned down a fortnight or so ago. The part that remains constitutes a fire trap. It is government property, having been in the possession of the Dominion for some twenty years, and this would be a good time to take these properties down and make a park area there until later on, when something in the nature of additional public buildings may be warranted by the circumstances of the time.
What I have in mind is this. The walk which we have around Parliament hill, the walk that runs around the hill from Elgin street to Bank street, is, I believe, the result of work which was provided one year for the unemployed by the Mackenzie administration during the hard times from 1874 to 1878, and it has been of service to the country ever since. During the present hard times, where the unemployed are put to work with public money, if we can at the same time improve the appearance of the capital, particularly in so far as the government's own properties are concerned, the money will be well spent and will serve other purposes than merely providing unemployment relief.
In that connection may I say that if the government would continue to set an example to the city, the city might, with the aid of the Federal District Commission, clean up a good many of its properties. Some of them, as they stand at the present time, are eyesores in the capital; and this year, when everyone is making an effort to have the capital of the Dominion appear as presentable as possible, I should think that, whatever numbers of unemployed there are here who may be entitled to relief, might and would be glad to be put to work under the direction of the improvement commission, along with
2840	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
the city, in accordance with some plan of improving government and civic properties. I believe the minister is sympathetic to the idea and I hope he will do what he can in furtherance of it.


Mr. YENIOT:: 
Wesley Ashton Gordon: I will look into it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Orders and regulations laid before parliament.
Wesley Ashton Gordon: The right hon. leader of
the opposition has suggested an amendment to this section which I think would probably be a proper and a helpful one, and I will have one of my colleagues move accordingly.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I move, Mr. Chairman, that section 7 be amended by striking out the words "within the first fifteen days of the 
next ensuing session" in lines 40 and 41 at the end of the section and substituting therefor the following: "said orders in council or regulations or an abstract thereof disclosing their essential provisions shall be published in the next following issue of the Canada Gazette."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 8-Report to parliament.
Wesley Ashton Gordon: There is an amendment
to move to this section.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I move that section 8
be amended by striking out the words "then within the first fifteen days of the next ensuing session" in lines 44 and 45, and substituting therefor the following:	"shall be
published and made available for distribution by the Department of Labour."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
Bill reported.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
Thursday, May 12, 1932.