Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, May 3, 1932.
Sir,-
I have the honour to inform you that Right Hon. F. A. Anglin, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber this day at 5 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
James F. Crowdy.
Assistant Secretary.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On * the order of government notices of motion:
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) :: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I advised the house that I would ask for unanimous consent for the purpose of dealing with a bill to raise 861,500,060 for the Canadian National Railways. If hon. gentlemen will look at page ii of the votes and proceedings of yesterday they will find the resolution which is to be the basis of the bill in question. I would therefore ask

Lobster Fishing Season
leave of the house to move that the house resolve itself into committee this day to consider the following resolution:
That the governor in council may authorize the guarantee of securities of the Canadian National Railway Company made or issued from time to time under the provisions of the Canadian National Railways Financing Act, 1932, to an aggregate principal amount at any one time outstanding of $61,500,000.
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.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) I wish to make a correction in regard to a statement that was given out by one of the officers of the Department of Trade and Commerce yesterday and that appeared in some newspapers this morning, dealing with Canadian bacon exports. I am informed by Mr. Coats, the dominion statistician, that there are various mistakes in this statement, largely due to the changing of a decimal point which naturally multiplies some of the figures by ten. I wish to make this correction as early as possible, and this afternoon Mr. Coates will give out to the press a corrected statement in regard to exports of bacon from Canada.



LOBSTER FISHING SEASON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau), based on the following telegram from Summerside, dated May 2:
Understand Department of Fisheries granting two weeks extension to lobster fishermen on south shore Nova Scotia. Feel this action very unfair to fishermen and packers island. South shore enjoyed last winter a season from December first to January fifteenth and this spring March first May fifteenth. Our fishermen have only two months. Market in a demoralized condition. Such extension if granted will be disastrous to our fishermen. Would suggest protest strongly against such extension.
This is signed by one of the large packers of Prince Edward Island. The question I wish to direct to the minister is whether he will give consideration to the request of the Island packers in regard to not granting this extension of time.
41761-163i


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: I am not .prepared tc say at the moment whether my department has received any request from the packers of Prince Edward Island, but we will be prepared to consider any reasonable demand they may make.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: I would like to ask the minister if he would be good enough to take into immediate consideration-and I say immediate because the matter is urgent-the request of the fishermen of western Nova Scotia for the extension of the lobster season to the end of May. The minister has said he is willing to consider any reasonable demands made by the packers of Prince Edward Island, and I nope he will have the same consideration for the request of the fishermen of western Nova Scotia.


Alfred Duranleau: I will be glad to consider the matter.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (AntigonishjGuys-borough):: As an unprejudiced person,
interested in the fisheries I strongly recommend: to the Minister of Fisheries that this extension of time in western Nova Scotia be not granted.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Some three weeks ago an order of the house was issued for a return having to do with the disposition of the two million odd bushels of wheat that were ground and used for relief purposes. May I aslc the government if I can expect this return to be brought down shortly?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: That question was answered on an
inquiry made by the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. McKenzie). There is no correspondence; the instructions were given verbally, and the quantity of wheat milled is mentioned in the answer to that question, which I think was given one day last week.



NATIVE WINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):: Yesterday on the orders of the day the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) addressed a question to the right hon. Prime Minister which had to do with my department. I understood the hon. member to ask if there might be laid on the table of the house any order in council having refer-
C.N.R.-Finance

ence to the fortification of wines, and the hon. member stated that such order in council was passed shortly after the close of last session. I may tell the hon. gentleman that there was no order in council; proceedings were taken by the department under the regulations. A statement of what was done is under my hand and I will be glad to let the hon. gentleman have it.
DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE:
On the orders of the day:


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I should like to ask the right hon.
Prime Minister whether we may expect, before the end of the session, a report of the activities of the two members of the government who are attending the Disarmament conference. I presume my right hon. friend is in constant communication with them, and I believe we are entitled to know the results of their work, since they have been there for three months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If -the hon. gentleman will recall the
opinions that I expressed frequently in this house last year and again this year as to the movement of great events connected with disarmament conferences he will realize that very little has been accomplished, and that the acute difficulties, between two of the great powers, the one speaking of security and the other of equality, have rendered it practically impossible at the moment for any definite conclusions to be arrived at. The advices that we receive from our delegation substantially indicate that there is still hopefulness on the part of those who are gathered at Geneva, md that they have not abandoned the idea that they may be able to accomplish some good purpose by their continued efforts.
In the meantime, I think the hon. gentleman has had sufficient experience in matters of this kind to know that no report, in the sense in which that word is commonly used, could be given that would be in any way enlightening to the house or to the country, beyond those reports which from day to day appear in the press.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the governor in council may authorize the guarantee of securities of the Canadian

National Railway Company made or issued from time to time under the provisions of the Canadian National Railways Financing Act, 1932, to an aggregate principal amount at any one time outstanding of $61,500,000.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Mr. POULIOT:: I will not take up much
of the time of the committee but I desire to say a few words in connection with this resolution. May I tell you, Mr. Chairman, how it came about that the Canadian National shops at St. Malo were built. It was because a piece of land, in fact a swamp, was bought before 1896 by a concern called La Compagnie des Terrains Sans Bruit-The Noiseless Land Company-in which a Conservative minister was interested and also an ex-Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec. Together they bought that piece of land for a very small sum of money and tried to sell it to the Laurier government, but without success; and in December, 1911, two or three months after the Conservative government had come into power, that same piece of land was bought at a price thirty times what had been paid for it originally, thirty years before. They made a very profitable sale. After the land was acquired it had to be used for something, and it was decided to build the Canadian National railway shops on that swamp. That is the origin of the St. Malo shops in Quebec. After the shops were built they had to be equipped with men and machinery, and most of the men and equipment they imported from Riviere du Loup. The result was that they emptied the shops at Riviere du Loup. They took the men and mechanical devices from those shops to fill this plant, the outcome of graft. That is how the Riviere du Loup shops were treated by the Borden administration in 1911, and no satisfaction has been given the people there. They were ill treated in this way because of the graft of a minister-may his soul rest in peace-and of a former Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec-may he too enjoy peace before his death. That is why I take this opportunity of asking the government not to be hard on Riviere du Loup. That city has very fine shops and the men are excellent mechanics, but they suffered at that time in much the same way as the Acadians suffered in Nova Scotia long years ago. In this case it was the expulsion of French Canadians from Riviere du Loup to Quebec to man the shops there. These men had to leave their homes, which they were

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
obliged to sell at a great loss, and they were involved in all sorts of sacrifices. Now many of them are without employment.
I submit that this matter should be taken into very serious consideration. I told the whole story to Sir Henry Thornton and some other officials of the Canadian National Railways, and I also brought the matter to the attention of the late administration. I urged that every consideration should be given the people of Riviere du Loup in view of these circumstances.
There are two parishes in the city of Riviere du Loup in which the men are engaged mostly on the Canadian National Railways. They do not receive exorbitant salaries, and they give full value in their services for what they receive. They are good citizens and employees, many of them having received letters of commendation from different governors general and prime ministers of Canada. I am sure that if there is one section of the Canadian National railways through which the Prime Minister may travel in safety and comfort it is the division between Levis and Campbellton, when the engineer in charge and the fireman, the conductor and the brake-man, are from Riviere du Loup.
May I once more urge this matter upon my genial friend the Minister of Railways. I am not blaming him for the unfortunate conditions in Riviere du Loup, but the people there have suffered enough already and something should be done to give them redress. That is one of the oldest divisional points on the Canadian National railways. Riviere du Loup was the first terminal of the Grand Trunk railway before the building of the Intercolonial railway. I would ask the minister to see to it, if at all possible, that the people there be given justice, and that they be compensated for what they have suffered in the past. They have suffered more than the' people on any other section of the railways. It must be remembered, moreover, that it is bad for the whole community to increase big shops at the expense of those located in the smaller centres. When these men quit their work they had to sell their property at a great loss; they were uprooted, and they do not feel at home in other centres. I know the minister's good disposition and I would ask him to be kind enough to see to it that the men at Riviere du Loup are disturbed as little as possible during the present crisis.


Robert James Manion: Of course, my hon. friend
knows very well that the Minister of Railways has nothing whatever to do with the
matter. It is entirely in the hands of the management. However, I shall gladly see that his remarks are brought to their attention.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With the unanimous consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 71, founded on the resolution, respecting the Canadian National Railways, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of securities to be issued under the Canadian National Railways Financing Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. RHODES moved the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
PROVINCIAL FORCES TAKEN OVER; CONSOLIDATION WITH PREVENTIVE SERVICE
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 63, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, some of the clauses in this bill sceem to be rather queer but I shall wait until the house is in committee to ask the minister for explanations thereof. Our approval of the second reading of the bill must not be taken to preclude us from attacking the principle of the bill, if we deem such action necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 1-Appointment of deputy commissioner.
Ernest Lapointe: What is the necessity ol appointing a deputy commissioner? My understanding at the introduction of the bill was that because of the taking over by the government of the policing of the western provinces it might be thought to be useful to have a representative of the - commissioner, namely a deputy commissioner, remain in the west to act as the commissioner is acting here in Ottawa. However, the minister stated that the intention is to have the deputy commissioner located in Ottawa. I do not see the necessity of creating a new position of this

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
kind, a position which will obviously carry a high salary. The assistant commissioners are able to do the necessary work without one of them being given the title and salary of a deputy commissioner. My hon. friend spoke of the discipline of the force, but I do not think a deputy commissioner would have more authority than have the assistant commissioners. There is probably no body of men in Canada or elsewhere where better discipline or esprit de corps exists than in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and this fact makes me a little suspicious that this is merely a move to give a good position to someone.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Chairman, may I say that in connection with matters of organization and discipline in the force generally, as Minister of Justice, I am obliged to rely almost exclusively on the advice given by the present commissioner of the force. The force has been considerably augmented since August 1, 1930, when this government came into power. The present strength is 1,550 as compared with a strength of 1,217 on August 1, 1930. In addition to this increase, certain members of the preventive service have been taken into the force. A special selection has been made of those best fitted for duty in the service, and 350 members of the preventive service will be taken into the force. When introducing the resolution I stated that upon the completion of the whole program the total force would number 2,000 but I now find it will number 2,010; the mounted police numbering 1,660 and the preventive service, 350.
As the committee is well aware, we have taken over the police forces of six provinces, whereas in the past we policed only the province of Saskatchewan. Major General Mac-Brien, an officer of very great ability and experience, has informed me that in his opinion it will be necessary to have someone promoted to the rank of deputy commissioner. It is true that at the present time there are four or five assistant commissioners scattered throughout Canada, but in the opinion of the commissioner it is necessary to have someone in command or control when he himself might oe absent on police business. This will not involve any material increase in expense as the present senior assistant commissioner at Ottawa will be promoted to the rank of deputy commissioner and, speaking offhand, I do not think there will be any increase in salary. This deputy commissioner will have the power and authority to act as commissioner when the commissioner finds it necessary to be absent from Ottawa.


Mr. HEAPS:: Can the minister advise the committee as to the number of men taken over from the provincial governments?


Hugh Guthrie: I have not the number, but I have the amounts to be contributed by the different provinces which give a fair idea of the number of men involved, as, generally speaking, it is computed at the rate of 81,000 per man. The province of Alberta will pay 8225,000 per annum, which would be about 225 men; Saskatchewan, 8250,000; Manitoba, -this is marked "estimate"-8125,000; Nova Scotia, $125,000. This memorandum was prepared before the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island agreements were signed, but my recollection is that the amount for New Brunswick is $125,000 and for Prince Edward Island, $15,000. In Prince Edward Island there will be fifteen men; in New Brunswick, either 100 or 125; in Nova Scotia, 125; in Manitoba, 125; in Saskatchewan, I would assume, 250, and in Alberta, 225.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the figure of 2,010, which the minister has given, include all the men taken over?


Hugh Guthrie: All the men.


Mr. EULER:: How many members of the preventive service have been incorporated in the mounted police, and is that process completed?


Hugh Guthrie: The Department of National Revenue has selected the list and submitted the names to the commissioner of police. He is engaged now in making his selection; in fact, I think he has pretty well completed it. There will be approximately 350 men taken from the preventive service into the police.


James Layton Ralston: Out of how many?


Hugh Guthrie: I think 250 will not be, required.


Mr. GRAY:: Did the Department of National Revenue recommend the -men to be taken over by the commissioner?


Hugh Guthrie: They made the selection and submitted it to the commissioner. Unless there be any serious reason in regard to any particular man, no change is made in the selection submitted by the Department of National Revenue.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps I should ask the question of the Minister of National Revenue when we come to his estimates, but what connection will remain between the Department of National Revenue and these men who

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
have now become members of the mounted police? The work in connection with the prevention of smuggling and so on is done in the Department of National Revenue. I should like to know what part, if any, in the administration of that work still remains with the Department of National Revenue, and how they work together with the mounted police.


Hugh Guthrie: I think we are taking it all over except one branch. We are taking over the marine service, the special investigation branch, the secret preventive service branch, and the air wing, but one small section, which I think is called the investigation branch, is to remain in the Department of National Revenue. It is really the preventive branch pure and simple that we are taking over; that is for the prevention of smuggling.


William Daum Euler: Is there any overlapping of authority between the two departments?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


William Daum Euler: May I take it that the mounted police will be entirely in charge of the prevention of smuggling?


Hugh Guthrie: They will be entirely in charge.


Mr. VENIOT:: Take the case of an international bridge. For instance, there is the St. Stephen international bridge between Calais, Maine, and St. Stephen, New Brunswick. We have on the Canadian side an officer and I think there is a customs house at the end of the bridge. Will the mounted police have anything to do with that or will the men be replaced by the mounted police?


Hugh Guthrie: If a preventive officer is there at present-and I think there is one -that man will be taken into the mounted police, but he will likely be continued at his post.


Mr. HEENAN:: Can the minister tell us the difference between the wages which these preventive service men are now receiving and those which they will receive when the transfer is made?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not sure whether I could state that definitely. When the estimates are under consideration I shall be in a position to do so, but my impression is that they are taken on at police pay. A policeman, on being recruited, receives $2 a day with, of course, allowances; he gets his clothes and his board. After some years' service that pay is increased and naturally it is increased with the various ranks as he goes
up. But I cannot now say definitely just how the pay in the preventive service compares with that in the mounted police service, although I shall get that from the commissioner when the estimates are before the house.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Since the provinces
have agreed to this arrangement, I suppose one can hardly raise objection in this house, although I should point out that it was because of the straitened circumstances in which the provinces found themselves that this arrangement was consented to. The other day the Prime Minister told us that this would involve a saving especially in overhead, and yet I note now that already we are being asked to extend the expenditures connected with the overhead. According to a return brought down a few weeks ago I notice that in this department we have already four civil servants receiving from $4,000 to $4,900 and one, I presume the commissioner, receiving $12,000 or over. It seems rather strange with these already high salaries and with the claims made recently that the members of this force should not receive any cuts, that another highly paid official should be appointed.
I wish to point out what seems to me a very great danger of centralization of the police force of this country. I hope I am mistaken, but I think this looks in the direction of military repression. We have under our eyes the spectacle of the transformation of a police force into a military force. The other day the Prime Minister suggested that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was, in essence, a military force and it ought to come under the same provisions and exemptions as would such a force. At least that is what I took from the statement he made. I am very much afraid that with a central authority at Ottawa we may develop an arbitrary method of dealing with the existing situation which may prove to be disastrous. We have already had brought to our attention in the last few months the spy system which has been adopted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Under this spy system officers of the police disguised themselves and for long years carried on inquiries within certain organizations. Frankly, I am particularly concerned with the effect upon the labour organizations. Several years ago one of these police spies actually worked his way up until he became secretary of a labour union and a delegate to the Trades and Labour Council of Regina. He was a member of the communist organization, but he also became secretary of a labour union. I object to labour being considered dangerous in character and to having govern-

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
ment officials push their way into trade union or other labour class organizations in order to spy upon them. If we are going to do that with regard to labour organizations, we are equally justified in doing it with regard to certain large companies such as banks and so forth. I fancy the latter are much more dangerous to the welfare of the country at large than are the labour organizations. Personally, I want to express my disgust at the despicable methods which in the past both under this and under the past administration have been adopted in developing the spy system. I do not know whether it still prevails or not, but a few years ago we had the police employing people from American detective firms under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and turning these men into provocative agents. Again and again when visiting in the mining camps in the west I have had labour people come to me and say: If there is any suggestion made in the way of provoking trouble be careful, because that suggestion comes from an agent of the government. I say, Mr. Chairman, that that method is beneath contempt. That officials operating under a government department should deliberately set about to provoke action and then afterwards lay charges against those who follow their lead, revolts one's sense of decency. It came out in connection with some of our Winnipeg troubles a few years ago that a certain constable in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had actually sold literature which he knew to be banned in order to lay charges against those who subsequently handled that literature. I think that a situation of that kind should not be tolerated.
Further, I note that there is to be provision made in this bill-I might as well mention it now because I do not want to take up an undue amount of time-for the enlistment of constables without pay. Either that means,
I take it, that we are going to adopt press gang methods and force people to carry out certain police duties without pay, or it means that certain privileged people are to have the right to work in a general way under the police force without having to assume any very great responsibility for their personal actions. The Secretary of State told us a few weeks ago of an occasion when he had to stand off the civil and provincial police in the city of Montreal at his election booth. Now I can readily understand that if this bill is adopted it might very well be that certain people would exercise a very decided influence in political and industrial matters, and armed with the power of the law, although receiving no police salary, they would be able to dictate 
to the private citizens what could be done, and themselves be immune, having special privileges. I object to any provision of that kind.
Further than that, we were told by the Minister of Justice just now that the commissioner desires to be out of the city in the performance of his duties. I have no objection whatever to that, but I do think it is highly desirable that the commissioner should restrict his activities to his police duties proper. A few weeks ago Major-General J. H. MacBrien, the present commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, was reported to have said when addressing a "Vimy night" gathering in Toronto:
It is notable that ninety-nine per cent of these fellows-*
He was speaking of the communists:
-are foreigners, and many of them have not been here long. The best thing to do would be to send them back where they came from, in every possible way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: He continued:
If we were rid of them, there would be no unemployment or unrest in Canada.
I do not hear the hon. gentlemen who said "hear, hear," earlier on, endorsing that statement. My point is that whilst it is perfectly competent and fitting for any member of parliament to express his views with regard to the communists, it is not fitting that the head of the mounted police should so express himself in public gatherings.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why not?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will read an
extract from an editorial in the Western Producer of April 21 last, commenting on this speech as reported:
These remarks are strongly reminiscent of a certain brand of irresponsible politician, and in uttering them the commissioner did not distinguish himself as a public servant, nor contribute in any degree whatever to the solution of the difficult problems of the hour. On the contrary, if he really believes what he is reported to have said, he reveals himself as a very foolish and amazingly uninformed man. Of the many suggestions for curing unemployment, Commissioner MaeBrien's should rank among the first for ineptitude and silliness. Apart from this aspect of the incident, however, it would seem to be much more fitting for the head of our police force, in his public actions and remarks, to direct his attention to the enforcement of the multitude of laws which are already on the statute books rather than to join the ranks of that huge army of busy-bodies who never weary of demanding new enactments so that their petty prejudices might be elevated to the rank of public nuisances by receiving the sanction of law.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I will quote one other paragraph which I think contains the core of the whole matter:
It is of primary importance that the public should have implicit faith in the absolute impartiality of the police, and that anything which has a tendency to shake that faith should be avoided.
I heartily agree with that position. I believe it to be absolutely sound.


Mr. STANLEY:: There is no doubt about
that. But why is the hon. gentleman trying to shake public faith in the police?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am trying to
shake faith in a commissioner who will get up and make such partisan statements as that.
1 Mr. STANLEY:	Would the hon. gentleman do away with the police force?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope the hon.
gentleman does not believe me to be as silly as the police commissioner is reported to have been.


Mr. QUINN:: What does the hon. member
mean by partisan? Partisan so far as the communists are concerned?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Perhaps instead of
saying a partisan statement, I should have said an ex parte statement. Perhaps that would have been more correct and would appeal to my legal friends opposite. I say that undoubtedly it is advisable that in this country we should maintain law and order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hoar.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My hon. friends
agree, but I want to suggest that the maintenance of law and order may readily be interpreted to be the maintenance of the status quo, and that is another matter altogether.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: May I ask the hon.
member a question? So far as his sympathy with labour is concerned I fully appreciate everything that he has said in that regard.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have the floor,
Mr. Chairman.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury):: If the hon. gentleman does not
permit a question-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I thought it was a
statement that was coming, but if it is a question-


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: It is a question. My hon. friend has spoken of law and order. Only a little while ago-


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is not a
question.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: All right. I will
reply to you when you are through.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have no objection to that whatever. As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, the maintenance of law and order is something very different from the main*
* tenance of the status quo, and it does seem to me that there is room and Deed for a very decided agitation to change the economic conditions that prevail at the present time. After all, a government that cannot arrange matters so that the people can be fed is not going to claim for very long the loyalty of the population. I think we have io recognize that. There is even something to be said with regard to those who are trying to bring in reforms by means of force.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: By means of
force?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. There is
something to be said on their behalf. They have a certain weight of historical evidence in their favour.


George Douglass Stanley: The communists?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said that those
who are advocating the bringing in of reforms by means of force have a certain weight of historical evidence in their favour. Someone has expressed it thus:
No nation ever became truly great save by successful sedition and revolution. The lamp and the torch and the tumult have overcome tyranny. The signature of King John was placed to the Magna Charta, wrenched from him by the nobles; revolution led King Charles to the block; the corn law riots-these were crimes against the law and sedition, but no one hangs his head in shame because of them.
"Liberty, equality, fraternity," were no mere catchwords as in the French revolution, but the expression of the earnest striving for the substance that lies behind the words.
When I began reading I heard someone says, "communist." No; although this article is very much in harmony with communist teaching the remarks contained therein were reported to be uttered by Mr. R. B. Graham, K.C., police magistrate in my own city of Winnipeg. On that occasion he was proposing a toast to England, and Mr. Jackson Dodds of the Bankers' Association was presiding. I respectfully suggest that when men of outstanding ability and position back up the idea that we must bring about reforms by force it is not very much wonder that communists

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
and others echo the words. I want to say 1 refuse to accept that point of view; I refuse to accept it. If I believed it I presume I would join the communists.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why do you talk
about it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have refused to accept that point of view. I have the firm conviction that in international affairs war does not bring peace. I have held that view for some years, and still believe in it. I believe further that in these days when our delegation is at Geneva at the disarmament conference this country ought not to wait until somebody else takes the lead, but that we ought to be in the very forefront in urging disarmament, and ourselves setting the example by giving up armaments. I do not believe international affairs can be settled by war, that war brings peace or that armaments are in any way an assurance against war.
So in national affairs, I do not believe repressive measures develop respect for law. In England most of the constables are armed with bludgeons; they are not allowed to carry guns. In the United States they carry guns, and there is much less respect for law and order in that country than there is in old England. It seems to me we are in danger of following the lead of the United States, and I believe honestly-and that is the reason I am bringing this matter up-that if we adopt repressive measures we are bound to reap results in a saturnalia of lawlessness throughout the country. If people think they can bring about reforms only by riots, and if they are refused opportunities to parade or to hold public meetings, if they are hounded, and if they are spied upon the inevitable result will be that the movement will be driven underground, and we will see in Canada the same conditions that resulted in Russia when the Czar undertook to keep his people under.
I believe economic justice is the only basis of permanent stability in society. In my judgment we have not that justice. Before I sit down I should like to read an article I came across a few days ago which appeared in The Nation-I believe it is the Irish Nation-under date of May 2, 1931. I call this article particularly to the attention of some of my Roman Catholic friends who are inclined to be very much afraid of anything in the shape of communism, because they fear it will in some vay interfere with private property.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: From what is the hon. member quoting?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Nation of
May 2, 1931. It is as follows:
Recently Reverend Doctor P. Coffey of Maynooth writing in The Clergy Review stated a discovery he had made. It was that the present economic organization of humanity committed that moral wrong so long charged against communism, namely the denial of the right of private property. For that doctrine communism has been condemned as the enemy of the natural as well as the divine law. And capitalism has for centuries called the churches to its defence on the grounds that it not only admitted but was based on this right of private property. Doctor Coffey finds it to be based on the very opposite:
"This grave discovery," he says, "has been made and demonstrated in recent years by scientific analysis of the policy which actually directs the financing of industry. . . . The proletariat (are) kept in propertyless dependence on a money wage that intermittently provides them with a bare subsistence. . . .
The fact that the system prevails in Christian countries does not make it Christian. The fact that it automatically deprives the preponder at-ing majority of the adult citizens of all real opportunity of ever becoming private owners of productive property proves it not to be a system of private capital ownership, but a system of enforced propertyless wage serfdom."
I commend those words of Father Coffey to the members of this house. What situation do we find in Canada? We are told that we have nearly 500,000 unemployed. I understand that before very long a measure is to be brought down giving authority to the government to deal with this matter. It is significant however that at the time we are bringing down relief measures we are also asking for increased police powers. I do not like it; I am afraid of it, because I say that in extending repressive measures the house would be adopting a method which sooner or later is bound to bring about serious reaction. Let us consider a few illustrations of the last few days. Only this morning I received a telegram from the west stating that certain men had been apprehended by the Royal Canadian Mounted police, and were being summarily deported. I am trying to get the details from the Department of Immigration. If however we are to adopt the method of simply picking up people and deporting them after merely departmental trial, what is going to be the effect upon hundreds of people who themselves are essentially in similar positions? A few weeks ago a representative of the returned men, a representative of the men employed by the Canadian National Railways in my own city, and a representative of the management, went through a list of employees of the road to pick out those who were not yet naturalized in order that they should be dismissed, and that Canadian born

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
men should have preference. I have protested as vigorously as anybody against the influx of immigrants to Canada. I want to take the position however-and I believe my views are very much the same as those expressed by the minister a few nights ago-that if these people are encouraged to come to Canada or are permitted to come they should have the full rights of Canadian citizenship. I think that is in keeping with the conventions of the League of Nations.


Mr. GORDON:: Provided they are prepared to conform to Canadian laws.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite right. But
I say it is not fair for men who have been in this country five, ten, fifteen or twenty years, honest, upright workmen-it is not fair that at this time of stress they should be discriminated against and dismissed simply because they are foreigners, and when they become a public charge that they should be deported from the country. Remember, Mr. Chairman, that almost half of our population west of the great lakes is non-Anglo Saxon in origin. What kind of a country are we going to develop before very long if we allow racial discrimination of this kind to creep in? We are going to transform that part of Canada into a regular Balkan country. If we are to build up a unified people in Canada it must be done by giving every one a chance, whatever his origin, once he has been allowed to come into this country. When I think of the positive injustice of it; when I think of the way in which immigrants have been induced to come here, leaving their old homes in central Europe, selling their property, breaking up all the connections they held dear and migrating to this " land of plenty," I have a great sympathy for them. It is not their fault that the world depression has come about, and we should be men enough and big enough to recognize that they are a part of us; we should not force them to carry too great a part of the burden.
Take another section of our population, composed of men of all the different races, the casual labourers. They were brought to this country in very large numbers. They helped build our railroads and our great construction works; they dug our sewers and did the rough work in connection with the construction of our cities. They went into the lumber camps and worked there. Now the greater part of this sort of work is finished, and I think we must recognize that probably we will never have a period of construction comparable to the period we had during the
building of the three great transcontinental systems and other great works. There you have tens of thousands of transient, unskilled labourers thrown upon the labour market. They form a great part of the people who today are in our bread lines and soup kitchens.
I do not much wonder that these people are getting restless. They have been told again and again that prosperity is around the corner but now they have waited two or three years. They were told that when the spring opened up everything would be well, but last spring opened up and things were no better than they were during the previous winter. Now these men are beginning to say, "Well, what about us?" We say they should be put into camps, and in my opinion they will be better in camps, as I suggested the other day, than they will ibe hanging around the cities. But the tendency seems to :be to put them in camps and pay them a mere pittance, on which they can never hope to become independent. I urge that if you take thousands of these men and force them to live in idleness and in celibacy week after week, month after month and year after year, their moral fibre will be sapped, and that sort of group of men will become a menace to the community.
I am taking this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to say that in this parliament we ought frankly to face the serious situation that is before us. Instead of further increasing our police force and adopting other repressive measures of that kind we should bend all our energies to giving these men an opportunity. Once you have a contented citizenship you will not need police except in the case of the very rare man who is abnormal in his whole makeup. If we have justice in this country and if there is a chance for people to earn an honest livelihood we will not need the increases which are asked for in this measure.
Mr. MACDOU'GALL:	When my hon.
friend was speaking I did not wish to interrupt, but as one who has actually done some work in his day and who has associated with labour I feel that my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre is not half as competent to speak for labour as is the average member of this house, whether he be Liberal or Conservative. I doubt very much if a drop of honest sweat, occasioned iby labour, has fallen from the brow of my hon. friend for the last twenty-five years; if it had it would have been as priceless as a positive cure for cancer. These be the gentry, the men who never worked, who in the House of Commons represent labour.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think in all fairness, Mr. Chairman, statements that are absolutely untrue should not be made in that way.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: They have not been challenged yet.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I challenge them now.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Very well; then we find this, that my hon. friend stands as the representative of labour to-day and denies to anyone else the right to say anything in regard to labour.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not at all; I quite agree that my hon. friend has a perfect right to speak for labour, because labour elected him.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Yes, and if they knew my hon. friend as well as they know me I have no doubt what their selection would be. But I say this: When my hon. friend discusses the aspirations and aims of organized labour throughout Canada he will get no support stronger than the support I will give him, but I do not think he should exclude anyone else who wishes to say a word on that subject. The hon. gentleman says he did not intend to do so; I made a note of his speech, and that was the inference I took from it.
Now I should like to say a word in regard to communism, of which the hon. member made a very poor defence a moment ago. I am not a communist; I do not believe in communism, and the church to which I belong does not believe in communism. That point was called into question by my hon. friend opposite. Now I want to ask my hon. friend if he believes in communism or if he is a communist. Will he be courageous enough to stand up in his place and answer that question? I will resume my seat and give him an opportunity to do so. I pause for an answer,


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the hon.
gentleman really want an answer?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Certainly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will have to take a moment or two to answer that question, if I may be permitted to do so.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton South):: May I point out to the committee that in my opinion this discussion is quite apart from the question under consideration?
fMr. MticDougall.l


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am very willing to answer if I am given an opportunity.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: All I want is yes
or no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The whole question depends upon-


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Yes or no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am reminded of the man who asked, "Have you left off beating your wife-yes or no? This is a question of that kind. I may say I do not belong to the communist party.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I did not ask
whether you belonged to the communist party; are you a communist-yes or no? The hon. gentleman, who according to himself is the custodian of the rights of labour in this house, was the only man in this parliament who suggested that the unemployed should be conscripted and made to work for a dollar a day. Let any person in this country read the records of this house and it will be found that this statement is absolutely correct.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In order to keep
the record straight I say that this statement is incorrect.


Finlay MacDonald: My hon. friend will have an opportunity to reply later.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Let us get back to the question before the committee. My hon. friend takes very serious objection to certain increases in the personnel of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I ask him, or any other member of this house, this question:	What
do the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. do but provide security for the homes of myself and my hon. friend who has just spoken? After all, the law is a danger only to the evildoer; no one need be afraid of the maintenance of law and order. The hon. member some weeks ago criticized the present Minister of Justice because at a certain meeting at Geneva, if I mistake not, he said that we maintained a police force to enforce law and order so that every man, irrespective of whether he was a Labour representative, or a Conservative or a Liberal, might have security in his own home. In regard to the single officers, I would ask the Minister of Justice whether it is fair that the salaries of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are now doing the work of preventive officers should be reduced from SI,500 to $700 a year.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think there is
any intention of such a reduction.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Walter Davy Cowan: The hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) evidently does not know anything of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I do not know where he gets his information. It is my privilege to have associated with this body of men for forty-live years, and during the time I have lived in their headquarters in Regina I have met every commissioner, and I can say that I have never come across finer men. The present commissioner's opinions and his citizenship are as satisfactory to me to-day as are the opinions of the Western Producer. I would not read that paper anyway. Let me remind the hon. gentleman that the majority governs in Canada, and not the minority whose opinions he voices. He does not seem to get that into his head.
During the time I have known the mounted police I have met dozens of superintendents and hundreds of constables, having been associated with them not only at headquarters but in detachment camps. I. therefore know something about the men who enforce the law, and I can say that they administer it impartially, justly, wisely and well. Anyone who has had the experience my hon. friend has mentioned deserves what he gets.
There are two opinions with regard to the force: one opinion is that of ninety-five per cent of our people, and we respect and honour that majority; the other opinion is that of the five per cent who make up the thieves, scoundrels, skunks and villains, and they do not like the force. I would get into better company if I were the hon. gentleman; let him come across and sit with us. We recognize the fact that the majority of our people rule and make the laws that govern Canada.
Let me take you back to the year 1911. I happened to be the Conservative candidate in Regina against the Hon. Mr. Martin, and he licked me by one thousand. Since then we have been personal friends, and no better man than he could be found in Canada. Well, when the Conservatives came into power the patronage fell to me-and patronage was patronage in those days. It was not like the Civil Sendee Commission; we did business in a businesslike way. Shortly afterwards a delegation came to my office from the new village of Ceylon, and told me they wanted to get a detachment of mounted police in the town. It occurred to me that perhaps the delegation wanted extra business that would result from having a detachment there. I told them that, of course, the force was not maintained for commercial purposes, and I asked what they wanted a detachment for.
They told me they had a nest of very bad men in the town, men who had come across from Montana and established themselves there. They were rustlers of every kind, and the people of the town did not like the look of them. They were the worst type of men and the delegation wanted a detachment to drive them out. The women were afraid to go out at night. I called in the commissioner, whom I knew every well, and repeated what the delegation had told me. He said he would look into the matter and do whatever he thought was necessary. When the commissioner made that statement I knew that whatever was necessary would be done, and so I forgot all about the matter. A month' or so afterwards the leader of the delegation came back to my office and said that he wanted to thank me for the police protection I had been instrumental in providing. I asked him whether the detachment had gone down. He said in reply, "I don't know what you call a detachment, but they sent down one man and he cleaned up the place." I was astonished; I asked what he had done. What had happened? This man then told me: "Well, as soon as that bunch of thieves and skunks and scoundrels got sight of a redcoat they took to their heels and beat it back to Montana. They did not stop to gather up their belongings but just cleared out, and we have never heard of them since." I asked whether one man had done all that? Did he have any gun? No; he just walked into the place and these scoundrels from Montana simply cleared out. They knew that if they dared to interfere with that one man in the scarlet coat he would settle them singlehanded' or, if the whole bunch got the best of him, then the full force of the British Empire would be there to vindicate British authority.
I say to my hon. friend that the majority of the people in this country are determined that authority and justice shall prevail. If the hon. gentleman does not like British justice and authority, then he had better continue to talk as he has been talking.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Am I correct in understanding that out of about 609 members of the preventive force, 350 have been taken over by the mounted police?


Hugh Guthrie: Have or will be.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Could the minister advise the committee as to the basis of selection?


Hugh Guthrie: The selection is made by the Department of National Revenue accord-

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
ing to the record of service. The recommendations of the department are submitted to the commissioner, and I think in almost every case they have been accepted.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My information is that
political considerations have entered into the selection of these officers. Before I go any further, I should like to ask if that has been the basis of selection in the past?


Hugh Guthrie: It has had absolutely nothing to do with it since August 1, 1930.


James Lorimer Ilsley: How does the force select its new recruits?


Hugh Guthrie: A man first makes an application; he is then examined by a competent board and if he meets with the educational, physical and mental requirements of the force and there is a vacancy on the force, he is accepted.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I desire to bring to the attention of the minister a case in my constituency which I consider to be one of absolute injustice. I do not believe in taking up the time of the committee or the house in discussing individual cases, unless they strike me as being absolutely unjust. A few moments ago the minister said that the selection from the preventive service was based upon the records of the men. In one of the towns in my constituency there resides a young man who has been a member of the preventive force for the last three or four years. Perhaps before I go any further the minister could advise if access could be had to the records of this man?


Hugh Guthrie: I will have no objection to giving the record to my hon. friend, but I do not think I would like to state it in the committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall call and look at the record but I am very sure that there is nothing against this man. He is a fine type of preventive officer and is well spoken of where he lives and does his work. He has a wife and five children and has attended to his duties carefully and well since his appointment. In the same town resides another man who was appointed to the preventive force very recently and who has had no service ait all. I cannot tell the minister just how many days' service he has had, but it does not amount to anything. The first man finds himself let out while the second man has been taken into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In this case the selection could not have been made upon the service record. The first man belongs 
to the Liberal party while the second man belongs to the Conservative party and took an active part during the last elections. It is currently reported that this man has been appointed as a reward for the work he did during the elections. That is what the people in that town and I believe, and I am calling this instance to the attention of the minister because of the fact that the people in that part of Nova Scotia believe that for the first time in its history that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is recruiting its force on political consideration.


Hugh Guthrie: The case mentioned by
my hon. friend has never been brought to my notice. If he will give me the name I will have the record placed before him. I might say that I have never been consulted by the commissioner in regard to a single appointment. The commissioner is now in the gallery and I suggest to my hon. friend that he go and discuss this case with him.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would point out that the commissioner would not have anything to do with these appointments, it would be the Department of National Revenue.


Hugh Guthrie: The commissioner would be the man who would finally make the appointment. In response to a question asked the other day, I submitted a list of 49 names, but I have not been consulted about one name. My only information as to the method of selection is that it is made on the grounds of meritorious service in the department. The names were submitted to the commissioner by the department and if for any reason unknown to me he sees fit to reject any particular man he does so, but he does not refer to me.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is obvious from what I
have said that no blame attaches to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) or to the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the blame attaches to the person or persons in the Department of National Revenue who made the selection.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that there would be any blame as the record may disclose something.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will change that: the
blame, if any, would attach to the Department of National Revenue. Of course, the commissioner is limited to the list placed before him, which list does not embrace all the officers in the preventive service. I am challenging the making up of that list. I have other instances in mind, but I have

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
confined myself to this particular one. I have no objection to giving the name. The preventive officer who has the record of good service is Willard Wood, while the man who has only had a few days' service, and who could not have been taken in on the basis of service, is George Churchill. I am not saying that Churchill will not make a good officer, but so far there has been nothing to indicate whether or not he will. I have not had access to the files but I would be very much surprised if there is anything against the record of Wood. I think the same would be true of other preventive officers in the province of Nova Scotia who have been let out.


Mr. MOORE (Chateauguay-Huntingdon):: I think the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) is absolutely wrong in his inferences, and I base that statement upon the experience I have had in my constituency. I understand that the ratings of the men are based upon the reports of the divisional chiefs. The general record of this man Wood may have been good, while his rating for efficiency may have been poor. I think the divisional chiefs base their idea of a man's efficiency upon the number of seizures he has been able to make.


Peter John Veniot: Not at all.


John Clarke Moore: I have seen some of the records and I know
the men in my constituency.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a poor basis.


John Clarke Moore: There are eight preventive officers in my constituency, all Liberals with one exception. Although one man has a record of drunkenness, they are all being put on the force. I have seen seme of these reports and I know that one of the men who has been the longest in my constituency has the best record for efficiency, but it does not follow that he would be at the top of the list sent in to the commissioner. The divisional chief, for some reason or other-I have not been able to find out whait it was; but I know it is not a bona fide one-reported adversely. This man has been under my observation for some years and he has the worst rating of any. In my division there are a couple of men who have been bootlegging. They happen to be Liberals.


Mr. JACOBS:: Not all Liberals are bootleggers.	.


John Clarke Moore: No, I hope not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Clarke Moore: I have spoken because I really believe the hon. member for Hants-Kings is wrong in his inferences and interpretation.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: How does my hon. friend know?


John Clarke Moore: I know from observation.


Paul Mercier: It is a special case.


John Clarke Moore: Yes, but he mentioned several cases. I do not mean to say that things of this kind do not happen occasionally. I am sure they have happened quite frequently under the late government; we know they have, and of course they may happen under the present government. But to blame the service for sending in men with bad ratings because they happen to be Conservatives, is positively wrong. If they were placed in the service on that basis, some in my district would have been cleaned out, and they are all in the service.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would not have brought the matter up had it not been for the fact that the man, Churchill, has had practically no service at all. Therefore I do not see how he can be kept on unless the other man is also, as the latter has a good record.


Peter John Veniot: Will the money collected bj the preventive service or the mounted police be directed to the Department of Finance oi to the preventive service branch at Ottawa?


Hugh Guthrie: The money collected ir fines or penalties or seizures goes into the general funds of the country, less a commission that is allowed under our Excise Act, and I think in customs cases too, to the informer. That commission used to be 50 per cent; it is now reduced to 25 per cent, and the balance goes into the consolidated revenue fund.


Mr. YOUNG:: Is it true that the mounted police will not engage a married man?


Hugh Guthrie: Generally speaking, that is true. A certain percentage of married men is allowed on the establishment, and that percentage is generally filled to the limit. The regulations provide that for recruiting purposes only men between twenty-two and twenty-eight years of age, unmarried, are accepted, but there is at Ottawa a division of the mounted police known as "A" Division where the men are used not so much for police work as for the guarding of buildings and the like. In that division married men are

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
allowed. As a consequence, thie applicants for it are very numerous; there is a long waiting list, but for ordinary recruiting purposes the age is from twenty-two to twenty-eight, unmarried.


Mr. BROWN:: In the selection of men for the preventive force, will the fact of their being married or otherwise be taken into consideration?


Hugh Guthrie: I think that has been omitted in. the preventive force on account of the previous record of these men in the department.


Paul Mercier: If men marry while on the force, will they be dismissed?


Hugh Guthrie: They cannot, without obtaining permission, get married and remain on the force and they are not entitled to obtain that permission until they have been in the service for a considerable time, I think twelve years.


Edward James Young: I believe the object in making that regulation was to keep the force as mobile as possible. That was in the days of the purely mounted police when they were policing a vast, unsettled country, but now with the provincial police force taken over, most of the men will be permanently located in certain places. Will it not be possible now to alter that regulation to some extent?


Hugh Guthrie: The question of expense enters largely into the matter of a married establishment. A married man receives allowances for his wife and family and he has to have family quarters just as is the case in the army. It is more expensive to maintain a force where a large number of the men are married. There is, however, no permanent place of residence in connection with any of these forces; they may be moved around at the will of the commissioner, and when you come to move married men with their families, you have to pay the expense of moving which is very considerable.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Appointment of constables, trumpeters and buglers.
Ernest Lapointe: What is the purpose of appointing boys as trumpeters and buglers? I do not see the usefulness of trumpeters and buglers in a police force. I am afraid the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is right in saying that possibly the commissioner does not forget his former prominent activ-
ities as head of the Canadian militia. I quite understand the necessity of trumpeters and buglers in military camps, but in a police force-


Hugh Guthrie: I am afraid my hon.
friend has forgotten his own record as Minister of Justice in charge of this force.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think I ever appointed buglers.


Hugh Guthrie: I am sure the hon. member did.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not remember doing so.


Hugh Guthrie: He will find them in
Regina.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend may be
able to show where I have done this awful thing, but if I have, I am sorry for it, and I would advise my hon. friend not to follow my example because it is certainly wrong.


Hugh Guthrie: There have been buglers
and trumpeters in the force for many years, but they have grown old. The idea is if you take on a trumpeter or a bugler, you ought to take on a young man, as is done in the army. We have had a number of applications from lads of fifteen, sixteen or seventeen and we cannot accept them because the minimum age is twenty-two. It is the young lads who make the best kind of buglers and trumpeters. There is no idea of increasing the force; possibly one or two only will be taken on. There is no power, under the act as it stands at present, to recruit young lads.


Ernest Lapointe: The words in the clause are new. Were the present buglers and trumpeters appointed without authority?


Hugh Guthrie: No. They were recruited in the ordinary way; men from twenty-two and older were made into trumpeters and buglers, but this is to meet the case of young lads who desire to join as trumpeters and buglers.


Ernest Lapointe: But to what use are they put?


Hugh Guthrie: They have always had
them in the force. It must be remembered that the mounted police is trained on a military basis, more like a cavalry regiment and in such regiments trumpeters and buglers are looked upon as an ahsolute necessity.


Samuel William Jacobs: Not for the preventive part of the serviee, I hope; they will be notifying the smugglers.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Hugh Guthrie: That might be a good
thing. This is asking power to enlist only-one or two boys.


Ernest Lapointe: All right. As regards
subsection (4) I should like to know the reason for giving the commissioner authority for employing in emergency cooks, stenographers, tailors, interpreters and so forth? What kind of emergency would necessitate the appointment of cooks and tailors "for such periods as may be required"?


Hugh Guthrie: The object is to avoid swearing them in and making them permanent members of the force. In case of an emergency at some distant point we might have to equip an expedition to go almost up to the Arctic circle, and in such cases heretofore it has been the custom to take on special men. I think the note on page two explains the position. This provision is being inserted at the request of the commissioner to enable the police to take on such cooks and artisans as may be necessary for any particular work without enlisting them as members of the force, and it is provided that they shall not be entitled to anything in the way of pension unless they are recommended for special merit by the commissioner.


Ernest Lapointe: Subsection 6 of section 2, respecting the appointment of special constables without pay, seems to be an extraordinary provision. It provides that the commissioner may-*
-appoint without pay special constables . . . for a period not exceeding twelve months at any one time for the purpose of maintaining law and order at the request of any department of the government.
Surely an emergency that would last for twelve months would not be far from becoming a permanent situation, a chronic emergency. Is there not some danger in authorizing the commissioner to appoint men without pay for a period of time as long as twelve months, men who will have the rights and the privileges of a constable or police officer, with power to arrest without warning people who are suspected, as constables can do under certain sections of the criminal code without being liable to damage action, and with power to interfere generally with other people's activities? I do not know that under the section it would not even be possible to appoint the friends of one party as special constables to go into political meetings and interfere with what the other party was doing. There is some danger there. It is important to have a good, strong regular police force, but we should surround that force with respect 41761-164
and consideration. We should not give to people appointed at large, merely at the will of the commissioner, supposedly on the recommendation of somebody, power to interfere with other people and clothe them with all the authority of a constable or police officer. My hon. friends should give good reasons for the enacting of this very special provision.


Hugh Guthrie: The object is in case of an emergency in what you might call a more remote part of the Dominion of Canada, where sometimes large bodies of men are employed at mining and the like; where for some reason or another there maye be an outbreak against law and order, and where the police force may be very limited. The place might be so remote that it would take considerable time to get a respectable force of men sent there to preserve law and order. This merely gives power to swear in special constables.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does that mean that the management of the company is to be sworn in and given positions as special constables?	.


Hugh Guthrie: It does not mean that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Who is likely to be sworn in?


Hugh Guthrie: It is permitted only on
request of a department of the government, and only under the administration of a very competent officer, the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. There is no idea or intention of abusing any power that may be given to this force. Of course, you may abuse almost any law, particularly any restrictive lavs', that you place on the statute books. But the object is not to abuse the law, but simply to see that it is fairly and generally administered. This is power to appoint constables for a limited time, at the request of a department of the government, if an emergency should arise. It is on the advice of the commissioner that this clause has been introduced. He thinks it may be useful. We are all aware that in British Columbia at the present moment a situation which may become serious has developed in the Doukhobor settlement, where some one or two hundred have already been apprehended in connection with nude parades, with respect to which we passed a special section of the criminal code last session. There are some fifteen hundred Doukhobors in the district, and a very limited police force available to maintain law and order. We do not maintain a police force in that province, but we cooperate with the local force. We have



Royal Canadian Mounted Police
no power at the present time to take on any special constables in case an emergency might develop. I do not say that it is likely to develop at the present moment, but it might, and in that case it would be very useful if we were able to swear in a few special constables for the purpose of maintaining law and order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think we all
recognize the danger of company police. I have seen company police in many industrial sections of the United States. I recall very well that when the former administration was in office the then Minister of the Interior wrote a document saying that lie held the company in the particular area concerned responsible for the administration of law and order. It is a dangerous provision.


Hugh Guthrie: This is to take it away from the company and put it in the hands of the police.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But under this section the police might nopiinate some company official and give him authority which would be arbitrarily used.


Hugh Guthrie: That is a very remote
contingency, I think.


Peter Heenan: I would ask this question
for information. Suppose the commissioner wishes to increase the police force at some remote point by appointing special constables without pay, aDd he cannot get anyone to join the force; has he the right to compel them to be sworn in as special constables?


Hugh Guthrie: None whatever.


James Shaver Woodsworth: One other point.
The minister speaks of this provision being necessary for remote districts. May I ask him very definitely what the object is in having in Regina a group of men known as the Riot Squad, who were signed up for duty lasting one year, and whose services may be dispensed with on summary notice? I should like to quote a few paragraphs from an article which appeared in the Regina Daily Star of January 28,	1932, entitled, '"Special Riot
'Squad' Training in Regina for 'Just in Case'." The article says:
R.C.M.P. unit formed as aftermath of disturbances.
Something new in Royal Canadian Mounted Police work and an outcome of disturbances throughout the country last fall, a "riot squad," composed of men enlisted for a special period of training lasting one year is in the making at Regina headquarters,	.
One of the principal features of his special course of training is the attention given to

drill with rifles and firearms. Particular stress is laid on bayonet drill, the members of the squad receiving t,wo periods of such drill daily.
When asked the reason for the creation of this squad, Assistant Commissioner, J. W. Spalding stated that it was "just in case . . . ," and admitted it was formed as the outcome of the riots which flared at different points in Canada attributed to communists.
Bayonet drill, the assistant commissioner further stated, was now, and had been since August, a part of the regular drill of all recruits. There have been more than 250 recruits taken on "the force" since August. Of these, there are some 100 now in training at the barracks. Regina is still the training headquarters for all Canada though something in the nature of a sub-training depot has been opened at Vancouver recently.
A group of 20 picked men, more advanced recruits, is now undergoing special training before being sent to Lethbridge where they will be stationed or sent out on detachments as-replacements. Every one of these must he particularly efficient in bayonet drill.
The Star learned unofficially that a number of the men in the Lethbridge bound unit are also members of the "riot squad."
The usual terms of service in the mounted is from three to five years. Those men who have signed up for the "riot squad" however, are only signed up for duty lasting one year, and their services may be dispensed with on summary notice.
I should like to ask the minister to explain. the existence of this peculiar class of men whose enlistment is for only one year. What contingencies are contemplated which would make this kind of control necessary?


Hugh Guthrie: I think my hon. friend
takes too seriously what he reads in the newspapers. The commissioner informs me there is no such thing as a riot squad.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have been trying for some weeks to obtain information inregard to this matter, and so far have failed; hence my bringing it up.


Hugh Guthrie: If my hon. friend had.
asked me any day I could have told him.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
On section 12-Time on active service in great war included for pension purposes. Time in civil service and customs-excise preventive service.
Alfred Edgar MacLean: I should like to know if
provision will be made for those men in the preventive service who have been let out. They have paid money into the superannuation fund; will it be returned to them?


Hugh Guthrie: I understand an arrangement is being made, but that is really a.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
matter within the control of the Department of National Revenue. My understanding is that they will receive what stands to their credit in the fund.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: So far as the province
of Prince Edward Island is concerned, quite a number of men in the preventive force will not be transferred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The chief of the preventive service, Mr. George Barbour, is being let out with a number of others. They have contributed to the superannuation fund for a number of years, and it would be most unfair to them and to other men in similar positions throughout Canada if the money was not returned.


Hugh Guthrie: There will be no injustice done; that has been arranged.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 13 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Govenor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate,
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the Patent Act.
An Act to amend the Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act.
An Act respecting debts due to the Crown.
An Act to amend The Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1929.
An Act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting certain patents of Autographic Register Systems, Limited.
An Act for the relief of Eva Corker Trill.
An Act for the relief of George Senkler Morgan.
An Act for the relief of Agnes May Jack Evans.
An Act for the relief of Mabel Constance Small Cossar.
An Act for the relief of Olive Pearl Beattie Watkins.
An Act for the relief of Assad Kalil Eddy, otherwise known as Joseph Canille.
41761-X64J
An Act for the relief of Georgina Linda Mclndoe Howard.
An Act for the relief of Antonio Poliseno.
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Gertrude Sileock Wilson.
An Act for the relief of Beulah Isobel Phillips Eakin.
An Act for the relief of George Seymour Dixon.
An Act for the relief of Audrey Meredith Mann Redpath.
An Act for the relief of Ethel Seigler Nissenson.
An Act to amend the Destructive Insect and Pest Act.
An Act to incorporate Lake of the Woods International Bridge Company.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 28, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution-Mr. Gordon-Mr. Quinn in the chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the governor in council to enter into agreements with all or any of the provinces respecting relief measures in such province or provinces; and to pay out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as in his discretion may be required to meet the obligations created by such agreements; to provide for special requirements in the national parks and in the drought stricken areas of the province of Saskatchewan; to assist in defraying the cost of the sale and distribution of products of field, farm, sea. river and mine; to loan money to any province on such terms as may be agreed upon and to guarantee the repayment of moneys borrowed by such province and to assist any province in any way that may be deemed necessary or advisable to provide for the relief of distress and the support and maintenance of those requiring assistance, and to loan money to and guarantee the payment of money by any public corporation or undertaking.
Peter Heenan: Is it the intention of the government to discontinue work on the highways through northern Ontario? Is there any understanding with the Ontario government in that regard?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The highways through northern Ontario are built under what is known as the northern development branch of the province of Ontario, and money has also been spent in the past and is still being spent on what is known as the trans-Canada highway. As regards the work on the provincial roads, I have no other information than that which is probably common to all of us. I have no doubt that the provincial works there will be carried on as formerly. With respect to the trans-Canada highway, I think that the work there will be carried on this summer, and it will be
2604	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
subject to the terms of the agreement that will be entered into with the province if this resolution and the bill to be founded upon it pass the house.


Peter Heenan: We started to connect up through northern Ontario various stretches of highway that had been constructed, and we established camps for that purpose. Very many of the existing pieces of highways we did not connect up. I have news from New Ontario to the effect that some of the camps have been carried on the basis of fifty-fifty between Ontario and the federal government. It is with regard to that part that I should like information. Is it the intention to carry on, or has it been definitely decided by the Ontario government to close them down in part this summer?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Many of the camps that were continued throughout the winter have undoubtedly lost some of their population by reason of the men having obtained work elsewhere. So far as I know the work will be carried on this summer. The exact terms of the arrangement between this government and the province will be the subject matter of the agreement to which I have referred.


Peter Heenan: Newspaper items, the Minister of Justice told the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, should not be taken very seriously; but from reports we have, the Ontario government contemplates leaving it optional; that is to say, men who desire to go into these camps to be taken care of will obtain work at five dollars a month in addition to their board. I trust that the minister does not intend to be a party to any such arrangement. The Prime Minister said the other day, as he has frequently said, that the highways are an asset to the country. He said that they were one of the greatest factors in stabilizing what he termed the invisible balance of trade. Large numbers of tourists are coming into this country and therefore the highways are, as he says, an asset, so that this is not merely work that is gone on with for the purpose of providing employment for men. There are now many disjointed pieces of highway that could be linked, up very profitably during the summer. For instance, in the riding I have the honour to represent, it would take only twenty-six more miles to connect up a point called Ignace with the town of Dyment to the west. This would give the people almost one hundred miles of highway, and it is only just to the inhabitants of that country that the work should be proceeded with. Then we have a stretch of highway that has been under construction for a

number of years connecting the Canadian National on the north, that is, the old Grand Trunk Pacific, with the Canadian Pacific Railway at Dinorwic. This piece of highway is forty-five miles and a stretch of twenty-nine miles more is required. That is all that is needed to complete that highway. Surely the Ontario government and this government, now that it has undertaken the obligation of contributing to that type of work, especially when such work would be highly profitable, will not discontinue operations. Then there is the highway from Kenora to Rainy River which connects two districts, one on the north side of the lake of the Woods and the other on the south side. About sixty miles of highway would give connections to over 30,000 square miles, and this would be a worth while undertaking. The Minister of Lands and Forests of Ontario is reported in the press as having announced that he is willing to allow any of the unemployed who are desirous to go up to the camps to work eight hours a day and be paid $5 a month with board. Surely the minister must acknowledge that good work could not be expected from men working under those conditions. Is this linking up of the different provincial highways to constitute the trans-Canada highway which the Prime Minister announced that he would have completed if elected, or does he intend to build another highway separate and distinct from the provincial highways?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Where is the road located to which my hon. friend refers?


Peter Heenan: The Prime Minister is reported in the London Free Press of June 25 as having made the following announcement at Cobourg on June 24:
A national highway for Canadians. A highway in Canada not through some other country. A highway on which you can leave Cape Breton and arrive in Vancouver without going into a foreign land. Mr. Bennett declared the undertaking must be accomplished by the hands of the federal government.
Is this linking up of the provincial highways to constitute the trans-Canada highway announced at Cobourg by the Prime Minister, or does he intend to construct a national highway out of the federal exchequer?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not gone into the
matter with the Prime Minister. I consider that to make use of portions of standard highways already constructed is a very commendable course to follow. I do not think that the location of what will be called the trans-Canada highway has been declared in certain sections of northern Ontario, or if it has been, I have no knowledge of it. I understand that

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
a portion of it has been declared by the province of Ontario, moneys have been expended and the work is proceeding to completion. There is no doubt in my mind that work on roads in northern. Ontario will be continued as the exchequer of the province will permit. The resolution before the committee contemplates advances being made to the provinces for general relief. If any of the provinces present plans to which we are called upon to subscribe, then we will inquire to see, in so far as we are charged with that responsibility, that the money is expended in such a way as to give the greatest possible relief to the greatest number.


Peter Heenan: I agree that relief must
be granted, but an opportunity is presented which, if taken advantage of, will prove to be an asset to the country. I do not think these highways can be built under the plans suggested by the Ontario Minister of Lands and Forests. It would have been better for the country and better for the unemployed had this work been commenced last summer and continued through last winter and the coming summer and fall. The men would have been able to work in greater comfort, and the country would have derived a greater benefit. The Minister of Justice has told us not to take press reports too seriously, and I shall not do so when considering the reported announcement of the provincial minister. The Minister of Labour, who has some knowledge of conditions in northern Ontario, must realize that it is not proper or profitable to commence building highways in the middle of winter and then shut down for the summer time. I hope he will take this matter into consideration, because the Prime Minister said he was looking for suggestions before framing the bill so that it could be framed in accordance with the expressed wish of hon. members. I hope the Prime Minister will see that these different pieces of highway now constructed will be linked up to provide continuous communication in northern Ontario.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I should like to support the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) in his plea for the continuance of work on highways already commenced. I do not intend to deal with any specific highway or discuss a route for the trans-Canada highway, or anything of that character. I know something of the work which has been started, and I know something of what has been accomplished. There are large sections of highway in northern Ontario which I take for granted will be incorporated into the trans-Canada highway when it is
finally put through. Camps have been constructed, equipment has been purchased, large amounts have been expended, and this highway work could be continued to provide relief for the unemployed. However, I disagree with my hon. friend when he states that the country did not get a return for the money expended. I know that there was much accomplished during the winter months and without any suffering on the part of the men engaged in the work. It is not an uncommon thing for men in northern Ontario to be working out in the woods, on highways or elsewhere during the winter; they are accustomed to that kind of work. It is just like carrying on railroad construction work during the winter. The men had comfortable camps, good beds and food, and everything that was required. The camps are still there, and I urge as strongly as possible that the unemployed be allowed to carry on at least with the work already commenced. I cannot conceive of any other way by which greater relief would be provided. I agree with my hon. friend in his comments on the newspaper report about putting men in the camps at five dollars per month with board. It would be not only an absurd, but a dangerous thing to do. If you attempted to put a number of men into those camps at five dollars a month, you would receive no return in the way of work. It is amazing the spirit that the workingmen in that section of the country have displayed all through the recent trying period; they are ready to carry on under relief conditions, and wherever that situation exists we should give work instead of direct relief. It is work the men want, if it is possible to provide it and at the same time perform a useful service. I agree fully with what my hon. friend has said; I know of no contribution we can make to the development of this country that will give a greater return than the construction of highways that induce tourists to traverse all parts of Canada that can be opened up for them.


Jean-François Pouliot: I agree with some parts
of what the hon. member for East Algoma has said. It is better to give work to the unemployed than to give them direct relief. As to that we are in accord, and we are also in accord that it is a good thing to provide work for the unemployed in northern Ontario. I do not blame the minister for the child left on his doorstep by his predecessor, but the building of a trans-Canada highway was one of those silly promises made during the last election. It is absurd because that highway is competing with our railways. On the one
2606	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
hand the government say we have too many railways east to west, and on the other they are building a highway. It is the most absurd proposition of which I have ever heard. Perhaps the Prime Minister has read the Commentaries of Julius Caesar, that great Roman who built roads in the time of the Roman Empire, but he built roads in those sections of Roman colonies that could be colonized, not among rocks. This trans-Canada highway is to be built on the north shore of lake Superior amongst rocks for hundreds of miles, and that is absurd; but I have no objection to a highway being built in the settled district of my hon. friend.


George Brecken Nicholson: I wonder whether my hon. friend knows anything about northern Ontario?


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not judge northern
Ontario by my hon. friend, and this is a great compliment to northern Ontario. By the way, my hon. friend who lives there cannot deny the fact that most of that $1,875,000 has been spent to mine rocks. The scenery may be fine; St. John was on the island of Patmos, which was a rock, but it does not attract many tourists. Many tourists are not attracted by rocks except when they cross the Canadian Rockies, and they do not stay long there. I do not want my words to be misconstrued; I do not want the unemployed of my hon. friend's constituency not to have work-that is not my view at all. But it is foolish to hear members on the government side, and especially the hon. member for Stanstead, say that we have too many railways, that we must cut down expenses, that certain economies are now being effected, while we are building a trans-Canada highway which will enable motor cars to compete with the railways. This is what I do not understand. I am ready to vote money for the relief of the unemployed in northern Ontario. Let them have work; let the government build roads where there are settlers, but I do not understand why roads should be built a distance of seven hundred miles where there are only rocks and no people except a few miners. Such a scheme cannot be accepted by any man with brains.
Which province enjoys the boon of the trans-Canada highway promised by a man who has great visions? The Prime Minister of Canada should build pyramids bigger than those of Egypt. Perhaps what he had in view was having the unemployed breaking the stone and doing other work of that sort. It would be just as well for the unemployed to break stone for buildings that might be con-
structed twenty years hence as to build a trans-Canada highway which will compete with our railways and give us no return. What did Prince Edward Island, which is a great province, get from this highway? Nothing. What did Nova Scotia, another great province, get from that scheme? Nothing. What did New Brunswick get? Not very much-$60,376.66. Grafters there made more money than that by the sale of potatoes during the war. What did the great province of Quebec receive from that highway scheme? Nothing. But Ontario got $1,875,000 out of a total of $2,547,169.32 for mining rocks.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Too much.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not say it is too
much if a useful purpose is served.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Why did they not give
as much to the other provinces?


Jean-François Pouliot: Because there are not so
many rocks in the other provinces as in the section north of lake Superior. Manitoba, that great province, got only $251,934.99. Saskatchewan, that great province which has representatives on both sides, some of them naturally very much better than others, got nothing. Alberta, another province which is very well represented in all parts of the house, got $102,429.75. British Columbia, that province of the Canadian Rockies where a highway has already been built, got $257,427.92. This is out of a total of $2,547,169.32. Ontario got by far the biggest proportion. I do not complain of the fact that Ontario received a great deal of money. Ontario, being a great taxpayer, as are all the other provinces, should get her share of public works that are decided upon by the government; each province should be treated according to its population and the income derived from it. I have no complaint that Ontario gets the largest share.
I should not like the hon. member for East Algoma to say: Here is a French Canadian from Quebec saying that Ontario gets * too much from the federal treasury. That is not what I am saying at all. Every province should be treated fairly. If that highway would serve a useful purpose, I would say: Give Ontario twice as much; it will mean something; it will not be simply a kind of smoke screen to cover up the unemployment question. But my view is this: I am sure the unemployed are not all masons who can cut stone; they are not all miners. There are in Ontario many unemployed who have been commercial traveller's, railway employees, men in every walk of life. Those people should

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
be helped. I have said what I think of that absurd scheme of the trans-Canada highway. It serves no useful purpose, and if it was not intended to compete with the railways and drag something out of their present small earnings, it must certainly have that effect.
The session is about to close, Mr. Chairman, and I think before we prorogue we should have some information as to the number of unemployed in this country. I would ask the government to make an inventory and classification of the unemployed. That is essential for my hon. friend from East Algoma as well as for members from Ontario, Quebec, the west and the maritime provinces, if we are to decide anything intelligently about the unemployment situation. The measure before us is a measure for tihe relief of the unemployment situation. Several times this session I have urged upon the government the importance of making an inventory or classification of the unemployed, giving the story of each. It requires courage to do that, but if it is done the government may rest assured that I for one, so far from criticizing them for doing that work, will congratulate every member of the government. This work should have been done in August, 1930. In August, 1930, there was a sub-committee studying the unemployment problem, and that committee made certain recommendations, some of which were followed and others not. I think it was an excellent idea to have the leaders of industry and of labour meeting together in that way, to try to ascertain the source of the trouble with a view to seeing if it could not be remedied. To-day we do not know the number of unemployed in this country. We do not know how many clerks are idle, how many labourers, how many tradesmen, how many commercial travellers, how many railway employees, how many farm workers, and so forth, and until the whole story is known in detail how can the government with a plaster of subsidies cure the situation. Without such information it is impossible for the government to do so, because it does not know what is the source of the trouble. I am not making these remarks, Mr. Chairman, in any petty, partisan spirit. I am afraid of the future if the government has not the courage to do now what it should have done two years ago; in fact, to continue the work which it stopped in August, 1930. The government should not be afraid to go down to the root of the social evil in order to ascertain the real causes of the problem of unemployment, and if possible find a cure. May I ask the minister if he will be kind enough to consider that suggestion and to continue the work which was being done in August or September, 1930, by the sub-committee which studied the unemployment situation? I would also ask if the government is ready and willing to make a thorough inventory or classification of the unemployed in this country, with the story of each, with a view to finding a remedy for the trouble.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I notice that in the resolution special reference is made to the drought stricken areas of the province of Saskatchewan, and I was wondering if the minister for the sake of fairness, and certainly for the sake of uniformity, had any plan in mind by which adjacent districts similarly situated would be treated in somewhat the same way. The Saskatchewan relief commission has very special privileges, but its jurisdiction stops at the boundaries of the province. Now, just beyond the boundary, farmers are living who have lost three successive crops and who are just as badly off as those farmers in the drought-stricken districts of Saskatchewan which come under the administration of the commission. The situation is causing a good deal of comment, and there does seem to be some discrimination. In the area over which the Saskatchewan commission presides the farmers are given orders on merchants for the supply of certain goods. In other districts the method of getting relief is much more complicated, much slower, and more uncertain. In these other districts the farmers have to get in touch with the police force, and after considerable delay a police officer goes out and makes investigation, and in many cases he does not seem to be very sympathetic to the farmer. Application has also to be made to the Red Cross, and altogether the situation of the farmers beyond the boundaries of Saskatchewan is very much worse than that of their neighbours who happen to be in the drought-stricken area of Saskatchewan. I wished to bring these facts to the attention of the minister because they are certainly causing a lot of discussion in those districts.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In Saskatchewan the commission to which my hon. friend has made reference was set up by the province. That is peculiarly the duty of the province. While there is bound to be some criticism, I believe from all the reports I have received that the commission in Saskatchewan has carried on its work in a highly commendable manner. While I am not casting any doubt on the accuracy of my hon. friend's information, I must say
2608	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
that no such representations were made by the premier of the province of Alberta, of which province I presume my hon. friend was speaking. Undoubtedly throughout Canada there are and will be isolated areas which have suffered and will continue to suffer by reason of climatic conditions and misadventures that affect the productiveness of the soil, but I do not think the hon. member will disagree with me when I say that the situation in that portion of Saskatchewan to which reference has been made was a tragedy in the history of that province and in the history of this country. Special attention was given to it for that reason. I can only repeat there has not been any submission made by the premier of Alberta, so far as I am aware, which would suggest the setting up of a commission. Of course if the province considered such an organization necessary it would be their duty to take the necessary steps. In discussing all these matters we must, and I am sure we do, try to keep before us the fact that there is a limit to the extent to which the provinces, municipalities or the dominion can go.
I do not wish to review the ground I covered a few days ago when this resolution was before the house. I should like to add however that in the various interviews I have had with representatives from the provinces, and particularly at the conference held on April 8 and 9, the burden that was being cast upon the municipalities, the provinces and this government was very freely and frankly discussed. I can assure hon. members that the people upon whom this great burden rests are those who are fortunate enough to have some means or some work to do, and who give spontaneously from their own funds, as many of them do. If there is need for a commission such as suggested by the hon. member I will communicate with the premier of the province of Alberta. I do not want to take it upon myself to suggest to him the method and manner of instituting proceedings to take care of matters within his own province. I do not think hon. members opposite would ask me to do that. If however a condition exists which causes the hon. member anxiety, a condition which is not being cared for, and if the hon. member will communicate with the Premier of Alberta, I have no doubt his suggestion will be given due consideration.
At six o clock the Speaker resumed the S'hair and the housG took tgcgss.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Reid for the second reading of Bill No. 44, to amend the Railway Act.
Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo):: I should like to make a few observations in regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) in the bill now before the house. In the first place I wish it to be understood that I have a good deal of sympathy for the object the hon. member has in view, that is, the reduction of the differential between export rates and domestic rates as far as western grain and flour are concerned, but I submit that this bill will not achieve the purpose he has in mind. I believe it will make matters a good deal worse than they are at present; it will make confusion worse confounded, if I have correctly interpreted the sections of the act which it is proposed to amend.
This bill contains two sections only. It is proposed to amend section 320 of the Railway Act by striking out the words "in the interests of the public," and inserting in lieu thereof the words "national interest, both producing and consuming." I find that the words "in the interests of the public" have been in the Railway Act since 1919, when the act was first introduced in the house, and since then certain practices have grown up with reference to the interpretation of those words. I have before me a memorandum of the Board of Railway Commissioners defining the interpretation which has been placed on those words by the board, and before proceeding I should like to read that definition:
The present wording, by judicial construction, has come to mean "the public of -the locality or district affected, and that any considerable portion of the population in general as opposed to an individual, or association of individuals, will satisfy the description"; "the controlling power or effective competition on particular rates"; "the legitimate desire of the railway company to secure the traffic is not only to be considered, but also whether it is in the interests of the public that -they should secure it, or abandon it, or not attempt to secure it. One class of cases intended to be covered is where traffic from a distance is charged low rates, because unless such low rates are charged it will not come into the market at all"; "the fact that a trader has access to a competing
IMr. Gordon.]

Railway Act
route for the carriage of his goods may be taken into consideration by the board in deciding whether lower tolls, or rates, charged to such trader constitutes an undue preference."
I must say that it is difficult for me to understand just what is meant by the proposed amendment. I submit that the change may have a more restricted application than the present wording. In addition I wish to point out that under section 320 the tolls referred to are not tolls prescribed by the Board of Railway Commissioners but tolls initiated by the railway companies under the provisions of sections 331 and 332 of the act, which my hon. friend might peruse if he is not familiar with them. Section 328 states:
The tariffs of tolls which the company shall be authoribed to issue under this act for the carriage of goods between points on the railway shall be divided into three classes,
(a)	the standard freight tariff;
(b)	special freight tariffs; and
(c)	competitive tariffs.
Those are the tariffs which the railway companies may initiate in order to attract business to their systems; they are not tolls which have been prescribed by the raiway board. Where tolls are prescribed or directed by the board, full consideration is given to the avoidance of unjust discrimination or undue preference ; that is a prerequisite to their direction. They must be fully considered from every angle, not only from the point of view of the railway companies themselves but also from that of the shippers, the consumers and the producing public.
The hon. gentleman also proposes to add subsection (2) to section 320, as follows:
The board may consider the question of what should be reasonable compensation under the circumstances, and may establish a rate structure in the interests of trade development and public policy, though such experimental rates may not at the time or of themselves give reasonable compensation to the railway companies.
I understand that the hon. member has two objactives in view; first, that the board may consider the question of what shall be reasonable compensation under the circumstances, and second, that the board may establish a rate structure in the interests of trade development and public policy, though such experimental rates may not at the time or of themselves give reasonable compensation to the railway companies. I submit that the meaning of the first part of this amendment is not very clear. It can hardly relate to subsection 1 of this section, because if the board found as a fact that a lower toll was necessary for the purpose of securing traffic, then obviously such lower toll would be reasonable
compensation under the circumstances. Therefore I fail to see how it can refer to the first part of this section. Nor does it seem to relate to the latter part, because if the board established a rate structure in the interests of trade development and public policy, though such rates might not at the time or of themselves give reasonable compensation, what would be the object of the board at the same time giving consideration to what would be reasonable compensation? There would be no object in it at all, as far as I can see.
With regard to the second point, the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) has already declared that at the present time the government cannot accept that suggestion. As I understand the declaration of the minister, parliament is the proper place to decide matters of that kind. Just here I might add that if hon. members will look up the freight rate discussion of 1925 they will find that on all sides of the house it was admitted that the proper tribunal to deal with such a complicated question as the freight rate structure of this country was the railway board, and not parliament. It is also difficult to determine how far a rate structure of the character described should be carried. If hon. gentlemen will recall the discussion which took place in this house a short time ago in connection with western freight rates they will remember that certain commodities were referred to as coming within this definition. To any of these commodities might be applied the amendment which my hon. friend offers for the improvement of the situation in British Columbia: gasoline; products of British Columbia moving into the prairies; cordwood, and domestic rates generally in Quebec; live stock; potatoes and hay. It is also conceivable that the rates on coal from Alberta and the maritimes moving to central Canada would come in for consideration under the proposed amendment. You can therefore see the far-reaching effect which the hon. gentleman's amendment would have.
The Board of Railway Commissioners, under the general supervision of the Railway Act, to which no amendment is proposed, must fix and determine rates which will be just and reasonable, and this means reasonable not only for the railways but as well to shippers, producers, consumers and all classes in the dominion. If the board established experimental rates which would, on the traffic concerned, give reasonable compensation to the railway companies, should the board then arbitrarily impose an increase in rates on some of the traffic of the railways to make up the loss of revenue to the railways in consequence
Railway Act

of such experimental rates? Would this be practicable or reasonable? Would it be reasonable to shift the compensation of the railways from one commodity to another, and would it improve the situation in the long run, even supposing such changes were made? Moreover, I submit that it would subject the railways to serious losses of revenue.
With respect to the proposed amendment to subsection 5 of section 325 to provide statutory rates on grain and flour moving from the prairie provinces to Pacific points, the present rates are prescribed and approved by the board. This matter has been adjudicated. We have had it under discussion before and we know that the rates at present in force are those which have been submitted to the board, fully examined and carefully inquired into, and they are rates which the board have considered fair and reasonable to all parties. Should this amendment be carried, the differential between the export and domestic rates might be lessened but it might lead to an increase in the export rate, or it might make the domestic rate and the export rate the same. In addition to that, it would result in a reduction in the present export rates to Vancouver, published by the Canadian Pacific Railway, which in turn would necessarily reduce the rates of the Canadian National Railways. I would refer my hon. friend to the board's judgment in the general freight rates investigation, volume 17 of the board's judgments and orders, for full information in this regard. There the hon. gentleman will find the judgment of the board given with respect to the western freight rates question.
The proposed amendment, I submit, would result in heavy reductions in the earnings of both the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways. Rates therein provided from prairie points to Pacific coast points should apply on and after June 27, 1925. It is difficult to determine by just what amount the revenues of the two railways might be reduced if the amendment were to go into effect, but I am given to understand that so far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned, it might lead to a reduction in revenue of $500,000 per annum. As this amendment is supposed to be retroactive to the 27th of June, 1925, that would mean that the Canadian National Railways would have to refund some $3,500,000, and I am certainly of the opinion that the Canadian Pacific Railway would have to refund a much greater sum; so that in connection with these two railways it would amount to $8,000,000 or $10,000,000. I submit that at a time like this, when all railways are suffering from declining 
revenues, and when their revenues are still on the downgrade, this is a very inopportune moment for my hon. friend to offer an amendment such as this. There is some reason in the argument he advances that the differential between the export and import rates should be reduced, but I submit in all earnestness that this is neither the time nor the proper method of applying the remedy he seeks. I shall have to vote against the proposed bill.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member speaks he will close the debate.


Thomas Reid: I do not wish to take up the time of the house going into details in answer to the remarks of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser).


Robert James Manion: I rise to a point of order. I have no objection to my hon. friend speaking, but has he the right to speak a second time on the bill?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It has been the practice
in this house to allow the member moving the second reading of a bill the right to reply.


Thomas Reid: Regarding the first two proposals in the bill, I may say briefly, in reply to my hon. friend from Cariboo, that these two were incorporated in it in view of the report of the Duncan commission. If I read from the report I think the point will be explained more fully and clearly than possibly I could state it myself:
At present the work of the railway commission is circumscribed within the two considerations, viz:-
(a)	Reasonable compensation to the carrying company, and
(b)	No unfair preference or unjust discrimination as between traders.
Section 320 of the Railway Act seems to give the wider powers that we have in mind to the railway commission, so far as the question of undue preference or unjust discrimination may be involved:-
"320. In deciding whether a lower tell, or difference in treatment, does or does not amount to an undue preference or an unjust discrimination, the board may consider whether such lower toll, or difference in treatment is necessary for the purpose of securing, in the interests of the public the traffic in respect of which it is made, and whether such object cannot be attained without unduly reducing the higher toll."
That is how the act reads at present, and the Duncan commission, referring thereto, say:
Even there we feel that, if the intention was to have larger national interests in rnind, the section should be made clearer, and instead of the words "in the interests of the public"

(which might be interpreted as in the interests of the 'consuming' public), the words should clearly state that it is national interests (both 'producing' and 'consuming') that are in mind. If this was not the original intention of the section, we suggest it is the intention which should now be imported into it. We feel further that a similar extension of authority should be imparted to the railway board in regard to the question of reasonable compensation. It would then be competent for the railway board to make a survey of just the very character that the president of the Canadian National Railways testified as being part of his function (as the business head of a railway); and if from public policy they felt that an experimental rate should be conceded, they should be free to constitute the rate, even although it might not, at the time, or of itself, give reasonable compensation to the railway company.
It was with that end in view that I had the bill so drafted as to give to the Board of Railway Commissioners, as suggested here, these powers which I think it very desirable that they should have. I do not intend to go again into the various phases of the act; that is scarcely necessary because it has been explained many times.
Now, I am not making an appeal on sympathetic grounds. With the exception of a few years, the Crowsnest pass agreement had been in effect until 1925, when it was amended This was brought about by a decision of the supreme court which ruled that the Crowsnest rate applied only to the points in existence when the agreement was made and only within the territory which was then within the scope of the agreement of 1897. It is just ns well to remember that the Crowsnest rate was intended to give the prairies protection on freight, and especially grain, as there was no water competition as existed in eastern portions of Canada. The decision of the supreme court would have brought about a chaotic condition in railway rates which would have resulted in one station getting the Crowsnest rate while the next station would get some other rate, and in order to overcome this difficulty the government of the day in 1925, introduced the amendments which are now a part of the Railway Act. The amendments of 1925 gave to all towns on the prairies the benefit of the Crowsnest rates on grain and flour, but they took away the Crowsnest commodity rates which had been in effect from points included in the 1897 agreement. At the time the amendments were under discussion the information was given that the prairie provinces were gaining as well as losing something, but it must be remembered that the railways gained something through the wiping out of the Crowsnest rates on commodities.
Railway Act
British Columbia did not come under the provisions of the new amendments, as I contend it should have. Grain does not change to something else simply because it goes west instead of east. At that time it was thought that the Board of Railway Commissioners would have the power to adjust rates and prevent discrimination, but we have since learned to our sorrow and loss that such is not the case. The decision of the supreme court and decisions of the board itself have since demonstrated clearly that the board has not the power to do this.
The interest of the prairie provinces is identical with the interest of British Columbia. It is to their interest that grain should go west as cheaply as it does east, especially as British Columbia is providing a market for the cheaper grades of wheat. One of the chief reasons which prompted me to introduce this bill, the result of a long study of the whole matter, is the realization that British Columbia, in my opinion, will never obtain a reduction in the freight rates on grain and flour by an appeal to the Board of Railway Commissioners. The decision of the supreme court precludes the possibility of using the Crowsnest pass rates to Fort William as a basis for argument. It seems to me that we in British Columbia are simply wasting our time, energy and money by appealing to the board, and it is time this parliament recognized that fact. According to the ruling of the board, the Crowsnest rates on grain and flour going east to Fort William are no argument as to discrimination and cannot be used as an argument for discrimination because of the decision given by the supreme court. Canadian Pacific Railway officials have also sworn that no one can tell the exact cost of hauling any one commodity.
Another important fact to be remembered is that grain is just grain when going to Fort William, but when going west it becomes either domestic grain or export grain. The domestic rate to British Columbia is higher than the export rate-almost twice as high-and this is against all railway precedents. The cheaper and inferior article shipped to our province is paying a higher freight rate than the better quality of grain which is exported.
I am somewhat disappointed in the attitude taken by the house, and I am especially disappointed in the attitude taken by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber). The hon. member rose in his place the other evening and said he could not support this measure because in the first place the bill was not before him. As a matter of fact the
Railway Act

bill was introduced on April 12; it was called for first reading on April 15 and had come up for second reading on April 22 when the hon. member spoke and said he had not the bill before him. What is in the bill that requires such a lot of interpretation? The second clause is so simple that any backwoods man could understand its meaning. It reads in part:
-and to all such traffic moving westwardly from Fort William and from aill points on all lines of railway west of Fort William, to Vancouver, British Columbia and to ports on the Pacific coast.
Surely it would not take a great deal of time to discover that all we are asking for is the same freight rates to British Columbia on domestic grain as are paid by the people in the east on grain from the prairie provinces to Fort William, Quebec, Montreal or Nova Scotia.
I repeat that I am disappointed in the attitude taken by hon. members, especially those from British Columbia. I can recall their advocating such a measure in the past, but it seems that when the test comes they do not feel like coming through. The hon. member for Fraser Valley comes from a poultry district, and he knows that the people in British Columbia have been clamouring for this relief for years. Perhaps he was too busy delving back to the year 1925 to find out what was said in those days, but I am more interested in the conditions applying to-day and which will apply in the future. I introduced this bill because I believed that this was the time to show that we really wanted what we were asking for. Because of the decision of the supreme court I do not believe that British Columbia will be able to get any satisfaction from the Board of Railway Commissioners. I commend the bill to the house.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Edward James Young: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Peter John Veniot: I was paired with the hon member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
Mr. ST-PERE: I was paired with the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BOWEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BLAIR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GEARY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. COWAN (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay):: I was paired with the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. DUPUIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McDade). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MUNN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HURTUBISE:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cot-nam). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. RHEAUME:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge, Mr. Barrette). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. FERLAND:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dupre). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for York North (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution- Mr. Gordon-Mr. Stirling in the chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the governor in council to enter into agreements with all or any of the provinces respecting relief measures in such province or provinces; and to pay out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as in his discretion may be required to meet the obligations created by such agreements; to provide for special requirements in the national parks and in the drought stricken areas of the province of Saskatchewan; to assist in defraying the cost of the sale and distribution of products of field, farm, sea, river and mine; to loan money to any province on such terms as may be agreed upon and to guarantee the repayment of moneys borrowed by such province and to assist any province in any way that may be deemed necessary or advisable to provide for the relief of distress and the support and maintenance of those requiring assistance, and to loan money to and guarantee the payment of money by any public corporation or undertaking.
Jean-François Pouliot: On my way up to the house I saw a fairly large truck on which was a sign "Daily Service." It reminded me of what my good friend the Minister of Railways said in the house not long ago about the unfair competition of trucks with the railways. His speech on that occasion made a great impression on me. Let me sum up the whole matter in this way: if the trans-Canada highway brings returns, they will be due to unfair competition with the railways. On the other hand, if it produce no returns, the expenditure on it will be an utter waste. This is the dilemma (that confronts us at present.
We must also consider the maintenance of the road after its completion. Several million dollars might be invested in the scheme and the expenditure on maintenance would be very heavy. Let us count the number of British Columbia automobiles that visit Nova Scotia and the number from Nova Scotia which one might see in British Columbia. They are very few. Some, however, are coming by way of the border states and they might be counted on the Detroit bridge, for instance, but many of the cars coming from the west or from the east and crossing that bridge do not go as far as the ocean.
I am strongly against any kind of hybrid legislation, such as is half federal and half provincial. The expenditure of money should be made by either the .provinces or the federal government; if the provinces require additional sums to meet their expenditures, such sums should be given by the federal govern-
2614	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
ment, not earmarked for roads or schools or any particular purpose but by way of an increase in the provincial subsidy in order that every province should have full control of the money handed to it. According to the British North America Aot each province has full jurisdiction within its borders, while the federal government has jurisdiction only when a matter affects two or more .provinces. That principle of law is well known noit only to every lawyer but to any man who has made some study of constitutional matters. If we have a trans-Canada highway in which the federal government is interested, it should be built by the federal government alone. But, on the other hand, if the federal government is not interested, then each province should build its own share of the highway. At the present time most of the provinces have their own road policy, and I believe that each province should have complete control of its roads. I do not see how the federal government can give money to the provinces for the building of roads. If the provinces require money for some purpose or other and the provincial subsidy is not enough, the federal government should come to the rescue of the province and increase the subsidy, and if the subsidy of one province is increased, the subsidy of all provinces should be increased in proportion. May I ask the minister to be kind enough to let me know if he will consider the suggestion that I made this afternoon with regard to a complete inventory of the unemployed?


George Brecken Nicholson: The attacks made by my hon. friend from Temiseouata on the transjCanada highway, and particularly that section in the district from which I come were of such a character that I feel they cannot be allowed to pass without some remarks from a representative of that part of the country.
In the first place I would say that no contribution could be made by the dominion and the provinces of Canada that would tend to so great an extent to knit all the provinces together and to develop the whole country as a contribution to the trans-Canada highway. It will be a means by which the citizens of Prince Edward Island in the east can motor across Canada on Canadian soil all the way to the west coast, and vice versa.
Frankly I was amazed at the parochialism of my hon. friend in his references not only to the trans-Canada highway but also to a part of this country .about 'which he apparently knows nothing whatever. If his remarks had not been made in the House of Commons one would not have paid any attention to them, 
but going out to the people of this country and to the world outside of Canada as uttered by a member of the House of Commons, they are deserving of some consideration.
With reference to that section of the trans-Canada highway where a very considerable amount of construction work will be necessary to build the road, that is that section in northern Ontario, that part of Canada lying between the Ottawa river and the boundary line of Manitoba, the manifest lack of knowledge of that country that my hon. friend discloses is such that one can scarcely imagine a man in public life anywhere would go out of his way to the extent my hon. friend has done to belittle a part of Canada in which you could lose the settled portions of Ontario and of Quebec combined. Lying north of the height of land in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, in my hon. friend's province and in the province in which I happen to live, there is more arable land than is now under cultivation in the whole of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. There are today more farmers in the district of Nipissing, represented by my hon. friend from Sudbury (Mr. Hurtubise) than there, are in the county of Temiseouata. There are more farmers in South Timiskaming, represented by the hon. Minister of Labour, than there are in the county of Temiseouata. There are more farmers in East Algoma or in West Algoma than there are in the county of Temiseouata, and these farmers, many of them, are of my hon. friend's own race, a happy, contented people, helping to develop this country. Ultimately the tens of thousands of farmers who will yet go into that country will make it a greater farming area than the settled portions of Quebec and Ontario combined.
It is true that there are rocks in northern Ontario; it is true that there are lakes in northern Ontario; it is true that there are mines in northern Ontario. But I would point out to my hon. friend that northern Ontario produced more new wealth in the past ten years than all the rest of the province of Ontario, to say nothing of the province of Quebec-new wealth in the form of minerals, agricultural produce, timber, pulp and paper, and the baser metals.
With regard to the work that has been done on the trans-Canada highway, my hon. friend referred to the fact that there had been blasting of rocks on the north shore of lake Superior. It might surprise my hon. friend to know that there has not been one dollar spent on the north shore of lake Superior. Where blasting ivas done was on the stretch

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
of road between Nipigon, fifty or sixty miles east of Port Arthur, and the boundary line of Manitoba. I would suggest to my hon. friend that he consult his colleague, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, as to the character of the country through which that portion of the highway runs, and ascertain from him if it is a barren wilderness or desert such as he pictured to the house this afternoon. I have travelled across Canada from coast to coast. I have gone around the south shore of the St. Lawrence river by rail and by water. I have seen its little fishing villages nestling up against the rocky shores, and the patches of arable land sprinkled about. It is delightful country with great scenic attractions for the tourist, and simply because it is small in area as compared with that vast extent of fourteen hundred miles running almost from the city of Ottawa to the city of Winnipeg, one does not attempt to belittle it or suggest that it is a wilderness or a scene of utter desolation or a useless and worthless country. It is nothing of the kind. Everyone admires its beauty.
As to the influence of the trans-Canada highway on the traffic of the transcontinental railways, I would suggest that my hon. friend discuss this subject with someone who understands the principles of transportation, with Sir Henry Thornton, president of the Canadian National Railways, if you like; and he will tell you at once that it is not the traffic that goes on a highway of that character that is taking away revenue from the railways. The tourist traffic that is brought into the country and that will be brought into it by means of highways of the kind we are now discussing will furnish more traffic to the railways than any possible loss they can experience by reason of such a highway being built. It is the short hauls that are taking traffic from the railways, by means of buses and trucks. The wheat of the west will never be brought from the west in trucks. The live stock of the west will never be brought east in trucks, and merchandise will never be taken from the east to the west in trucks. The trans-Canada highway will be a tourist highway from beginning to end, except that it will serve to open up the finest part of Canada that is yet lying unopened for settlement.
I am not going to go any further, Mr. Chairman. I repeat that I was amazed at the hon. gentleman's lack of knowledge and amazed that he would make so vicious an attack on a part of the country about which, I say, he manifestly knows nothing whatever.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I realize
that I do not speak very good English, but I have always felt that I could make myself understood by any hon. member in the house. I am very sorry to note, however, that the hon. member for East Algoma is either deaf or dumb, that there is something wrong with either his ear or his brain, and that he did not understand a word I said. I shall have to repeat my remarks to-night in very clear language, not in order to have the hon. gentleman understand^-because I cannot expect it from him-but so that my words may not be misconstrued by him. I know the hon. member very well, and it is for that reason while making my speech earlier in the day I said I did not wish my words to be misconstrued. Hon. members who heard my speech will remember my statement in that connection, and it would seem that the only person in the house who did not understand what I said was the hon. member opposite who has just spoken. Undoubtedly he was dreaming of poetry, of those small villages along the St. Lawrence river where the fishermen dwell in white houses on the tops of the hills.
The hon. member did not gain anything by speaking to-night; he should have kept his mouth shut. The fact is that very often he forgets the necessity for that precaution. I have been in the province of Ontario; I know very well the good roads of that province, and I know further that my hon. friend represents a district worthy of a better representative in this house. I know that his district is better than he is. It is not necessary for him to say that he represents a rich district, that Algoma is a pleasant place in which to live, that there is vast wealth in northern Ontario. Why should he tell us all that? We know it. We know further that he is a poor member, a poor speaker and a poor thinker, and he misrepresents statements made by hon. members in this committee. Every hon. member is fully aware of the fact that I said I did not want to have my remarks misconstrued; I did not want the statement to be made that I objected to the building of highways in the constituency my hon. friend represents. At the evening recess I checked my remarks in Hansard, and I find that I so expressed myself.
The hon. gentleman has said that the hon. member for Temiscouata does not know that there is wealth in northern Ontario, that there are rich lands, a countryside more pleasant even than that of Temiscouata county. Mr. Chairman, I remind the hon. member that there is no popularity contest between the farming lands of Algoma and those in my constituency. I did not r^fer to Algoma, but
2616	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
to that part of northern. Ontario north of lake Superior where there are rocky districts, and I said that the blasting of those rocks would be useless. I did not refer to the fanning lands or the settlements in northern Ontario, and I did not speak about the highways leading to the mines. Those highways are not for passenger cars, but for heavy trucks so that ore may be carried from the mines. We know that highways through farming districts are essential; they are the arteries of trade. I know that. I know, too, that railways are other arteries of trade. I do not for one moment wish to prevent the development of northern Ontario; as a Canadian I believe I represent not only my constituency but Canada as a whole. By way of contrast, however, my hon. friend represents only himself, particularly when he misconstrues statements made by hon. members in this committee.
I shall say no more; that is my last word. Were I to speak longer in this connection I would honour too much the hon. member who has spoken. The time has now come to treat him with contempt and silence.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Chairman, in the course of the discussion the question of putting men on the land has been considered. Hon. members are not yet very clear as to the attitude of the government. On a former occasion the minister seemed to indicate that the government did not intend to cooperate with the provinces or to enter upon any scheme themselves of putting men back upon the land. More recently it would seem that the government at least in some degree has changed its mind, and that there is a possibility of some such work being undertaken. If such a policy is in contemplation it ought to be undertaken with the greatest care. Any attempt to enter upon anything as elaborate as the soldier settlement scheme would from the beginning be doomed to failure.
Much has been said about putting men back on the land, by people who evidently know very little about conditions confronting those actually on the land. Many statements have been made which would not for one moment bear investigation, and indicate an entire lack of information. For instance, we heard the statement a few days ago that the farmer would at least have his butter and eggs. The hon. member was evidently under the impression that butter and eggs could be picked off trees. The minister has given the figure of $600 as a sum which might possibly be advanced to men desiring to take up farming. I would say that $600 would be only a flea bite when compared with what is neces-
sarv properly to establish a man on a farm in the west. True, there is a possibility that if a very careful selection were made of the men to go on the land something might be done in establishing some of them on bush farms in northern Ontario. If those men were willing to face many years of privation and hardship as did our forefathers in Ontario and Quebec seventy-five or one hundred years ago, there would be some possibility of their making a reasonable success. Unfortunately, however, to-day there are very few men possessed of the temperament and the willingness to face years of pioneering in the woods. In any policy which may be advocated to plac'e men back upon the land, that fact must be taken into consideration. I do not say that something could not be done in that direction, but I wish to emphasize that any policy along that line must be undertaken with great care, and that any elaborate policy would from the outset be doomed to failure.
I noticed that the International Harvester Company of Chicago, using road tractors and ploughs, were ploughing up a large area of land around the city of Chicago, with a view to dividing it into quarter-acre lots to be cultivated by the unemployed. In war time some such scheme was undertaken in and around the city of Winnipeg; men were encouraged to cultivate garden lots. Unfortunately, however, the time is rapidly approaching when such a scheme would be impracticable for this year, because the seed would have to be in the ground within the next month. That policy might have met with a large degree of success. Men and women living in Winnipeg or in any of the cities of eastern Canada could have been given an opportunity to cultivate some of the adjoining vacant lots. But the time for such a program is almost if not completely passed.
It seems perfectly evident from all the information we can gather that we are rapidly approaching the time when to a very much greater extent than in the past we will be required to give direct relief. Certainly it is true that the provinces and the municipalities cannot longer cooperate with the federal government as they have done in carrying on relief works. The municipalities in particular are at the point where, not being able to collect their taxes, they will not be able to contribute further money to the carrying on of works not absolutely and immediately needed. But facing, as I think we are compelled to face, this question of giving direct relief, I want to bring to the notice of the house a matter that has been of interest to me for some months past.

Unemployment-Agteements with Provinces
Hon. members may be aware of the fact that, in the United States, of the 200,000,000 bushels of farm board wheat they have had in storage for some time past the government have contributed 40,000,000 bushels for the direct relief of the unemployed. I have had particular reasons for being interested in that proposition, and I may tell the house that the proposal which passed congress early in March is now being carried into effect in many United States cities. The movement began in this way:	One of the professors of Oberlin
college conceived the idea that through the use of wheat ground by the primitive methods which prevailed in pioneer days much might be done to feed the unemployed. In regard to the people of the United States I might say this:	They do not seem to have done as
much by way of federal governmental relief as we have done in Canada. The burden has been thrown more upon the state governments, the municipalities and private charity. The situation confronting them now is that they have reached the bottom of their community chests.
As I say, this scheme was inaugurated by one who had interested himself in the question, and he was able to show that by taking the available wheat and having it ground in this primitive way it would be possible to provide meals for the unemployed at a cost of three cents each. This demonstration was carried out in the city of Lorain, Ohio. I visited that section of the country during the Easter holidays, and in that city, which is an industrial centre with a large number of unemployed, by the use of two old fashioned pepper mills and a second hand farm feed mill, they were grinding flour and giving it out to the people. I saw the flour; I ate pancakes, waffles, muffins and even cookies made from that flour, and it was all that could be desired. The authorities were somewhat slow in adopting that proposition, but finally the Red Cross became interested in it, and all over the United States they are now making use of this farm board wheat ground in the primitive and simple way. While I was there at Easter the first carload of that wheat reached the town of Lorain, and since then I have received word to the effect that all that wheat has been used up, and they are asking for more. While I was there those who had originated the scheme visited the city of Cleveland, and the mayor of that city stated that by this plan they would be able to effect a saving to the community chest of $400,000 in the following three months.
I bring this to the attention of the house and the country because it does seem to me 41761-165
that if we are to be faeed* as we will be faced, with the problem of giving more direct relief to those who are in need, through some such means as this we might do a very great deal to give the people food that Will be perfectly wholesome and that will help them over the time of their unemployment. Seeing as I did what was being done by the means I have indicated, I have no hesitation in saying that if our churches, our philanthropic societies and our Red Cross, in cooperation with government institutions, would adopt such a scheme as this, we would be able to meet the need, which I am afraid will be facing us much more seriously than in the past, in a way that would afford great relief to the unemployed.
If any person cares to see it I have here a copy of an address given by the gentleman who originated the scheme, in which he outlines all the steps from the time they attempted to impress its merits on the people of the different communities, right up to the time it received the sanction of the United States government. I would not think it fitting to put this address on the records of the house, but if any hon. member or any charitably disposed people such as the Red Cross or any other philanthropic society would like further information with regard to what is being done in that direction I shall be very happy to give it.


Mr. SANDERSON:: On April 22, Mr. Chairman, when the house was in committee, the Minister of Labour was speaking of his back to the land policy, and he promised to give me some information in regard to the number of men who had been put back on the farms in the province of Ontario, by counties. So far I have not received that information, and I should like to know if the minister has it ready to-night.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, I have not.


Frederick George Sanderson: When may I expect
it?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If it is possible to get it I will have it in the course of a day or two.


Frederick George Sanderson: But the minister
promised to let me have it, and I consented to let the item pass on the distinct understanding that the minister would give that information. It is so recorded in Hansard for April 22; the minister said he Would get the information and give it to me, but now he says he will do so if possible. I want that- information, Mr. REVISED EDITION
2618	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
Chairman, and in all fairness the minister must give it to me. The resolution would not have passed at that time if that promise had not been given. I want the minister to give me something definite in this regard.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am saying that if it is
possible-


Frederick George Sanderson: Why say you will do it if it is possible, when you said you would give it to me?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not Hansard before me.


Frederick George Sanderson: Well, I will read it. On April 22-


Samuel William Jacobs: The hon. gentleman will probably find that information was given on April 1.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is at page 2284 of Hansard:
Mr. Sanderson: If I understood the figures correctly, a moment ago the minister, said that during last year 14,000 men had been placed on farms. I took the minister's statement to refer to single, hired men. Was that correct?
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
Mr. Sanderson: Could the minister tell me what proportion of those 14,000 men were put on farms in old Ontario?
Mr. Gordon: I could not say, but in the entire province of Ontario-
Mr. Sanderson: Has the minister the figures by counties?
Mr. Gordon: No, but up to April 2, 1932, there were 4,165 men placed in Ontario.
Mr. Stewart (Edmonton):	Were those farm
hands?
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
Mr. Sanderson: Could the minister give me some idea of where they were placed in Ontario? At the moment I am interested only in old 3ntario.
Mr. Gordon: I have not that information before me, but I think I can get it and let the hon. member have it by counties.
There was further discussion, and again at page 2285 the following appears:
Mr. Sanderson: Where were they placed?
Referring to the men in Ontario.
Mr. Gordon: I have not that information at the moment but I will give it to the hon. gentleman before the estimates are through. That was the policy we pursued.
There was further discussion, reported at page 2290, and page 2291. At page 2290 there is the following:
Mr. Sanderson: How many deportations were there from Canada last year?
Mr. Gordon: Deportations for the calendar year ended December 31, 1931, were 6,582.
Mr. Sanderson: And what was the immigration for the same calendar year?
Mr. Gordon: It was 27,530.
TMr. Sanderson.]
Then on the next page the minister says:
Mr. Gordon: Each ease is investigated on its merits. . . .
Mr. Sanderson: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, 1 am perfectly willing that this item carry on the understanding that the minister give me the information that I asked for.
Mr. Gordon: Oh, quite.
Now the minister gets up tcwnight and says he will give the information "if possible." Did he not know whether he could get that information when he promised it on April 22? It was the distinct understanding of the committee, at least of hon. members on this side of the house, that the item was permitted to go through on condition that the minister would give this information.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Mr. Chairman-


Frederick George Sanderson: Pardon me. I think that in all fairness to me, and with the usual courtesy which a minister should show a private member, the hon. gentleman should at least make some statement. Does he intend to get that information?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have nothing to apologize for.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am not asking you for an apology but for action.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Let me finish my remarks and then probably you will be satisfied.


Frederick George Sanderson: Well, I am just assuming your attitude to me and I want to tell you that you cannot put that over me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I made it very plain, even from the references the hon. member has read from Hansard, that I believed I could get the information.


Frederick George Sanderson: You said you would get the information.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I said I thought I could get it. I asked the officers in charge of this work to endeavour to go through the records, which is not an easy task, and see whether they could separate these various placements according to counties. At the moment I have not the information. If I get it-and I hope I shall-I will give it to the hon. gentleman.


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Chairman-


James Arthurs: Mr. Chairman-


Frederick George Sanderson: Have I the floor, Mr. Chairman?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):: If the hon. gentleman is replying to the minister, yes.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces


Frederick George Sanderson: All I want is fair treatment. Surely if, from April 22 until to-day, May 3, the minister found it was not possible for him to get that information, he might have had the courtesy at least to write me a letter informing me that he could not give it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frederick George Sanderson: The butter man, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, had better keep quiet. I am addressing my remarks to the Minister of Labour.


An hon. MEMBER:: Address them to the chair.


Frederick George Sanderson: Through the chair, yes, but not to my hon. friend the butter man from Dufferin-Simcoe. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, in all modesty, as a private member to an hon. minister, whether the hon. gentleman will endeavour to get that information for me? Yes, or no?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can add nothing to what I have already said. I know that the hon. member has an almost overpoweringly inquiring mind, and for that I commend him.


Frederick George Sanderson: And a little more
courtesy than the minister has.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. gentleman arrogates to himself a superabundance of courtesy. I gave instructions that the work of the department should be analyzed in order that the request of the hon. gentleman might be complied with. I believe the officers have been at work endeavouring to satisfy that request, and if it is possible to give the information with any degree of accuracy it will be given. I can say nothing further with reference to the matter.


James Arthurs: The resolution before the chair reads in part:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the governor in council to enter into agreements ... to assist in defraying the cost of the sale and distribution of products of field, farm, sea, river and mine.
I suggest that the word "forest" should be included. I do not think there is any industry in Canada to-day that has been and is suffering more than the lumbering industry, and according to this resolution as it stands at present there is no relief in sight. I sincerely hope that when the bill comes before the house the word "forest" will be included. The lumbering industry has suffered for a number of years. It is in a peculiar situation; its product ordinarily does not go on the market 41761-165J
until at least twenty-four months after operations have commenced. Many of the limits have been bought at very high prices, the ground rents are high, and those engaged in the industry from the Atlantic to the Pacific are in a very unenviable position. In this regard I would direct the attention of the government to the building trade of Canada, which is one of the greatest industries in this country. It distributes more money among the various trades and labour organizations than any other trade in Canada. In 1929 the building operations in the cities of Canada were valued at S234,944,549. This outlay was divided among the lumbermen from the forest to the planing mill, the stone quarries, the brick manufacturers, the cement manufacturers, the hardware manufacturers, the plumbers, the painters, the builders, the decorators and so on right through the whole field. In practically all these cases ninety per cent of the outlay is for labour. Ninety per cent of the cost of lumbering is labour, ninety per cent of the cost of producing brick is labour, and the same holds true through the various building industries.
For various reasons, this industry has fallen off tremendously. I hold in my hand a quotation from an American paper of recent date which states that the industry has dropped 60 per cent as compared with the same month of last year, and 85 per cent as compared with the same month in 1929.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Are those Canadian or American figures?


James Arthurs: Those are the American figures. I -can give my -hon. friend the Canadian figures as well. In 1929, the -peak year, the building permits in -cities alone totalled $234,944,549; in 1930 they had dropped to $166,379,325, and last year they dropped to $112,222,845, a decrease of over 50 per cent a3 compared with 1929. The figures for January of this year show permits as reported by 61 cities totalling $2,761,929 as compared with $8,401,456 for 1931.


Mr. MITCHELL:: What were they for the year before?


James Arthurs: I have not the figures for the year before. The permits for February for this year were valued at $2,578,597 as com-, pared with $6,395,659 for last year. Those for March were valued at $3,323,602, as against $9,948,979. The total for the three months of this year is $8,664,190 as compared with $24,746,094 for last year.
There are many reasons for this decrease in building operation, but there is one particular
2620	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
reason which has mitigated against building particularly in the province of Ontario. Most of the building is carried on by speculative builders who secure a first mortgage, generally from an insurance company, and continue their operations with the proceeds of such mortgage. The Supreme Court of Ontario has held that those who sell materialls for building have the same lien rights as the builders, and the result has been that building has practically stopped in the province of Ontario. A second reason is the fact that the Ontario government, in its wisdom or lack of wisdom-so far as the building trade is concerned it was lack of wisdom -has declared a moratorium, with the result that insurance companies with money to lend will not lend it for building purposes. So there is an absolute stagnation of building operations.
In 1919 we were faced with a situation akin to that which faces us at the present time. In passing I may say that unless conditions improve the working man will be much worse off twelve months from now than he is at present. In 1919 this government voted a loan of $25,000,000 to be made to the various provinces for housing purposes, and I believe that every dollar of that loan has been returned; I know it has, in so far as Ontario is concerned. I believe it would be wise on the part of this government if it would vote a sum to be .placed at the disposal of the builders of Canada. The responsibility for repayment could be placed upon the provinces and the municipalities. I would be willing to vote for any amount up to $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 for this punpose, and I do not think money could be better spent. Such a loan would affect every man concerned, from the labourer who digs the foundation to the man who puts on the roof, and ninety-five per cent of the money would be utilized in providing employment for the workers in the various provinces.


Edward Joseph Garland: Without attempting to follow the very excellent discussion of the previous speaker, with much of which I absolutely agree, I am going to ask the committee to revert for a moment to the discussion which took place just before the dinner recess. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) raised a question which I myself raised on March 15 in another discussion; he asked the minister to give serious consideration to certain drought areas in Alberta and to grant similar treatment to those districts as is now being granted to the districts in Saskatchewan. The minister replied that no request had been received and that no statement had been made by the Alberta government to the effect that they had
(Mr. Arthurs.]
drought areas similar to the areas in Saskatchewan. As this is the second time that such a statement has been made by a minister, the first time by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and the second time by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), I am sure that some misunderstanding must exist in connection with the matter. After the Minister of Agriculture had given a reply to me similar to that which was made this afternoon by the Minister of Labour to the hon. member for Medicine Hat, I wired the Premier of Alberta under date of March 16. My wire reads as follows:
Yesterday Weir stated Alberta given exactly same opportunity as Saskatchewan. That your government had stated you had no problem similar to drought area Saskatchewan. That no request had been received from you to effect that federal government accept 100 per cent relief responsibility for area amounting to 14 municipalities. See Hansard March 15 and wire full reply. We are placed in humiliating position.
The next morning 1 received the following telegram from the Premier of Alberta:
Very much amazed contents wire. Will wire you more fully later.
The premier, having had an opportunity of reading Hansard, sent me the following wire under date of March 21:
Following wire sent Minister Agriculture reference your statement reported Hansard Tuesday 15 page 1241 to effect this government never sought for certain drought area same treatment as accorded in Saskatchewan. Must respectfully take exception this statement. Am sure you recall meeting Edmonton October 7 last when we submitted map prepared jointly by your Mr. Stewart and our Mr. Gray and urged that drought area thus disclosed should receive same consideration as similar Saskatchewan area. We also made same request to Senator Robertson and yourself in Calgary. On January 21 Public Works department wired Director Relief asking Dominion government to assume 100 per cent cost relief works in certain municipalities particularly in said area. This request refused 26th instant. More recently, have asked Dominion to assume portion cost seed grain relief same area which request refused excepting offer to provide funds against treasury bills. We now understand through Saskatchewan Relief Commission Dominion assuming entire cost of relief homestead areas northern part of province and as we have exactly similar problem consider this unfair discrimination against Alberta. May say further since January 30,	1931, have
requested special consideration in areas presenting particular problem as shown my letter to Prime Minister dated February 9, 1931.
This telegram would indicate that not only had the former Minister of Labour, the present Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister himself been acquainted with the fact that there tvas a drought area and that special

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
treatment had been requested for it, but thait the minister's own department-I presume it is his-the director of relief received a communication on January 21 last asking for special consideration in connection with the cost of relief work in certain drought area municipalities. I submit this not to question the sincerity of the Minister of Labour, but simply to attempt to straighten out a delicate and rather difficult situation in which two ministers have stated that Alberta has made no special representations in regard to the drought area in that province. My own knowledge of the matter is that the provincial cabinet deliberately called a meeting of the federal members last January, placed the whole matter before them and asked them to make it part of their business here to see that the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Labour and others who were directly responsible and interested, take action in accordance with the previously made request of the Alberta government.


Mr. COOTE:: I think employment for our people is the greatest problem facing Canada to-day, and I regret the resolution as brought down and the statement of the minister give us very little hope of any further employment being provided. Apparently the action of the government is to be practically limited to giving unemployment relief, in other words, to adopting the dole system, which I do not like. This problem of employment must be tackled vigorously. We must do something different from what has been done so far. I am sure anyone who will visit the different parks in Ottawa and other places where the unemployed men congregate will agree wth that old saying "Unemployment with money is leisure, but unemployment without money is hell." I have talked with quite a number of returned men who say that the life they are living to-day, unable to secure employment, is far worse than the life they led in the trenches. Years ago Sherman, the famous United States general said: "War is hell," and war is even worse to-day than it was then. When numbers of these Canadian returned men have travelled from one end of the country to the other and back looking for work, without being able to find enough to keep body and soul together, we cannot wonder that their position to-day is in their opinion much worse than it was when they were fighting in France.
I look upon unemployment as a disease which must result from one or two causes, either overproduction or underconsumption. If it results from overproduction, we should endeavour to divide up the work, shorten the
hours of labour. But I do not think it results from overproduction; I think our troubles result from underconsumption. I would admit at once that we can produce more than enough in the way of foodstuffs. The size of the human stomach is limited, and when you fill a man with food, there is no use in placing more before him. But the capacity of our people to enjoy goods and services, so far as we can see to-day, is practically unlimited. Unemployment, whether due to underconsumption or overproduction, is a man-made problem and capable of solution. We should devote ourselves to a solution of it rather than adopt mere palliatives such as are suggested in the resolution under consideration. Unemployment as it now exists can and must be cured. If it cannot be cured under the present system where production is for private profit, then we must have a change of system. I do not say that it is impossible for it to be cured under the present system, and I should like to see the house and the government try to cure it. To-day we are not making any attempt to solve the problem of unemployment.
Before I leave the question of overproduction, may I say that even in Canada we have, underconsumption in the matter of foodstuffs. I remember reading in the New Outlook, a paper published in Toronto by the United Church, I think in the issue of last January, that a doctor from Regina said there were hundreds, perhaps thousands of teen-age boys' in Saskatchewan going to bed hungry every night. We know that fruit rots in the orchards every year although there are thousands who who never get a taste of fruit of any kind. I have under my hand a little quotation taken from the New Republic. It is true that this refers to conditions in the United States, but conditions in some parts of Canada may be similar. It says:
In Detroit alone, it has been estimated by medical authorities, at least one person starves to death in every seven hours and fifteen minutes. A physician at the Receiving Hospital in this city reported recently that four people a day, on the average, are brought to the hospital too far gone from starvation for their lives to be saved. Many others die lonely deaths outside the hospitals. On one day in September, in Grand Circus park where the homeless gather, three workers were found dead.
It says :
Thousands of children are under-nourished; that a great number of suicides are not reported in the press; that the psychopathic wards of the hospitals are crowded with people whose minds have become unstrung under the pressure of adversity.
2022	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
I pause here to say that I think the government of Canada has done better in regard to unemployment relief than the United States government; I give our government credit for that. We have made a fair attempt to hand out unemployment relief, but too much of the burden has been placed upon the provinces and municipalities, and many of the municipalities are practically bankrupt so that a different system of financing must be adopted this year. I remember reading last year that thousands die of starvation in China every year and that millions of Chinese go to bed hungry every night. If we could work out a proper system of distribution in this world, I cannot help feeling we would find there was no over-production even of wheat. When it comes to a question of overproduction of other commodities, I should like to quote for the benefit of the committee from Mr. Harvey Firestone, one of the most prominent business men in the United States. He says positively that our trouble is due to underconsumption, not overproduction. He says that in the United States there are four million city homes with no bath tub, three million city homes with no plumbing, four million rural homes with no electricity, thirteen million homes, both rural and urban, with no telephones, five million homes lacking adequate clothing, food and shelter, seven million homes with no automobile, twenty million families with not even a good radio.
I think we must agree with Mr. Firestone that the difficulty is due to underconsumption. Why cannot the copper which is going begging on commodity markets to-day be used to provide these people with telephones, radios and electrical service? By the way, it is rather significant the way they do things in the United States, and I suppose we do the same in Canada. I am told that in that country there is one automobile to every five people and one bath tub to every twenty people. It is quite easy to imagine five people riding in one automobile, but imagine twenty people taking a bath in one bath tub! There is plenty of potential demand in Canada and the United States for these things which the unemployed to-day would like to be making. The trouble is that there seems to be a great gap between production and consumption. The cause of underconsumption to-day is lack of money in the hands of those who would purchase these goods if they could. The old law of supply and demand, which has been much overworked, cannot operate to-day. There is potential demand, but it cannot become effective demand because the people 
have not the money in their pockets. We need a new money system. I believe that the want of a proper standard of purchasing power is the chief cause of the survival of the monstrous fallacy that there can be too much produced of anything.
If we are going to solve the question of unemployment and put our people to work we must have a different financial system. President Hoover says:
Credit is the bloodstream of our economic life. Restriction and destruction of credit cripples the revival and expansion of agriculture, industry, commerce and employment. . . . To-day business is bad because of lack of purchasing power among consumers.
R. S. Noble, of the Royal Bank of Canada, said last year that the depression was caused by a thoroughly stupid bank policy, and that France and the United States were the principal villains in the piece.
Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, now Senator Meighen, said last year in Toronto, and I am always glad to quote him in this house, because I think he is one of the ablest members that ever sat in this chamber:
If those who have too much wheat can exchange that wheat with those who have too much of something else, oil, gasoline, clothing: if people are in a position to do that, the world can use all the wheat there is to-day and more, all the oil, all the clothing and more. If people were in a position to exchange what they have too much of for what somebody else has too much of, we would see that there is not too much of anything. The trouble is that they are not in a position so to exchange. Were the facilities of exchange adequate, were the world's monetary system adequate to demands for exchange, then the three per cent increase in the world's products from year to year would mean a three per cent elevation in the standard of living each year for the masses of mankind.
I think I have quoted enough authorities to show that the unemployment which exists to-day is due primarily to an inefficient financial system. In support of my contention that this depression is due to monetary causes I could quote Lord D'Abernon of England, Sir Basil Blackett, Sir Leo Chiozza Money, Sir Gustav Cassel, one of the most eminent economists in Europe, Dr. Hans Luther of the Reichsbanlc in Germany, and one of our own most prominent bankers, the late Mr. Neill. I would also like to quote to the house from a review of Maynard Keynes book-"A Treatise on Money." Trade and employment, as Mr. Keynes shows from forty different angles, depend on what men do to currency and credit. This review says:
The volume of exchanges tthat can be made on a given price-level with a given volume of money, at a given turnover, is absolutely fixed.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
More exchanges require more money. Unless the money is forthcoming business falls off, men are thrown out of work, and the vicious spiral of deflation gets under way. Yet money is the only item in a list of items a mile along with which business has to deal, over the supply of which man has absolute and unlimited control.
If we could only convince this committee and this house and the government that the amount of money we might have is absolutely under our own control, we could get a good start out of this depression inside of a year. The cause of this depression is the lack of money in the hands of purchasers; the only way to get out of it is to put money into circulation, and yet when we come to discuss unemployment, we spend very little time on the question of money. It is rather significant that in to-day's press there appears the following despatch from Washington, D.C. It is headed, "United States house recommends putting four billion dollars of new notes into the market," and reads as follows:
Washington, D.C., May 2.-The House of Representatives to-day passed a bill "for restoring and maintaining the purchasing power of the dollar," and to secure that end recommended that the Federal Reserve Board use its power and resources to put into the market $4,000,000,000 in federal reserve notes, if need be, to raise the price level of commodities.
The bill would add an amendment to the Federal Reserve account as follows:
"It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that the average purchasing power of the dollar as ascertained by the department of labour in the wholesale commodity markets for the period 1921 to 1929 inclusive shall be restored and maintained by the control of the volume of credit and currency."
I would like to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the committee that I think there is ample justification for the amendment to the budget which was moved from this corner of the house. It has now been declared by congress that it should be the policy of their central bank in the United States to issue enough money to raise commodity price levels to the average level between 1921 and 1929. I do not think that there is any other known way at present of raising commodity price levels. I do not like to think that Canada is going to lag behind the United States in this regard, and the policy I would like to urge upon the government at this time is that it should take steps to increase the amount of money in circulation in Canada to raise commodity price levels and make it possible to put our people to work and to put purchasing power into their hands. Do not let us wait until the United States has done it, and then drag along three months
behind them. Let us begin it now and get some benefit from it while the United States is putting this new money to work in the market. May I remind the members of the house again that this bill which has passed the United States congress recommends that the federal reserve board should use its resources to put four billion dollars of federal reserve notes into the market.
I would remind the house of the debate which took place here some time ago in regard to state aid for national health. The statement was made by the hon. member for East Calgary that the greatest cause of sickness is poverty, and if we do not do something to check this depression in Canada and to put our people to work and restore their purchasing power, we are going to strike a blow at the health of the Canadian people from which it will take many years to recover.
While I am on this subject I want to protest against the policy of all governments in Canada, federal, provincial and municipal, of discharging their civil servants. I just happen to have handed to me lately a despatch from a western paper which states that in that city eight firemen have been laid off, to effect a yearly saving of 815,000. I expect it will not be very long before these same firemen will have to receive direct relief from the city. What is the sense of discharging men from a city payroll at a time like this? Surely our cities would be wise to maintain their fire departments at full strength.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Parry Sound upon the statement he made in the committee to-night concerning the need of some stimulus to the construction industry in Canada. I have before me the latest edition of The Commerce of the Nation. This is the May number, and I think arrived only yesterday or to-day. At page 38 there are indices of Canadian business conditions. The basis for the figures is the monthly average from 1929 to 1924 taken at 100. The information is as follows:
Construction- March, 1932		March, 1931
Contracts awarded. .	153.5	222.0Building permits. . .	45.0	103.5Cost of construction.	82.5	84.6Trade-	Car loadings	174.8	190.21Exports	89.7	102.4Imports	87.0	119.2Employment in trade	128.9	134.0Total agricultural	marketings	125.4	187.7Production-	Iron	19.3	85.2' Steel	44.9	130.3Lumber	29.6	75.22624	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
It will be noted that building permits awarded in the month of March this year were only about 43 per cent of what they were a year ago.
I should like again to suggest to the government the advisability of providing some housing scheme in Canada. I know of no better way to put money into circulation. Perhaps before considering this matter in detail I should say that thousands of people in Canada have already lost their homes owing to the unemployment which has existed for the last two years. Others have lost their farms, and still others their savings. Many citizens have lost their jobs, and with them their hope, their health and their selfrespect. Many have committed suicide or died prematurely because of the worry of it all. I believe it is high time we really took some effective steps to put our people to work. It is useless to look for permanent alleviation of present conditions without important social and financial changes. There is no doubt that industry in Canada is capable of producing more goods than it did in 1928. Industry, however, has come to a standstill, and as a result men, women and children are suffering. Most of them suffer in hopeless silence, not because they do not want to work or do not know how to produce; not because materials are scarce or machinery lacking, but because of an inadequate, inefficient monetary system which demands from them a great sacrifice. The scarcity is purely artificial.
The situation to-day might very well be likened to that of a horse tethered to a tree standing in the midst of a luxurious pasture. The horse walks in one direction, thereby winding the tie rope around the tree. After a while he finds himself with his nose close to the tree, unable to reach the grass. In other words, he is starving. There is plenty of luxurious grass within a short distance, if he had sense enough to turn around and walk in the other direction. If he has not sense enough to do that he must starve. We in Canada are in the same position. We have not sense enough to make use of the machinery and raw materials in our country so that our people may be put to work to produce the goods they require. In my view our people have a moral right to demand from their representatives and their government an immediate examination of the fundamental weaknesses of the gold standard, to be followed by some permanent correction of that standard or the adoption of a new one. To my mind there is no doubt that we should adopt an entirely new financial policy. It 
seems to me at the present time we are carrying on a sort of hunger strike. Why should we not give those people employment? The Prime Minister is reported to have said in Montreal a year and a half ago that the first duty of the Canadian government would be to provide work for the Canadian people. With that I heartily agree, but we have neglected our duty. Of course we can do nothing until the government acts, and I hope it will not be long before it is persuaded to take action.
I should like to quote from the new book by Doctor Robert Eisler entitled This Money Maze. The preface is written by Sir Josiah Stamp, who recently delivered such a splendid address in this building and the foreword is written by Sir Thomas Barclay, one of the most prominent bankers in England. Doctor Eisler says:
Nothing but the borrowing and spending power of the community can start the wheels of industry whirling again after such a prolonged lethargy and continual fall in prices.
Under present conditions the best way to put the spending power of the community to work is by government action. I know of no other way in which it can be done. I think we are quite justified in asking the government to take action. I should like to remind the committee of the many promises made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. He said:
I accept the challenge, and I say again I will call parliament together at the earliest possible moment to provide at once a remedy,

employment for all who can and will work.
There is no doubt we have several hundred thousand people in Canada to-day who would and could work if they had it to do. When Canada entered the war in 1914 we did not hesitate to use all the nation's credit. We financed our part of the war on our own credit-, and by similar methods we could finance this war against poverty and unemployment if we would make use of our national credit. We have plenty of it.
I suggest first that we institute a housing scheme along the lines I suggested a few weeks ago. I will not go into the details of the plan to-night, but I should like to draw attention to an article which appeared recently in The Prairie Lumberman concerning a federal home building loan, and pointing out the work which would be given if such a scheme were adopted. The article is as follows:
Work would immediately be provided for a great body of men now unemployed and additional employment would immediately be spread throughout many industries now cutting down on their staffs.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
I was told to-day of a construction company in Canada which issued the statement that next month they would be forced to lay off two hundred men. The article continues:
Carpenters, masons, plasterers, painters, plumbers, electricians-all the better paid trades who in turn would circulate their wages, thus providing additional employment-would become actively employed. Thousands of men now unemployed could be engaged in common labour-these men are now very largely an absolute charge upon their respective communities.	.
Railroads would profit by greater freight movements, rail workers would benefit, lumber mills and other manufacturing plants would start to operate, every type of requirement for the inside of the house also would be bene-fitted. Demand for goods of every description would become rapidly widespread. Coal would be needed to heat these new homes, thus affecting favourably the Canadian mines and adding to the employment situation favourably in that direction. There is practically no end to the benefits which would accrue if such a necessary step were to be taken.
There was some talk of bolshevism and communism in this house this afternoon, so I would direct the attention of hon. members of the committee to this significant statement: Bolshevism is well fed only when we refuse to give good healthy "food" such as the opportunity .to own their own homes to otherwise well-meaning citizens. If you want to stop the spread of bolshevism start creating a nation of home-owners. It makes a mighty big difference to a person's attitude when he owns something and that something is his own home.
Some of these homes might be built in the cities, and certainly there is need for a great many in the country as well. Then I would suggest to the government that they embark on a large program of public works. I think we should begin a program this year entailing an ultimate expenditure of $50,000,000 or 8100,000,000. This year, when we most need the work, we have the smallest expenditure on public works that has been made since I have been a member of this house. I think government activity in connection with public works shall be speeded up whenever there is evidence of a slackening of employment in private industry. We should use our own national credit to finance these undertakings instead of borrowing from our financial houses at ruinous rates of interest, such as the provinces and the Dominion have been forced to pay recently. Our national wealth is estimated at some 830,000,000,000, so it is absurd for us to talk of this dominion going bankrupt or running short of credit. There is still plenty of real credit on which to draw, so let us use our own credit, put our people to work and restore the confidence of the people in our own institutions.


Edward James Young: What is our credit?


George Gibson Coote: It is the ability of our people to produce goods and services which they can consume.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We can produce them but we cannot sell them.


George Gibson Coote: We cannot sell them because there is no money with which to buy them, and you will not get any improvement in business until you put money into the hands of the purchasers. The great body of purchasers in Canada to-day have lost their purchasing power. The farmers represent from 45 per cent to 47 per cent of our population, and their purchasing power has been more than cut in half. Thousands of people who have been working for wages have lost their jobs; their purchasing power has been cut by 80 per cent, and now I suppose the purchasing power of the civil servants has been cut by 10 per cent. Thousands of people have had their incomes reduced, and all these things tend to decrease purchasing power. When you decrease the purchasing power of these people our factories must lay off many workers, who in turn become unemployed and lose their purchasing power. It is the most vicious circle that can be imagined, and the only way to get out of that circle is to put money in circulation. This can be done only by putting people to work, because only when they work do they produce something which gives value to money.
I was told to-day by a man who for years has been a student of economics, and who I believe is a graduate in economics of one of our universities, that a thirty per cent rise in commodity price levels would reduce the burden of debt of the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion by S75,000.000. Surely that is worth while. You can add to that the increase in revenue from taxation, because the amount of taxes received depends upon the amount of trade carried on. You can also add the reduced expenditure by all our governments for unemployment relief, as well as the increase in trade which would be brought about by increasing the income of our farmers and by increasing the employment of our artisans and labourers. In addition there would be the increased spending power which they would have, and added to that there would be the very distinct benefit, at least so far as the Prime Minister is concerned, that an adverse trade balance, if any, would be corrected.
I have taken a -little longer on this question than I had- intended, but before I sit down I would like to make some reference to the proposal which I understood the minister to
2<526	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
say had 'been made to the provinces, that the federal and provincial governments should cooperate to place some of the unemployed on farms in Canada. In that connection I would like to quote from a little book which recently came to my notice, entitled The Cause and Cure of Unemployment. The author is John S. Lennox, an engineer in the United States who graduated from Queen's university some years ago. It is rather significant that to-day so many of our engineers have taken to the study of economics, and some of them have put in writing their opinions as to the cause and cure of unemployment. I -may say very frankly that if we would charge some of our eminent Canadian engineers with the study of the financial question, it would not take them very long to evolve a better financial system than- we are trying to work under at the present time. In regard to the farm problem Mr. Lennox says:
There has been no general recognition of the fact that farming is the only business in which a man can procure food and shelter when receiving no wages. Until the tax collector and the landlord can no longer be put off a farmer can stay in business. The lower selling prices go, the more produce he must market, even though he is selling at a loss. The hired man will work for his board and enough to keep him in boots and overalls. Truly, agriculture is the great unemployment sponge.
With reference to the remark that the hired man will work for his board and enough to keep him in boots and overalls, I might relate to this house a sentence or two from a letter which I received from an Alberta farmer last summer. I must remind the house that the letter was written last August when the weather was very hot. With reference to the statement Iby one of our leading statesmen that he was not afraid of the farmer starving, this man stated in his 'letter, "Of course the farmers will not starve; we still have milk and potatoes, but the clothes we bought in more prosperous years soon will be worn out, and we may have to resort to rhubarb leaves." There is much more in this booklet I should like to read to the committee, but I do not think I should take the time.
In conclusion I should like to say to the Minister of Labour that if the dominion and provincial governments are justified in cooperating to place unemployed people on farms, surely there is every justification for these two governments cooperating to keep the tax collector and the mortgage companies from putting farmers off the land. That is what is going to happen unless something is done to forestall that action. What is the sense of allowing these men to be forced off their farms? They will simply go to the cities to 
take the places of the unemployed whom the two governments are now endeavouring to take from the cities and place on the land. I do suggest to the minister that this is one of the most necessary things for agriculture to-day; otherwise some farmers are going to become charges upon the country. They will have to drift into the cities and receive direct unemployment relief.


Edward James Young: I cannot understand the mentality of a man who will strenuously oppose a ten per cent reduction in salaries and wages, and in the same breath advocate a policy of monetary inflation the immediate effect of which would be to cut in half all salaries and all wages.
I can agree with my hon .friend this far, that the present depression will not lift until we have discovered the fundamental causes and removed them. I agree with him there, but the immediate problem before the committee to-night is what to do with our unemployed who do not know where to sleep, who do not know where their next meal is coming from, and who do not know where they are going to get clothes with which to protect themselves and their children from the weather. These people cannot wait while our economists, our statesmen and our politicians debate as to what is the cause of the trouble, and try to agree on a remedy. They must have action and immediate action. I cannot support the policy of creating great public works at the present time out of the public treasury for the purpose of giving people employment. Take, for instance, the suggestion made to-night of a trans-Canada highway. The principal abjection I see to it is this. If we were to construct such a highway and by that means give employment to so many thousands of people while it was in course of construction, once it was finished, after the depression had lifted, we should find ourselves saddled in *perpetuity with the expense of maintaining it, which we know from experience would run *into millions and millions every year. We cannot afford any such undertaking.
There is a plan being operated at the present time to a limited degree in the province of Saskatchewan which I would commend to the minister. I do not know who originated it, but whoever did deserves, I believe, some credit. The plan is simplicity itself. It proposes to put men who are free to go, mostly single men, on farms, the government paying each man five dollars a month and paying the farmer five dollars a month to keep him. He is supported then in food, shelter and clothing at a total cost to the government of ten dollars a month. I do not think it can

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
be done cheaper in any other way. There must be in Canada hundreds of thousands of farmers who would like to make improvements on their farms, farmers who no doubt would have liked to do so years ago, but who could never afford it because they could not pay the necessary wages to hire men for the purpose. Now is an opportunity for these men to get cheap help with which to make these improvements. I believe that we could give employment to 100,000 men in this way, at a total cost to the government of not more than ten dollars per month per man, and when the work was done the government would not be saddled with enormous expense such as would be involved in any structure built up under a relief measure. As I say, I do not know who originated the scheme, and it is working only to a limited extent, but I believe it is capable of vast expansion and I commend it to the minister.


Mr. NEILL:: The debate has got away
from the actual resolution before the house. The resolution proposes steps to deal directly with the distress due to unemployment, but we seem to have got into a general academic discussion with regard to the original causes of the present situation, which is a matter that has been discussed at considerable length already in this house. The minister was courteous enough a few days ago to say that he would welcome any suggestions made by members, and while he would not, of course, guarantee to adopt them, he intimated that he would consider them before introducing the bill. That seems to me a very reasonable suggestion, and it is much more advisable than simply bringing in a bill and leaving us to criticize it without any hope of having any changes made in its provisions. I should like to take advantage for a very few minutes of that offer to mention one or two suggestions, which I hope will be found practical, dealing directly with the subject under discussion.
I am glad to see that the Minister of Public Works is here. I would call his attention to the statement made by the Prime Minister the other day, very plainly, that there was to be no federal relief work as such done this year. Now the Minister of Public Works will recall that last year his estimates were very badly smashed, so much so as to be almost unrecognizable so far as carrying out any necessary maintenance of public works was concerned. The situation was remedied when we came to unemployment relief by his doing the necessary maintenance works under the provisions of the relief fund. In some
ways it was a good idea; at any rate it furnished some work for unemployed people, and it also provided the necessary maintenance, failure to provide which would have been very bad policy indeed on the part of the department. We find this year that the situation is very much the same, only worse. The minister has practically cut his estimates to the disappearing point, possibly with the same idea in view, that he will get the necessary expenditures made out of the unemployment relief fund. A glance at the estimates will show that he has made hardly any provision for the necessary work.
This is not the place or the time to point out to the minister what very bad policy, a policy of penny wise and pound foolish, it is to neglect the maintenance of wharves and floats which have only a short life anyhow; for if maintenance is not carried on year by year it means double expense in the future to make repairs. In the meantime these public conveniences are standing idle during a considerable period of their very short life, hampering industrial development and inconveniencing the public. As the minister has made the cut even worse this year than it was last year, I want to point out to him that he is now confronted with the situation that no relief will accrue to him from the unemployment relief fund. There is to be no federal relief work undertaken, so I suggest to him with all deference that it is very much up to him to take steps to see that in the supplementary estimates arrangements will be made to carry out the most necessary public works required.
As regards other suggestions, we understand now that we are committed to a policy of direct relief only. So far as British Columbia is concerned, 1 have no doubt that the government will make or has made representations, and judging from the press I gather that its wishes are opposite to that. In that province the government apparently wish public relief works continued on various grounds-that it will provide work, it will not destroy the morale of the men, and some return will be made for the money spent. So far as the cities are concerned, the same view is held. Certainly the smaller cities will be against the policy of direct relief only. Not only is it better for men to do some work for the relief they are given, but the small cities have plenty of work to do and naturally they want some return for their money. If we are going to go in for direct relief, however, and whether we do or not, I want to point out to the minister that we shall have to make greater provision to help the cities. They are almost at the end of their financial resources. They have
2628	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
strained every resource in the past and in many cases have reached the limit of their borrowing powers; and to a considerable extent they have reached the limit of their taxing powers as well. Not perhaps that municipal law will not allow them to tax the people further; but experience shows that you can tax the people just so much and then, as governments have found in the past, you do not get as much money as you did before. Many of the smaller cities have reached the limit where they can reasonably tax the people and e-xpect to get more money. So that if we are to be confined to direct relief, then the government will have to be prepared to pay a larger share of relief money. This will be necessary for two reasons: first, as I have stated, the cities have little or no money, and in the second place, they will be worse off inder a policy of direct relief than under the system of contributing to work. Under the system of contributing to work, the arrangement, in Brtish Columbia at any rate, was that the city paid twenty-five per cent, the province twenty-five per cent, and the dominion fifty per cent. So that if a municipality had $1,000 to spend on relief work, it resulted in a total expenditure of $4,000. That is obvious. Now, if they are to be confined to direct relief, which is on the basis of 33-33-33 and a fraction, then the city's $1,000 will result in an expenditure of only S3,000 and they will have nothing to show for it. They will still have to dig down into an exhausted treasury to do whatever necessary maintenance work might be required in the streets. So that they will be much worse off under the direct relief system than under the one that obtained last year, where each party to the agreement contributed to the work in the proportions I have mentioned. I suggest again, therefore, that if the system now proposed is to operate, the cities will have to have a larger grant.
My next suggestion is that the minister put a little more into the act and a little less into the regulations. He has had one or two years' experience and he knows what can and what cannot be done, and I think the work would be facilitated if he would put more into the law in order to let us know just where we stand. Above all, we want a real genuine system which will provide that when the cities have expended money and are entitled to a certain return from the Dominion government, they shall receive immediate payment. The experience in British Columbia during the last year shows this to be a highly 
desirable thing. Last year the cities in that province made a deal with the provincial government that they were to put up so much, the province so much and the dominion so much. They went ahead and spent money and incurred obligations. When the work was in progress the men had to be paid and the result was that the cities had to borrow money at a high rate of interest in order to meet payments which should have been met out of payments from the government. In many cases these cities reached the end of their borrowing powers and the unhappy storekeepers had to act as bankers for the province. There should be a definite system evolved so that this money will be paid when due.
I would suggest that the dominion relief officer, especially in the province of British Columbia, should be placed in a position to earmark the moneys coming from the dominion. These moneys should not pass through the provincial treasuries, where it has a habit of sticking; it should come directly from the dominion to the cities. Of course, provision could be made to see what vouchers are properly o.k'd and all that; let the provinces O.K. the vouchers, but do not let the money get into the provincial treasuries. Such a procedure would make the burden of relief, which will be heavy this year, much easier to bear.
I am not making any grand bold suggestions that the department change its policy, because I know they would not; I am only making these one or two plain suggestions. However, I think they are practical suggestions and if the minister will give them consideration I do not think he will be so likely to have a repetition of the nightmare which he must have had last year in connection with the situation in British Columbia.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: Mr. Chairman, I have followed the trend of this discussion but I wonder to where it is leading us. I am beginning to realize that the government is trying to shirk the responsibility of relieving unemployment. During the last election the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennott) said that he was going to build the trans-Canada highway and would undertake other public works in order to give employment to everyone who wanted it, but, the farther we go the more we realize that the government is trying to shirk the responsibility. Last year when the unemployment relief bill was introduced the responsibility was divided between the municipalities, the provinces and the Dominion government. That plan seemed to work for a while, but it has proved to be a complete

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
failure. The municipalities and the provinces are close to bankruptcy and the government now says that it has done enough. The resolution reads in part as follows:
*-to loan money to any province on such terms as may be agreed upon and to guarantee the repayment of moneys borrowed by such province and to assist any province in any way that may be deemed necessary or advisable to provide for the relief of distress and the support and maintenance of those requiring assistance, and to loan money to and guarantee the payment of money by any public corporation or undertaking
According to this resolution the government is leaving the whole responsibility upon the provinces, so why all this discussion about the trans-Canada highway? The government has nothing to do with this, it is leaving the whole responsibility upon the provinces. Why should we bother about the administration of such works if the provinces are' going to handle everything? I think the government feels that its honour is in danger because, as I said in a previous speech, it is scandalous the way things have been handled in connection with this highway. The government is leaving everything to the provinces and is going to let them sink or swim. During the discussion on his estimates on April 28, the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Gordon) is recorded on page 2452 of Hansard as saying:
On April 8 the provincial premiers came to Ottawa and on what remain of that day and throughout the following day the whole situation was considered with a view to checking up on the work accomplished and to formulate a course for the future. I think I am stating it fairly when I say the premiers and those representing the provinces were unanimous in the decision that the provinces and the municipalities within those provinces were financially unable for any length of time to carry on the program of public works projected, or to carry out the scheme formulated since the last session of parliament. Further, it was the opinion of provincial representatives and myself that there had been started public works, a portion of the cost of which would become a charge upon the municipalities and provinces, which probably should be discontinued, because the municipalities and provinces, and probably the Dominion, would not be able to continue them.
The Minister of Labour has permitted discussion to continue this afternoon in connection with the trans-Canada highway, but why does he not tell us definitely whether the government is going to accept responsibility in connection with this work, or whether it is to be carried on under the exclusive management of the provinces? It is about time we should know. If this work is to be undertaken by the provinces, there is no use in discussing it any further.


Ernest Lapointe: The resolution gives
authority to the governor in council to enter into agreements with all or any of the provinces respecting relief measures, but it does not state what the relief measures are to be. We have been told by the Prime Minister, and I believe by the Minister of Labour, that the policy of having work undertaken by the government alone or in conjunction with the provinces is to be discarded. We have been told that relief may be granted in cases of necessity; but, on the other hand, the resolution reads:
-to loan money to any province of such terms as may be agreed upon and to guarantee the repayment of moneys borrowed by such province and to assist any province in any way that may be deemed necessary or advisable to provide for the relief of distress and the support and maintenance of those requiring assistance.
I was led to understand, from what the Prime Minister said the other day, that the policy would be to lend money to the provinces for the purpose of giving not work, but relief, assistance-the dole, if you like. Will the minister kindly tell us what the policy is going to be? Will it be merely the lending of money by the federal government to the provinces? If so, the government or parliament would be doing practically nothing; we would be merely lending the credit of the dominion to the provinces in order that they might help the unemployed by giving them money for food and other necessities. I do not think we have been given all the information, and I would ask the minister kindly to tell the committee what the government has in mind as to how this resolution and the bill to be based upon it will work out in practice.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 
Edward Joseph Garland: Just what type of work is the minister referring to?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I did place on Hansard
the telegram that was sent to all the provincial premiers after the conference that was held here so that there would be a clear definition of the arrangement that was arrived at. At the risk of repeating-


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
want the minister to go to that trouble, but would he just give an illustration of the type of work he has in mind?

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces


Wesley Ashton Gordon: For instance, buildings
that have been started, undertakings on which the work already done would be lost if the work was not completed. Take, for instance, the building of a sewerage system, or something of the kind. Then again there is a type of work that cannot be stopped without creating undischarged contractual obligations. With a view to determining what works will fall within these categories and what can be discontinued, I have had communication with the various provinces in order that the schedules may be carefully reviewed and nothing lost by reason of discontinuing works of a different character.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the
national highway come in that class?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, I do not think it does. I presume the hon. member refers to what is commonly known as the trans-Canada highway. I scarcely think it falls within that category. On the other hand, the trans-Canada highway probably stands aside and apart from strictly relief work. Moneys may be devoted to work upon the trans-Canada highway as a measure of relief in conjunction with the provinces, but no agreement has been reached on that point. However, it will undoubtedly be the subject of discussion when the agreements with the provinces are entered into. I do not think I can enlarge on what the provinces have in mind with a view to the future.
I have been asked what is being done in the interim between the end of last month and to-day. We are advancing no money other than to complete contracts already entered into. The provinces, the municipalities, and many, many societies in this country, which are earnestly trying to help people to help themselves, are not relaxing their efforts in any respect. I am not one of those who suggest that there is an overflowing well of money where all you have to do is to go with your pail and get it filled as occasion demands, and then hope against hope that from some place at present undefined you can get more money out of the willing taxpayer. I am sure every member well understands that these steps can only be taken having regard to the capacity of our people to pay, and every man, whether unemployed or employed, has to bear that in mind. The unemployed men must always remember that it is the employed man who has to bear this burden, and he should be extremely astute himself to take advantage of every opportunity to improve his position. I cannot imagine anything that is easier, at least for
a time, than for a man to lie back and say: Somebody has either got to find me work or take care of me. But I do not think the normal man is going to be content long in that frame of mind. His own desire to become rehabilitated will early reassert itself. That condition of mind will not become a fixture with him. The normal man will take advantage of every opportunity, great or small. Mapping out that course for a person, we will assist through the agency of the provinces, and will at least see that there is no starvation, such as has been described, or destitution, in an endeavour to help the people over this most difficult and trying time. I am sure every member of this chamber is conscious of the fact that the whole nation, as reflected in this dominion, the provinces, the municipalities, and an innumerable number of industries and societies of all kinds, is straining every effort to join in a concerted and sustained endeavour to get the country over this trying period, and I am just as confident as I am of standing here that we are going to do it.
I cannot outline categorically the exact steps that may have to be taken, because each week and each month the picture changes; but I think the picture is improving. The reports that I get from British Columbia, to which a great deal of attention has been directed, seem to indicate improvement, and that is very gratifying. I know that in northern Ontario in my part, and that is the greater part, things are improving very materially. I know as a matter of fact that many hundreds of workmen have been taken on in the last few months, and I know that conditions have also been improving in northwestern Quebec, because I am very well acquainted with the situation there. But unfortunately, as soon as it is advertised that hundreds of workmen are being taken on and there is plenty of work in a certain section, and of course the story is always embellished, we have men coming in-I say this without a feeling of petulance at all about the newcomers into Canada, but they seem to be able to move around faster than the people who are bom in this country; they come into the camps up there and are a problem. But the people are meeting it with very great courage, as I am sure that the people throughout Canada generally are doing.


Ernest Lapointe: As far as direct relief
is concerned, that is providing money for destitute people who need food or shelter, do I understand the minister to say that the
2632	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
dominion Will contribute its share and will not simply confine itself to lending money to the provinces as we have been led to understand? Will the dominion contribute its share?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We will lend the money
to the provinces-


Ernest Lapointe: The dominion will only
lend money?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The dominion will contribute.


Ernest Lapointe: Not simply by lending
money?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, we will give to the
provinces, and of course the provinces are the only ones who are in touch with their own people and have the machinery set up to distribute the relief that these funds will provide.


Edward Joseph Garland: Could the
minister state the percentage of relief costs to be borne by the Dominion government?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The percentage of relief
as between the provinces and the dominion has not been definitely settled. However all provinces will be fairly dealt wth, and I believe there will be little difficulty in arriving at a fair adjustment.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister said conditions
were improved in British Columbia. Did his information indicate what branch of industry had improved?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Lumbering, for one-


Alan Webster Neill: Lumber? Good Lord!


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, and coal, for another.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I understood
the minister to indicate that the government would both lend and contribute to the provinces. If I understood him correctly, he said contributions would be for relief purposes, and not for purposes of work; is that correct?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Answering the first question, I say the dominion will give a percentage to the provinces by way of contribution. It may happen, as it has in the past, that some province may not for the moment be able to put up its share. In such a circumstance I believe the Dominion government would be justified in lending, and would lend to the province the share it would have to put up, taking in security, I presume, treasury bills.
With respect to the last part of the question, following the unanimous view of all the provinces-and I think I am fair in that

statement-an effort will be made first to give direct relief to all those destitute and worthy people. At the present time so far as I am aware there is no program outlined by any of the provinces for anything in the nature of forced expansion of works in connection with buildings or things of that kind.
Progress reported,


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 4, 1932.