[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. H. MOORE (Ontario) presented the second report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. White be substituted for that of Mr. MacNicol on the standing committee on marine and fisheries.
That the name of Mr. MacNicol be substituted for that of Mr. White on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
That the name of Mr. Kuhl be substituted for that of Mr. Johnston (Bow River) on the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE-ST. LAWRENCE DEEP WATERWAY TREATY 1932, NIAGARA CONVENTION 1929, OGOKI RIVER AND KENOGAMI RIVER (long lake) PROJECTS, AND EXPORT OF ELECTRICAL POWER
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I desire to lay on the table copies in French of correspondence and documents relating to the St. Lawrence deep waterway treaty, 1932; Niagara convention, 1929; Ogoki river and Ivenogami river (Long lake) projects, and export of electrical power; also a copy of a communication dated February 25, 1938. from the Premier of Ontario to the Prime Minister of Canada, with reference to the Kenogami river project.
A reply to the communication I have just tabled was sent to the Premier of Ontario to-day, but I do not think it should be tabled until after it has been received by him.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved that the house go into

Foreign Policy
committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Soldier Settlement Act for the purpose of reducing from seven per centum to five per centum the interest rate charged on certain repayments to the board of taxes and insurance premiums paid by the board in respect to soldier settlement lands in case of default on the part of the settler, and to provide further that the period during which payments of arrears or instalments at present subject to bonus privileges may be made, be further extended to the 31st day of March, 1941.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act so as to extend the allowance payable thereunder to a class of veterans of the great war not presently the recipients of such allowances who, because of tangible or intangible disabilities and handicaps, are incapable of maintaining themselves; to include certain veterans of the South African war; to include among the classes of moneys non-deductible from allowance, pensions or grants accompanying certain military decorations; to provide for the avoidance^ of overlapping of benefits payable under the War Veterans' Allowance Act and those payable under the Old Age Pension Act, and to enlarge the membership of the war veterans' allowances board.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: In view of recent statements by the Prime Minister of Great Britain regarding the League of Nations, collective security and Italy, has the government of Canada been kept fully informed of the British foreign policy indicated by such statements, and if so, what
opinion, if any, has the government expressed on behalf of the Canadian people in relation to any or all of these matters?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend had advised me of his intention to ask this question.
The Canadian government has been furnished with full summaries of recent statements made in the British House of Commons by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In addition, it has received a brief report of a conversation with a representative of a foreign government. These communications, as is usually the case, are in the nature of information rather than consultation. The Canadian government nas not offered any opinion on the statements in question.



EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: I wish to ask the government and particularly the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) whether the final report of the national employment commission has been laid on the table. If not, when may we expect it to be brought down?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): I believe it has already been stated that it is the intention of the government to lay this report on the table as soon as it is printed and available in both languages. I expect that will be in the course of a very short time.



OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. 24, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1929-Mr. Power.-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: When the bill was last before the committee all clauses were passed, but the leader of the opposition made a suggestion which I have submitted to the officers of the department, and to which I think it is most reasonable that we should agree, namely, that the act should come into force on proclamation. I therefore move, seconded by Mr. Howe:
That this act shall come into force upon a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council.
That will be section 11.
Narcotic Drug Act


Mr. McKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: I was not in the house when the minister introduced this bill. I have no desire to reopen the discussion, because the less publicity given this question, the better. I may be entirely out of order, but since it has been brought in I have received communications from certain persons in Lambton county who for over twenty-four years have been growing what is called Indian hemp for commercial purposes. They entered into this project encouraged by the Department of Agriculture and sponsored by them, and have made quite a profitable enterprise out of it during the past several years.
As I read the amendment it is possible to obtain a licence to grow this hemp under certain conditions. That may be all right, but if the restrictions are so great as to make it impracticable to grow this hemp, then I suggest that no licences should be granted at all. If you will look at the Canadian Almanac at page 102, in connection with the tariff, you will notice that hemp seed is listed for free importation. That would lead me to believe that it is possible to import seed and to grow it commercially. I fully realize that if this bill is passed it will be more difficult to control the growing of what is known as marihuana in small plots in back yards, or in flower pots, than it will be to control it in a commercial way.
One grower I have in mind is probably the only man in Canada who has converted hemp into a spinnable fibre for export, and he has built up a profitable sideline. In all fairness, if the restrictions are to be made too severe in the granting of licences, then the privilege should be abolished and this grower should be compensated for the money he has spent on machinery, and for the profitable industry he has built up. I bring this to the attention of the minister because in the twenty-four years that this man has grown this hemp there has been no complaint from the narcotics branch nor from any other source whatever, if there are to be too rigid restrictions he or any other grower should be compensated to the extent I suggest.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill as amended reported.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure conferring authority upon a transport commis-

sion (the board of railway commissioners to he known as such) to license, regulate and control the transport of passengers and goods by railways, ships and aircraft, and to fix licence fees and transportation tolls and charges and regulate and control other matters incidental thereto.
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Mr. HOWE:: The purpose of the bill to be founded upon this resolution is to extend the jurisdiction of the board of railway commissioners, which in future, if this bill carries, will be known as the Board of Transport Commissioners, to inland shipping and transportation by air. A bill similar to this was introduced last session in another chamber, and a long series of hearings was held there. In drafting the present 'bill we have profited by the discussion in the other chamber and eliminated such of the more contentious features as are not essential to the purpose of the measure. We believe that this legislation will serve a constructive purpose, and that it will not be particularly contentious in its present form. The bill will have the effect of not only extending regulation to shipping and aviation, but will also have the effect of alleviating somewhat the possible over-regulation of the railways; for it extends to them the power to contract under certain circumstances, with full publicity and full protection against discrimination, giving them to a limited extent the power to contract which shipping and aviation now have.


Mr. BENNETT:: I do not think the minister's explanation is an ample explanation of the general principle of the resolution. But possibly we can wait until the bill is brought down to secure the necessary information.


Mr. CHURCH:: This is the second time within a week that the transportation question has been before this house. The other day a committee was appointed on the Canadian National Railways estimates. What that committee will do I do not know, because no questions can be asked in the house.
This second transportation bill was before another body last year and I notice that the minister is dropping one of the main features of regulation, that with respect to motor buses and trucks operating on the highways, which are to-day robbing the railways of their business and are in considerable measure responsible for the railway deficit. These deficits are accumulating. The railway commission is not a transport commission at all. In England they have a transport department headed by a transport minister, who has

Transport Commission
jurisdiction over many matters which were included in the bill introduced here during the session. This is a different resolution. The government should be prepared to tell the house before the second reading of this bill what it is going to do about one of Canada's chief problems, the railway problem. We have no money for ordinary expenditures owing to the deficit on one railway system. What is the government going to do about it? Is it going to have a new transport commission similar to the railway commission which does not now regulate anything?
The minister proposes now to widen the powers of the board of railway commissioners along the lines indicated. We have had three or four royal commissions investigating our railways, including the Duff commission and the Drayton-Acworth commission, and their recommendations were ignored. Now it is proposed to give these new powers to the transport commission. I doubt that that regulatory body will be able to regulate anything. Are you going to include in its jurisdiction all forms of transportation? We had a debate in the house the other day about what they are doing in England along this very line, not only in respect to railways but in respect to motor trucks and buses, reducing the railway deficits and putting the British railways in a condition of efficiency which is a credit to the mother country. Is the minister prepared to put all the cards on the table, or is he going to hearken to another body which discussed this bill last year and take out of it what should be in it, namely the power to regulate these means of transport which are taking the cream of the business from the railways? In England a hundred years ago the railways ruined the canals; now the motor trucks are ruining the railways. If this body is not prepared to deal with the problem in Canada some other body will take our place in 1940. I am not prepared to say what should be done, but this resolution does not go far enough, and I am sorry to see the minister dropping some of the clauses which should be in the bill if we are to have anything other than merely remote control. We know what the railway commission is; we know what the Duff and Drayton reports showed about the way it regulates.
Last week we sent the railways and shipping accounts and estimates to one committee, and now we are to have another body. Look at what the Duff report says about passes. Talk about deadheads on the railways!

I do not wonder at their having deficits. If by this measure we are going to give up control to
outside bodies as vre have been doing, then responsible government is at an end in this country. We meet here week after week and month after month, yet one of the most important problems facing the government is not dealt with; in fact a private member is almost afraid to mention it. But I intend to keep the matter before the house and before the government because something must be done. We had a similar situation in Toronto and the county of York and adjoining counties, where the Mackenzie and Mann interests had an intolerable grip on the people. They had light, power and transportation franchises all over the three counties, beyond any public control. But the city grappled with that situation and cleaned it up. If they could do that, surely this federal government can do something about what I suggest. I hope we shall have some definite proposals and explanations before the second reading.


Mr. THORSON:: Will the minister indicate briefly in what respect the proposed bill differs from the one which was introduced in the senate last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The bill differs from that of last year in that any attempt to include control of traffic on the highways has been deleted. The difficulty in that connection of course is that the government has jurisdiction only at certain points. Our legal officers advise me that we have jurisdiction over trucks passing from one province to another, or crossing the international boundary, or in certain of the dominion government parks. It was felt on reconsidering the matter that such jurisdiction as we have is too limited to be particularly effective, under the conditions which prevail in Canada, and in view of the strenuous opposition of the provinces we have decided to delete that feature from the bill this year.
Moreover, an investigation bearing upon these matters is now being carried on in Ontario by the Chevrier commission, from which we hope and believe constructive legislation will emerge.
Another change is that we have excluded from the restrictions relating to shipping the carriage of materials in bulk, such as wheat, coal, iron ore, sand and gravel, to the regulation of which there was a good deal of objection. My own opinion is that the objection was not well founded and that it would be in the interest of those objecting to have regulation extended to those commodities. However the opinion before the last committee was almost unanimous against my view, so that for the present we have dropped regula-
Transport Commission

tion for those commodities from the bill. There are other minor changes which will become apparent when the bill is distributed. I think these are the major changes.


Mr. NEILL:: I notice that the resolution proposes that the board shall have power to regulate the transportation of passengers and goods 'by ships. Can the minister tell us whether that will apply only to ships on the great lakes, or will it apply also to ships in the coastal trade on the Atlantic and the Pacific?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not proposed to apply that type of regulation to coastwise shipping wholly within British Columbia, to coastwise shipping along the coast of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, or up the St. Lawrence as far as Father Point. It does apply, however, to boats coasting from those points into the great lakes and to boats coasting from a port in British Columbia to a port in another province of Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: Why is the coastal traffic
not to be regulated? Does the minister not think there is need for it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Coastwise traffic on either
coast is not competitive with other forms of transport. It is more or less a condition by itself. It is my intention at the proper time to send this bill to a committee, where matters of the kind can be discussed. If it is considered in committee that any good purpose would be served by regulating shipping along either coast, a clause of that kind could be -inserted.


Mr.   ICINLEY@: This provision with regard to coastwise shipping was in the bill when it was introduced last year, I believe, but there was so much opposition to it to the senate committee that it was struck out. Is that not so?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My recollection is that the bill never included shipping of the type that has been suggested. I may be wrong about that; perhaps it did.


Mr. KINLEY:: Yes, it did.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 31, to establish a Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, with authority in respect of transport by railways, ships and aircraft.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES AUTHORITY FOR EXTENSION BEYOND THE CONFINES OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 29, to amend The Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, hon. members will
note that this is a very short bill. As I stated in speaking to the resolution it has two purposes in view, both of which I think were contemplated when the priginal legislation was passed but were more or less inadvertently omitted.
The first section amends paragraph 14A of the bill to permit Trans-Canada Air Lines to purchase a share of the company which will operate the transatlantic air transport service, such purchase being an obligation of the government of Canada. The memorandum entered into provides that 24i per cent of the stock of the operating company shall be owned by such company as the government of Canada may designate for that purpose, and it is the intention of the government to designate Trans-Canada Air Lines as the Canadian shareholder of the transatlantic company.
The second purpose of the bill is to permit the extension of the trans-Canada contract to lines outside Canada. As originally drawn the bill permitted the company to operate outside Canada, but such guarantees as might be given by the Post Office Department to the company were limited to points within Canada. The route of the airway crosses a portion of the state of Maine, and it is also probable that the airway will operate two or possibly three international connections. At the present moment it is operating an international connection between Vancouver and Seattle. The purpose of the second paragraph is to enable the guarantees under the trans-Canada contract to extend to these operations.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section 1-Transatlantic business.
Mr. GREEN:: What is the present position with regard to the issued capital stock of Trans-Canada Air Lines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The capital stock of Trans-
Canada Air Lines at present is wholly owned by the Canadian National Railways. We have been approached by other aviation companies to discuss the disposal of a portion of it, but these offers have never been com-

Trans-Canada Air Lines
plete cash offers, and as cash is required for the purposes of the company we have declined to barter for any other commodity.


Howard Charles Green: The present position, then,
is that the Canadian National Railways own all the issued stock of Trans-Canada Air Lines, so that really it is a one hundred per cent government enterprise. Under these circumstances would it not be possible for Trans-Canada Air Lines to set up a school or schools for the training of pilots and the ground staffs that are required for Canadian flying. The training of men for the air is being handled in a more or less haphazard fashion at the present time, and if Trans-Canada Air Lines is to be a government enterprise it might be a very good place for the government to give a lead. The future of Canada will depend to a large extent upon the progress we make in our air development, and there seems to be a need for improved training facilities.
Has the minister given consideration to having Trans-Canada Air Lines set up a proper school or schools for the training of men to operate our airways in the future.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think we have as fine a school for that purpose, located in Winnipeg and operated by Trans-Canada Air Lines, as can be found anywhere on this continent. The present staff, numbering some ninety-nine, have all been trained there; the pilots, the ground crews and the radio operators have all received training at that school. When we started the enterprise we had the option of making arrangements with one or two United States schools, which do similar work, under which we could send our men over there. We decided to bring the necessary talent here, and to carry out the training in Canada, and for some months this work has been proceeding in Winnipeg.


Howard Charles Green: These men are being trained only for trans-Canada airways, are they not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: My thought was that we might train them for the other air lines as well. Many feeder lines will be operated by private companies, and I think we could raise the standard of flying and ground work right across Canada if the trans-Canada airways undertook to operate a training school for all young men wishing to fly or to learn ground work regardless of whether or not they were to be absorbed by Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The preliminary training is given by the aviation schools, of which there are some twenty-four in Canada. These schools are competent to give a transport
licence. The trans-Canada airways will not accept a man who has not had a minimum of a thousand hours flying. There is a gap between the two types of training which must be filled in in some way. Whether it should be the duty of Trans-Canada Air Lines to discharge that duty, or whether the work of the flying clubs could be concentrated in one or two advanced schools, in order to bridge the gap, is now being studied by our department. I think perhaps the latter method is the better one. However, the department is aware of the fact that there is a gap which must be filled in the education of the commercial pilot, and I think that within the next year some progress will be made towards filling that gap.


Howard Charles Green: I suppose all these men who are trained could also be used for defence purposes, if required? Is the training of a type which would be of value in a defence force?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Undoubtedly advanced training for inter-urban flying is different from the training for ordinary transport flying, or freighting. But up to a point the training is parallel. I suppose only those interested in inter-urban flying would go in for the advanced course having to do with instrument flying.


Howard Charles Green: But the minister will give serious consideration to developing schools in connection with the Trans-Canada Air Lines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have been and are still giving consideration to it.


Mr. LOCKHART:: The minister has said that there is a blank between the present education of these men and possible future requirements. I know that education facilities come entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces, but in our technical schools there has been some thought of laying the groundwork in connection with flying. The opinion has been given that in five years there will be a dearth of trained men who are air-minded. Have there been any negotiations between provincial departments and the federal government with respect to the necessity of laying the ground-work in technical schools of the provinces, or has any thought been given to the matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have had inquiries from a number of technical schools as to the type of training required by a person who wishes to enter into aviation. In each case we have given as much information as we could. The department has furnished engine parts to permit instruction being given in the mechanics

Trans-Canada Air Lines

of the aeroplane. I believe however that training in flying is better handled by the federal government, which has jurisdiction over all matters affecting the air. It has the fields and facilities to carry out that training, and while we look to the technical schools to give the ground-work of education, the actual training in flying should be done under the direction of the federal government.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I appreciate what the minister has said; nevertheless in some municipalities there are outstanding technical schools some of which are in difficult circumstances; the taxpayers are finding it hard to meet the demands made upon them. The minister will agree that those who engage in this work must be recruited from the young men who are now attending schools. The provincial departments have decreased the grants made to technical schools thereby making technical education a greater burden. I have been advised that the federal department has offered to assist by way of equipment. The point is, however, that the cost per pupil in this type of education is higher, and unless the provincial governments can be persuaded to assist in a greater degree in this type of technical education, I do not see how aviation can be promoted by the technical schools. If young men are to be had for the higher education to be given by the federal government, they must be encouraged in the technical schools, so that they may be drawn therefrom.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the paid-up capital?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The present paid-up capital is, I believe, a million and a quarter.


Mr. MASSEY:: Is it the plan to use Canadian pilots on the transatlantic hop, or will that be left entirely to Imperial Airways?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the agreement, Imperial Airways are to do the pioneering work in establishing the route. They are doing it now with Imperial Airways machines and pilots. Later on a company will be formed to take over the work, of which Imperial Airways will control fifty-one per cent. I feel sure that when the time comes they will be prepared to give Canadian pilots an opportunity. Imperial Airways now employ a number of Canadian pilots. While in Bermuda a year ago I learned that two of the pilots sent to that point to operate the Bermuda-New York run were Canadian pilots. I feel sure that Canada will be represented.


Denton Massey: Are we training our pilots for Trans-Canada Air Lines only in land ships or for the piloting of boats as well?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The present training is entirely with land ships.


Denton Massey: At what stage of the development of a pilot is he eligible to enter the school at Winnipeg? What previous training must he have had or how many hours in the air?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He must have a university education, at least a thousand hours of actual transport flying to his credit and a record in transport flying that is more or less outstanding.


Denton Massey: In other words the course being given in Winnipeg is essentially a post graduate course.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Denton Massey: Is it in the mind of the minister that, as suggested by the hon. member for Lincoln, we should attempt to develop a type of pilot who would be able to engage not only in the type of flying we have in Canada to-day, but also in transport flying such as is planned for the Trans-Canada Air Lines, so that we may give the incentive to young men to secure the necessary technical training and ground-work, and also provide facilities for them to learn to fly from the very beginning? I think it is recognized that the flying clubs throughout the dominion have been doing a very good work. It will be noticed in the estimates that some of them have been receiving small grants from the government, but many of them have been carrying on under conditions which are far from favourable, and in some cases the clubs have been forced to discontinue their activities. The work of these flying clubs has been to develop men as pilots, ultimately to become air lines pilots. I believe more substantial aid should be given to these flying clubs by the government. Perhaps an instructor could be loaned for certain periods to give the flying club members instruction, not only in flying ships from airport to airport without the aid of a beam, but in all the various phases of flying which are so important.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must take issue with the statement of my hon. friend that a good many of these clubs have ceased to operate.


Denton Massey: I said some, not a good many.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The total number of clubs in operation to-day is twenty-six. Two clubs died in the initial stages, having been established in communities which were too small to supply the necessary talent. I believe the clubs are now on a firm financial basis. It was never the intention that these clubs

Trans-Canada Air Lines
should be money-makers although some of them in the larger centres are doing quite well financially. The government gives some aid, perhaps sufficient for the work that they are doing. These clubs and my department are discussing the extension of work along the lines I indicated previously, that is, giving a more advanced training. If something feasible or practicable can be worked out it is possible that the clubs may qualify for more aid from the government.


Mr. MAYBANK:: Reference has been made to the personnel of these air lines, and I should like to have some assurance from the minister as to the nationality of those to be employed. Perhaps because of the necessity of the work, certain men have been brought in from the United States. There has been some criticism of this, perhaps unjustly. We have a very good flying school in Winnipeg, and the question has been raised whether steps will be taken to have a Canadian personnel. I am sure the minister will agree that we should give employment to our own people to the exclusion of all others. Has a definite policy been laid down for the employment of Canadians?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The present .personnel is approximately ninety-one trained men. There are two Americans employed in Seattle in connection with the American end of the operations between Vancouver and Seattle.
I believe these are only booking clerks. Of the remaining personnel in Canada, all are Canadians with the exception of five. One of the five is the vice-president in charge of operations. He was brought here because we were advised that he was the man most capable of establishing this enterprise on a firm foundation. He has had perhaps a finer and longer record in air transportation than any other man on this continent. He was brought here on the understanding that he would devote two years to the work. When it was decided to train our pilots in Canada, four other men were brought in from the United States to give technical assistance. Each one of the four is outstanding in the particular line for which he is responsible. The four are here on a six month's basis, and will be kept as long as their services are needed as training personnel. Their duties are temporary and will be terminated when we think we can get on without them.


Ralph Maybank: Are the two men employed in Seattle because the service is an international one? When our railroads run through United States territory a certain
number of employees must be citizens of that country. Is this employment due to the United States immigration laws?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The men employed in Seattle are not pilots. They are only minor employees, clerks who sell tickets, and they receive around $100 a month.


Mr. FACTOR:: The minister will recall that he had a conference with the board of control of the city of Toronto at which representations were made for the establishment of a training school in that city. There are in the vicinity of Toronto two of the finest airports on the continent, and I should like to know whether the minister has taken into consideration this matter of a flying school.


Clarence Decatur Howe: At the moment we are giving only the most advanced training courses in order to supply men for the trans-Canada operations. The school for this purpose was established in Winnipeg because of flying conditions and the fact that a radio beam and telephonic communications were there. Whether a second school of the kind will be required I doubt very much. However, we are studying the possible bridging of' the gap in the education of transport pilots, and in that connection we shall be very glad to consider the suitability of Toronto.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The minister has stated that university education is a necessary qualification for a transport pilot. While I have every respect for university graduates, I think it is about time that men who may not have had a university education should be given an opportunity to become pilots in Trans-Canada Air Lines. It will be noticed in many advertisements for civil service positions that a necessary qualification is university education. But many men with great mechanical ability are training at the different airports, and it is possible they would make much better fliers and be more interested in the work than university graduates. Might not the qualifications be reduced to enable men with perhaps senior matriculation or technical school diplomas to engage in this work?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is hardly a pilot or co-pilot flying a transport plane to-day on the North American continent who is not a university graduate. The training is most exacting. For instance, a pilot must take a very advanced course in meteorology and must have an accurate knowledge of higher physics. He must be well-versed in thermodynamics and in the construction of internal combustion engines. I do not know that anything would prevent a man who had gradu-

Trans-Canada Air Lines
ated from a technical school and attained high proficiency in transport work from obtaining a place in a service of this kind. But two or three have been tried who had not rhe background necessary to enable them to master the work that was required of them, and they had to be rejected. It is simply that the technical school man has not the background to absorb the i training. It is a condition about which we cannot do very much; the training is required and the man should have it.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I hope the minister will appreciate that I am not criticizing him, but I am informed that graduates of technical schools in Great Britain are permitted to go on to a school similar to the one in Winnipeg which he has outlined; that similar schools are provided in Britain, and that men without university training have gone into them and have become among the most successful pilots in Imperial Airways. Is that information correct, or are openings in the Imperial Airways service confined entirely to university graduates?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not that information, but I doubt very much whether a man with less than university training is accepted for training as an Imperial Airways pilot.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were in the early days of the war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is probably true, but
such is not the case to-day.


Howard Charles Green: How much will Canada
have to invest in this transatlantic service, and what percentages have been put up by Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The percentage is 51 for the
United Kingdom. 244 for Ireland, and 24i for Canada, and our contribution is limited to one and a quarter million dollars.


Howard Charles Green: When will that have to be paid?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are sending a delegate
to Ireland next month to discuss the formation of the company. I would estimate that it may be required about a year from now. We are committed to form the company only when a successful service has been established. The agreement provides that in the meantime Imperial Airways will do the pioneering.


Howard Charles Green: Does Canada get any credit
for the facilities we are providing, the landing fields and so forth, on this side? I understand we are also providing facilities in Newfoundland. Is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are obligated to provide the beam facilities, the radio facilities and the meteorological services in Canada, and the meteorological service in Newfoundland. The British government has built an airway in Newfoundland and has also provided the radio facilities there. Ireland has done certain work, in Ireland, which takes care of the first leg of the journey. The obligations to furnish facilities are divided between the three countries more or less in proportion to their share of the operations.


Howard Charles Green: That is in addition to the
capital investment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Is not this the appropriate
time to take power in the act to enter into a contract for a transpacific service? After all, these air developments come very quickly; in a matter of a year or two we shall be working on a transpacific service, so that we might as well amend the act at the present time to cover that contingency.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I feel that in the matter of
transpacific service, parliament would ask me for more information than I am able to give at the moment. It takes so little time to amend the act that I think we had better leave this discussion until we have more information as to the amount of money that will be required.


Denton Massey: What is to be the base or the terminus of the transatlantic service? Will it be in Newfoundland, or in Canada? In other words, will the trans-Canada lines extend to Newfoundland, or will Imperial Airways extend to Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is all one operation. It is,
I believe, specified in the act that services will start from Southampton, England; that a landing place will be at Foynes, Ireland; that another intermediate point will be Bot-wood, in Newfoundland, and that the Canadian terminus will be Montreal, with an alternative landing place at Shediac should weather conditions make it desirable to utilize it.


Denton Massey: Will boats be flown from
Newfoundland through to Montreal? Will Canadian ships pick up any transatlantic passengers in the maritimes; or will they be flown right through to Newfoundland?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If Shediac happens to be used on any trip as a terminus, of course we shall pick passengers up there. But the intention of the act is that Montreal shall be the terminus for the transatlantic service. It is all one operation. It is not Canadian from here to

Trans-Canada Air Lines
Newfoundland and Irish from Newfoundland to Ireland; it is one company, but there will be three or probably four countries concerned. I understand that England is taking care of Newfoundland's share and that probably Newfoundland will also have an investment, but the four countries will all be shareholders in an operating company which will carry out the whole of the operations.


Mr. LENNARD:: When the minister speaks of "Ireland" I assume he refers to Northern Ireland?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Frank Exton Lennard: Well, the other part has changed its name.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Eire.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Perhaps the minister can give us some information about the situation in the maritimes. We understood that Shediac was to be one of the terminals on this side. Has the minister any information that the company wants to come straight through from Newfoundland to Montreal, or does it not prefer to having a landing at Shediac or Moncton?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the test flights of last year Imperial Ainvays terminated all air flights at Montreal, but, I think, stopped on two occasions at Shediac. Pan-American Airways made Shediac their American base on each flight, although their contract provides, as does the Imperial contract, that Montreal shall be an alternative base for them as well as Shediac. Nothing is yet determined, I believe, as to which will be finally adopted.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Have many students enlisted in the Winnipeg school for aviation and radio engineering, and if so, how many are from the province of Quebec?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not that information.
I know that various branches of the school have supplied about ninety men, but I have no knowledge where they came from or who they are. I have not had a hand in any way in the selection of personnel for trans-Canada airways.


Vincent Dupuis: Are there now qualified radio engineers, and men qualified in meteorological operation, in the province of Quebec? If so, how many are employed at St. Hubert in radio and meteorological operations, and are they all from Quebec?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure that I cannot inform the hon. member. I have not taken the slightest part in the recruiting of the technical staff of Trans-Canada airways or of the St. Hubert airport. I placed a man in
charge of that service who I believe is competent to sort out the material, and I have left it completely to him as to where these pilots are obtained.


Vincent Dupuis: I wish the committee to know that the youth of our province is anxious to find a place in the activities of this country. I am not raising this as a parochial question; I am simply interested in helping the youth of the province of Quebec, because I am sure that if they were given an opportunity to study these things the minister would find as large a number of qualified young men in that province as in any other. I am trying only to encourage the youth of that province because I am afraid that at present the minister is under the impression that there are not a sufficient number of qualified persons in the province of Quebec to fill these positions I should be glad if we could help them to fill these positions in connection with the airport in that province.


Howard Charles Green: Will the north Atlantic route be flown the year round, or will there be a different route in the winter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As far as we know, it is the intention to fly the north Atlantic route twelve months in the year. The service there is in the experimental stage, but that is the intention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the agreement referred to executed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The agreement among the four countries? No. A conference was held in Canada two years ago and an agreement was arrived at and initialled, but it has never been carried beyond that stage. Each government approved the agreement as initialled, but no formal agreement was ever signed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I ask only for the reason that it might be laid on the table if it were in shape to be seen, since reference has been made to it. If it is a confidential document it need not be.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have here a document which is not confidential, so far as I am aware I will lay it on the table.


Mr. DUNNING:: It is not signed.


Mr. STIRLING:: Do I understand the
minister to say that in the ordinary course of events there will be a non-stop flight from Southampton to Montreal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not a non-stop flight. The flights are Southampton to Foynes, Ireland, thence to Botwood, Newfoundland, and from Botwood to Montreal.
Trans-Canada Air Lines


Grote Stirling: The longest non-stop
flight will be from Ireland to Botwood?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Grote Stirling: And that will be how many miles?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Fifteen hundred.


Grote Stirling: Is it at Botwood that the oncoming plane will first begin to pick up the beam?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The beam at Newfoundland has two legs, one leg extending toward Ireland and the other towards Canada. The beam is not continuous from Foynes to Newfoundland. These beams spread as they go, however, and I think that the beam in fairly good weather will extend six hundred miles in each direction, leaving a fairly short gap. Experience to date is that radio reception is perfect all the way across. The aeroplane is in telephonic communication with one shore or the other continuously, and it is only for a short distance out of control of the beam itself. We have assisted recently by establishing cross-bearings along the coast, which allow them to locate the distance travelled. In the early days the distance travelled was obtained from ships as they passed, but we have set up stations to give cross-bearings and we believe that from the standpoint of electrical communication the route is first-class.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Minister may contract with corporation.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Would it not be better to add after the word "passengers" the word "mails," so as to make it read "transport of passengers, mails and goods"? Goods might not necessarily mean mails. Last year, if my memory serves me, it was suggested that the word "goods" was broad enough to cover it, but mails are not really goods in the ordinary use of the term. It would not hurt to add "mails" to make it clear beyond per-adventure.


Charles Avery Dunning: I move that the word "mails" be added after the word "passengers" in the twenty-eighth line.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There must be a partial operation in Canada in order that this section may operate; that is, there must be a partial operation in Canada before there can be operation in the foreign country. That seems to me to be an adequate safeguard.


Howard Charles Green: How many routes outside Canada are in contemplation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: At the moment we have one between Seattle and Vancouver and there may be possibly two more. We have had some discussions about two other routes, but I would not say that that would be the limit. They are divided by international agreement, and there may be three or four more when we have the matter straightened out.


Howard Charles Green: Which routes are being considered now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: While these discussions are taking place between Canada and the United States I think it would be well not to mention exact routes.


Howard Charles Green: Are we buying in Canada the planes for Trans-Canada airways? If not, where are we getting them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We looked into that question extensively and found that for the number of planes we had to buy, no Canadian manufacturer was interested in getting the agency for one of the recognized types of transport planes. We went into the situation in Britain and found there again that all manufacturers were booked up with civil aviation work, so that we could get no tenders there. Our planes are bought from the Lockheed corporation in California.


Denton Massey: Has the minister any information in regard to the connecting link or feeder line between Toronto and Buffalo or somt other United States airport so that the Trans-Canada Air Lines will connect with the United States air lines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are several matters under discussion by correspondence with the United States to-day, and it might embarrass not only Canada, but the United States as well, to say whether any particular routes are under discussion.


Denton Massey: I do not wish to embarrass the minister, but I am most anxious to know, because that is a question one hears asked very frequently in Ontario and also the western part of Quebec.
I know that the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) had it in mind to ask a question-unfortunately he had to leave the chamber for a few minutes-as to the possibility of having the Buffalo-Detroit planes sit down at Hamilton if that airport should be enlarged. The minister says he does not wish to discuss these plans, but may I ask whether any such arrangement has been contemplated?

Inspection and Sale Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nothing of the kind has been contemplated. The United States air lines have made no proposal to us that I know of to sit down at Hamilton.
iMr. ROSS (St. Paul's): How will the ticket sales of Trans-Canada Air Lines be handled?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is expected that all the facilities of the Canadian National Railways, and possibly of other railways in Canada, will be available for that purpose. But at the moment we are more concerned with the mechanical aspect. The handling of traffic is something for the future; no decision has been arrived at as to details of ticket selling.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Will there be
cooperation on the part of the government with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in connection with this air service?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I say, no detailed plan has been worked out for the sale of tickets. We know we have all the resources of the Canadian National Railways available, and I presume discussion will take place with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company so as to get as wide distribution as possible.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Unless there is
cooperation with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company they will not sell the tickets. Is it the government's intention to cooperate with the other railways of the country?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act the two railways agree to cooperate and to continue to cooperate, so I presume that when the Canadian National does anything it will be bound by law to cooperate with the Canadian Pacific.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



INSPECTION AND SALE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 30, to regulate the inspection and sale of binder twine and salt, and to establish weight of bushel for certain commodities commonly sold by the bushel.
He said: I do not think any further explanation is necessary than was made the other day on the resolution with regard to this bill. The intention is simply to repeal certain legislation now included in other statutes and to reenact certain sections in a new bill.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Definitions.
Mr. SENN:: Is there any difference between the definition of "dealer" in this bill and what it was formerly?


Mr. GARDINER:: The definition in the original act was in the section which dealt with binder twine, but it means almost exactly the same.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Analysts and inspectors.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think subsection (b)
should be very carefully considered by the committee. It does not seem to me quite proper that the minister should establish the commodities and the legal weights of commodities; it should be set out in the statute so that anyone may see it. It is highly desirable that anyone should be able to ascertain "the legal weight per bushel for such additional commodities not already covered by section 18 of this act as may be deemed necessary-" To have it done by the minister means that people have no way of knowing what the law is and may frequently find themselves in difficulty. That objection has been frequently taken and successfully urged in this chamber. That the minister should fix the legal weight for a commodity, with no statutory provision therefor, is contrary to the general principles which should govern legislation of this kind.


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume the reason
for the provision is merely to enable the list provided in section 18 to be added to. The list in the original act is a very short one, consisting of eight items, starting with bituminous coal and running to timothy seed. Since that time it would appear that it has been necessary to add many items, and the list is now rather long as we have it in section 18. It is considered advisable that as time goes on and new items may require definition as to weight, someone should have the authority to add them to the list from time to time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly the point. Parliament meets once a year, and there is no reason why additional commodities should not be inserted in section 18 from time to time by parliament. To have the minister settle what they shall be and thus have the public ignorant of what they are is contrary to principle that should govern an act dealing
Inspection and Sale Act

with the sale of commodities. There will be no means by which one can readily ascertain just what weight a given commodity added to section 18 should have. In other words, it is legislation by a single individual, adding to a section commodities that are not in the act at all and with respect to which under the act there is no means of making known to the public what the weight is and what the commodity is that is being dealt with under section 18. I think the minister will see that this is unsound, because here we are dealing with certain commodities in a statute. If subsection (b) of section 4 is to operate, there is no need of doing this at all. The minister needs only to pass that subsection and determine what shall be the weight of salt and other matters of that kind. If we come to parliament, as we are doing now, to deal with certain commodities, as is the case now, it seems to me that it is not logical or consonant with sound reason that we should depart from that procedure and leave it to the minister to add to section 18 any commodities he wishes.
I think the minister would be the first to object to that if he saw it himself, for it is hardly fair to the community. Subsection (b) need not be there next session. If the minister has additional items he comes to parliament, as he is doing to-day, and adds those items to section 18. I think it is an act of parliament, rather than the view of one individual who is the Minister of Agriculture for the moment, that should govern with respect to the matter. I think the minister will not regard that as an unfair statement. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is charged with the administration of the Weights and Measures Act. This is a special provision dealing with certain matters that are deemed to have greater bearing upon agriculture than upon matters of trade and commerce.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I quite appreciate the strength of the argument advanced by the right hon. leader of the opposition, but I would suggest that it is really necessary to have subsection (b) there, for this reason: It is assumed that all the items which will need to be dealt with are now in the bill, but there is always the possibility that between sessions the necessity may arise for some weight being set upon the bushelage of something not now contemplated. I think it would be safer to have that power in the hands of the minister, acting on the advice of officials of the department, than to leave the commodity to be dealt in with no definite weight established until the house

may meet again. I would imagine that the only advantage which would be taken of this section would be to deal with cases of that kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister not
answered his own argument? The fact that he comes to parliament at all to deal with binder twine and a number of other commodities now in section 18 is conclusive proof, in my judgment, that parliament and not the minister should deal with them. Otherwise it would be only necessary for the minister to pass subsection (b) and then make up his list. But parliament determines the weight of alfalfa seed, bituminous coal and matters of that kind, as they are set out in section 18 on page 4 of the bill. When we find it convenient to come here with respect to binder twine and salt, it indicates that with parliament meeting once a year there is only a period of about six months when parliament could not pass a bill dealing with other matters, and it is better that we should preserve some semblance of democracy in our institutions rather than say that notwithstanding the fact that we have come here to deal with these matters under section 18, we are now going to deal with similar matters by handing them over to the minister. I think the minister will admit that to be unsound. The answer to the argument advanced by the minister is contained in the very bill itself; otherwise there is no need of its being here.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry, but I do not think the leader of the opposition has really got my point. There is the possibility that some commodities with which we are not in these days dealing in Canada, may come to be dealt with at any time. By scientific and other means we are developing new commodities; we even have plants brought into sale from time to time which in previous years were not being dealt with commercially. For two or three months before the house meets there may be a need for somebody to define the weight at which that commodity is to be sold, and it seems quite fair to leave in the hands of the minister the power to set that weight. Then, when the house met, perhaps two or three months later, of course parliament could deal with the commodity and put it on some definite list.


Mark Cecil Senn: A number of commodities in general commercial use are not included in this list. For instance, there are carrots, potatoes and other vegetables. They may be dealt with in another statute; I do not know,

Inspection and Sale Act
but unless they are it seems to me that the minister would have power under this section to deal with them as he saw fit.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think there would be any chance of any minister dealing with them otherwise than in the manner in which they are dealt with in the ordinary trade. That is, there are established weights for all of these ordinary commodities with which we are dealing, and I do not think any minister would attempt to change that.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Shall the
section carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I must say that I think there is a great principle involved here, a principle with regard to which the present Prime Minister railed for hours. No wonder the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) nods his head. Apparently he did not intend to do so, but he remembers the incident to which I refer. It is wholly unsound. Think what it means. It means that we have clothed one man with authority to do what? We have given him authority to establish a legal weight per bushel for such commodities not already included under section 18 of this act as may be deemed necessary. This is not even to be subject to the provisions of any other statute. It gives the minister the power to repeal statutes w'hich have to do with the weights of otheT commodities.
I am satisfied that this is bureaucracy gone mad. That is what it means. I can remember the present Prime Minister taking hours of the time of .the house railing against this sort of thing. This involves a very important principle, namely parliament clothing one individual with the power to fix and establish a legal weight per bushel for any commodity not already dealt with under the act, regardless of all the other statutes in the country. Wheat is named here. Potatoes are not. It is not to be even a matter of order in council; it is the minister himself who may do this. That may be Liberalism, but it is not the brand of Liberalism which was preached from this side of the house during the years from 1930 to 1935. However, other days, other manners.
I cannot think that the minister desires to assume such dictatorial and autocratic powers as are here concerned. If it were not for the principle which is involved I would not waste the time of the committee in speaking about the matter. The principle is:	Shall
parliament confer upon one man the right, regardless of what other statutes say, to fix the weight of a commodity at any figure he sees fit, and include it as part of section 18,
when parliament is now dealing with several commodities, to bring them within section 18 and enlarge the list? In future the list may be enlarged by somebody else. It is just that sort of legislation, as I say, against which the present Prime Minister used to argue not for minutes but for hours, reading from many learned authorities. I can see before me many who on various occasions read from Lord Hewart's book to indicate what a terrible thing it was that the will of the people should be used thus for the purpose of clothing one man with the authority of parliament itself. I dare say there are some who will remember the harsh terms that were used, and the effort made to indicate one man as the person who deserved them. I certainly remember it, being the person alluded to, but apparently that is not a matter of importance now. I do think the minister should not place himself in that position, but of course we realize that he has the power to pass this bill.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I remember quite well the incident to which the right hon. leader of the opposition referred, in regard to the present Prime Minister. I personally protested against the custom of giving a minister of the crown arbitrary power. The then Prime Minister, or his ministers, between 1930 and 1935 stated that that was the usual way to do it, and that otherwise the minister could not administer his department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those were regulations made by the governor-in-council.


Vincent Dupuis: And even in bills. If I had the time I could put my finger on scores of bills-


Richard Bedford Bennett: You would have great difficulty.


Vincent Dupuis: -where apparently arbitrary power has been given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Be good enough to name one.


Vincent Dupuis: Of course the right hon. gentleman knows it very well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is unparliamentary, but we will pass it by. Name one.


Vincent Dupuis: If the right hon. the leader of the opposition would give me a chance I could name scores of bills where the same thing was done by the former government.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the section carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but I am not going to waste more time on it.
Inspection and Sale Act


James Garfield Gardiner: Let it stand until I have an opportunity to look into it.
Section 4 stands.
On section 5-Appointment of analysts and inspectors.


Mark Cecil Senn: How are the inspectors to be appointed, and how are they appointed at the present time? Are the appointments under the civil service commission, or by the minister?


James Garfield Gardiner: By the civil service commission, under the law, as the section states.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it not necessary to add the appropriate words? That was discussed in the house, and it was thought desirable that the proper words be added to make it clear that the civil service commission must deal with the matter. Possibly that did not happen since this parliament began, but I know that appropriate words were added with respect to the civil service commission. I think the minister knows what I refer to.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Last session there was a discussion in connection with the Seeds Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is right, yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I asked the department this year to insert the proper provision. I believe that has been done.


Charles Avery Dunning: The words "authorized by law" have been inserted to cover the point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Labels on binder twine for sale in Canada; for export.
Mark Cecil Senn: It seems to me that this clause may be a little ambiguous. We find in section 3 that a dealer means:
The person or firm manufacturing or importing or selling or having in possession for sale any binder twine.
Does section 6 mean that each man into whose possession the binder twine comes must have his name attached to the label on the binder twine, or does it mean that any one of them will be sufficient?


James Garfield Gardiner: Section 169 of the act reads as follows:
169. In the following provisions respecting binder twine "dealer" means the person or firm manufacturing or importing or having in his or its possession for sale, or exposing or offering for sale, any binder twine.
Although some few words are different, the meaning is practically the same. Section 170

of the old act is practically the same as section 6 in the bill. It is under that section that in the past sale has been carried out.


Mark Cecil Senn: Suppose I am a dealer in a certain town retailing binder twine and, on analysis, it is found that the binder twine is not in accordance with the provisions of the act, am I liable because the name of the firm which manufactured the binder twine, and not my name, is on the label. It seems to me the section puts the dealer or the retail merchant in an unfortunate position. If that is not the intention of the section, and if it is clear to other people that my interpretation is not the correct one, I am satisfied.


James Garfield Gardiner: My experience is that in the past anyone selling binder twine improperly labelled was liable.


Mark Cecil Senn: Whether or not he is a dealer?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are only one or two words which seem to present any difficulty. At the end of the section we find that the onus of proof lies upon the dealer "who has or has had the binder twine in his possession."


Charles Avery Dunning: That is in connection with export.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know that. First of all it is quite clear that binder twine for export need not be labelled in the manner prescribed by the section and second if it is used domestically and is not so labelled the onus of proving that it was for export lies not only upon the dealer but the dealer "who has or has had the binder twine in his possession." I direct attention to these words because they make possible a difficult situation. The minister will correct me if I am wrong but my memory is that the onus of proof has always been upon the dealer in this matter. I think in this instance, we have gone a bit farther. Although I do not carry all these matters in my memory, it would seem to me that the words "who has or has had the binder twine in his possession" create an almost impossible situation.


James Garfield Gardiner: Probably the position taken by the leader of the opposition is the correct one. A careful reading of the old act would indicate that perhaps there has been a change. It may have been made for a purpose and, on the other hand, it may have been written in unintentionally. In view of the circumstances I had better let the section stand and have it checked. The old section reads:
The onus of proof that any unlabelled binder twine is manufactured for export only shall

Inspection and Sale Act
rest upon the manufacturer, dealer, carrier or other person in whose possession the binder twine is found.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is quite different.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and I shall have it checked. Meantime I ask that the section stand.
Section stands.
On section 7-Reconditioned or rewound binder twine.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have an amendment
suggested by a firm of binder twine distributors which I shall ask my colleague to move.


Charles Avery Dunning: I move that the following be substituted for section 7:
7. No person shall sell, offer or have in possession for sale as binder twine in Canada, any binder twine which has been damaged by fire or water unless:
(a)	in the case of damaged binder twine which has been reconditioned, the original tags on the balls of twine have been removed and replaced with tags labelled in accordance with section 6 of this act, and in addition with the words " Reconditioned Binder Twine," and the original markings on the sacks containing the damaged binder twine have been obliterated or concealed, and the sacks, or labels durably attached thereto, labelled in a conspicuous manner " Reconditioned Binder Twine " or,
(b)	in the case of damaged binder twine which has not been reconditioned, the original tags on the balls have been removed and replaced with tags labelled in accordance with section 6 of this act, and in addition with the words " Damaged Binder Twine," and the original markings on the sacks containing such damaged binder twine have been obliterated or concealed, and the sacks, or labels durably attached thereto, labelled in a conspicuous manner " Damaged Binder Twine."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-Prima facie evidence of improper labelling.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I 'believe this is what the experts call random sampling. During the sittings of the price spreads commission the question of random sampling came up and it was found to be highly unsatisfactory. One in twenty is a pretty wide margin, is it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the section as it
stood in the previous act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know it is.


James Garfield Gardiner: It must have been
found to be fairly satisfactory as I have had very little complaint with regard to it.


Mark Cecil Senn: Have there been any convictions under this section?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no record of any, but there may have been.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Offences.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Subsection 2 is important.


Mark Cecil Senn: This is one reason why I drew the attention of the minister to the definition of "dealer" and to the fact that a dealer is liable if the binder twine does not comply with the regulations. For instance, he is liable if the binder twine does not run 600 or 500 feet to the pound as it may be represented. It would be impossible for a dealer to know this and he is not in a position to find out. If he is a retail merchant I do not think he should be held responsible for a difference of five per cent in what is represented. That would be a very difficult position in which to put a dealer. After all, five per cent is quite a wide margin. With binder twine running 600 feet to the pound, that would amount to thirty feet. If a farmer buys binder twine supposed to run 600 feet to the pound and gets only 570 feet, that is too great a difference.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not had an
opportunity to inquire into this section. Section 6 has been allowed to stand, and I should imagine it is just that thought which was in the minds of those who were responsible for redrafting this section. If section 6 is drafted to take care of what the hon. member has in mind, then there should be no difficulty with this section.


Mark Cecil Senn: Does the minister not think
that five per cent is quite a wide variation? Surely manufacturers of binder twine putting out twine to run 600 feet to the pound should be able to come within thirty feet?


James Garfield Gardiner: That has always been the standard, and I believe it has been found to be quite satisfactory.


Mark Cecil Senn: That would be quite an item where a man was buying a large amount of binder twine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not going to argue this point because I am not sufficiently familiar with it, but I think five per cent is rather high. When we come to consider salt we find it stands in the same position. Five per cent is rather a large margin of tolerance in connection with a commodity that runs 600 feet to the pound. I think it is going pretty far when it is no violation of the statute to be short thirty feet in 600 feet.
Inspection and Sale Act


Charles Avery Dunning: The difficulty with binder twine is when it comes too long, not when it comes too short. If the twine has been spun out too thinly it loses tensile strength. My experience has been that I would rather have it come short.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What a fuss the minister would make if he paid for 600 feet and got only 570 feet.


Mark Cecil Senn: The better grades of binder twine do not lose their tensile strength in the same way as the cheaper grades.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite right.


Mark Cecil Senn: An allowance of five per cent is worse in connection with the lower grades.


Charles Avery Dunning: When you get a greater length than is stated on a ball of a cheaper grade of twine, you find the twine breaking every few minutes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Since 1907 the section has read:
No deficiency in the number of feet of twine contained in any ball shall be deemed to be a contravention of this section unless the deficiency exceeds five per centum of the length indicated by the label.
If it is less than five per cent, it is not an offence.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
On section 13-Name and address of packer or importer on every container.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister give us a little explanation of this part II, referring to salt. In my time the unit used to be a barrel weighing so much, but now the salt is put up in round paper containers with a patent outlet and usually marked with the weight. It is proposed that that practice will be continued in place of the old standard, but there is nothing that indicates any standard hereafter with respect to salt. There is nothing in section 18 and there is no standard unit any longer. This section means that any package containing salt shall have marked upon it the weight in the container. That is the way it strikes me.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is my understanding of it. The old section read:
Every barrel of salt packed in bulk, sold or offered for sale, shall contain two hundred and eighty pounds of salt, and every barrel or sack of salt sold or offered for sale, shall have the correct gross weight thereof, and in the case of a barrel the net weight also, marked upon it in a plain and permanent manner.

The present section provides for the modem method of packing and selling salt in many different sizes and forms of containers. The old protection would be no protection at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would it not be desirable to do away with the five per cent? If my memory serves me correctly, salt is now put up in containers of one or two or more pounds. These containers have a patent outlet in the end. I think the old provision of five per cent in connection with barrels should disappear. One can understand that the provision of five per cent in connection with a barrel of salt supposed to weigh 280 pounds might have some application, but with the present method of selling salt in these paper containers it occurs to me that a tare of five per cent is too large. There is no other commodity that I know of which is similarly packed and in connection with which there is a tolerance of as high as five per cent. It is not a case of there being a shrinkage in the weight with the present method of packing as the present packing is done in a most careful way.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a commodity that is presumably packed very dry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If anything, it would gather weight. I am sure the minister is familiar with the patent containers and how the salt flows out in a dry manner.


Charles Avery Dunning: If it does not flow, then it is heavier than it ought to be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point exactly. I should think that the old margin of tolerance which was applicable to barrels of salt that got knocked about and lost a certain amount of weight should no longer apply. Such a tolerance does not apply to any other commodity packed in a similar way.


James Garfield Gardiner: In view of the fact that we are having the bill stand, I ask that this section stand. I do not think there is any provision in the old act for-	[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: -any tolerance.


James Garfield Gardiner: -any tolerance at all.
Section stands.
On section 15-Markings on barrels and other containers.
M,r. STIRLING: Does this act set out to cover block salt such as is used by dairy farmers, that is, put out for the cows to lick?


James Garfield Gardiner: Section 15 does not cover salt of that kind.

Inspection and Sale Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: This does not cover rock salt. Might it not be well to add that provision?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will check that before coming back.


John Frederick Johnston: Section 15 stands?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think section 15 can pass. We can check rock salt, as to whether we need any provision for it in the previous section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister will again look at the section, I think he will agree it does not go quite so far as it has been suggested that it should.
When bags or cartons of salt are packed in barrels or in cardboard containers, the head of the barrel, or both ends of the cardboard container, as the case may be, shall be properly and correctly marked in a plain and durable manner with the number of bags or cartons therein and with the gross weight thereof.
You cannot mark the end of a carton with "the number of bags or cartons therein." The point that the minister made in speaking of it was that the new carton which takes the place of the old barrels in larger quantities shall have marked upon it the weights, and I think he will find there are some words left out there; for obviously it is not the number of bags or cartons which are in the carton that we are concerned about; it is the weight in the carton which should be marked on each end.


Charles Avery Dunning: The two sections, 14 and 15, require to be read together. They are dealing with different things.


Grote Stirling: These are cartons within cartons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Cartons within cartons; that is the way to put it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then it is all right to carry section 15?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it should be reconstructed to cover the sale of the small carton, which now bears upon it-I was looking at one the other day-the statement of the weight. This point is not contemplated in the section at all; for it deals only with cartons within cartons.


Charles Avery Dunning: The previous section
deals with the individual carton.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. Section 14 says the container shall have these marks on it. Then, "when bags or cartons of salt are packed in
barrels or in cardboard containers"-I suppose that means larger containers.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
On section 17-Limitation of prosecution.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe that three months will be too short a time with regard to the question "after packing or repacking," because this contemplates a possible packing taking place which may not become known to the consuming public for some considerable time. I suggested that "three" should be "six." The minister might look carefully at that. The difficulty is that as yet salt is not found in all the provinces. As a matter of fact there is, as is known, a very large deposit at Fort McMurray; but it is a long distance away and so far it has been found difficult to handle that salt as a commercial commodity. In some of our remote communities the salt could be sold, transferred and distributed and the discovery would not take place until much longer than three months. Originally,
I believe, the time was thirty days; at any rate it was shorter than at present.


James Garfield Gardiner: I see no objection to making that "six" months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it would help. It does not hurt anybody.


Charles Avery Dunning: I move:
That the word "three" in section 17 be struck out and "six" substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 18-Manner of determining a bushel.
Grote Stirling: Why are several commodities commonly sold by the bushel, such as apples, potatoes and carrots, omitted from this clause?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quite satisfied that all of those are contained in some other legislation. This is intended to deal only with matters such as were originally in the bill entitled the Inspection and Sale Act, which is now being repealed, and which have not already been covered by other legislation.


Grote Stirling: The minister referred to this as being an extended list from the previous act; but it does not pick up, then, all commodities which are commonly sold by the bushel; it leaves other acts to take care of them?


James Garfield Gardiner: Obviously it does not take care of them all. If the committee so desires, I shall have the section stand and
Inspection and Sale Act

make sure on that point, but I think the other items are all included in other legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think this deals with what one might call the agricultural side rather than the commercial side of commodities.


Mark Cecil Senn: Are the weights which are prescribed there those that are usual in the trade? Is there any variation, so far as these different commodities go, from the accepted weights in the trade?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think there is any variation; I believe these are the usual weights. From just going over this list my impression would be that practically all the commodities listed here are those commonly sold to farmers in the way of 6eed.


Mark Cecil Senn: Probably the commodities to which the hon. member for Yale was referring come under the fruit branch and the acts which relate to it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Vegetables and so on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the minister has given consideration to the question whether it should be possible to make an arrangement for the sale of commodities by other than weight. The minister knows that complications have arisen, and sometimes litigation has ensued, where one man was talking about a bushel by measurement and the other man was talking about a bushel by weight. This statute provides that in the absence of an agreement for determining a bushel by measure, any reference to a bushel would mean a bushel by weight. It is a provision which I think is sound. I wonder whether we should not go further and provide that all goods should be sold by weight. There is another matter which I submit is worthy of consideration, because frequently I have known difficulty to arise through the contention being made that the so-called bushel measure was not an accurate measure of a bushel, whereas weight is a matter of exact determination and can be arrived at without difficulty. With me it is a question whether in these days the act should not be modified to provide that the standard for these purposes shall be a bushel by weight and not by measure.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, that section will stand, then.
Section stands.
Sections 19 to 21 inclusive agreed to. Progress reported.
TMr. Gardiner.]



FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 25, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934.
He said: I did not intend to make any extended remarks on the second reading inasmuch as the discussion was fairly full on the financial resolution preceding the introduction of the bill, and in view of the further fact that a discussion on the separate sections of the amending bill will be rather easier than any attempt to discuss the general principle.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest to the minister
the advisability of referring this bill to the committee on agriculture, or some other appropriate committee. I do so for this reason. The court in Manitoba has held, I believe, that the act does not apply to a corporation. I believe the departmental officials advised that it did apply to a corporation in which the farmer had incorporated his enterprise and called it a limited company. That view was acted upon in one case, but it went to the court of appeal in Manitoba.
There are a number of other points on which suggestions have been made. For instance, the chief justice of Alberta suggested that jurisdiction should be conferred upon the board of review to deal with a second hearing when there had been a drought and there had been no opportunity for the farmer to give effect within the time limit to the provisions of the compromise arrangement. It is pointed out by many who have suffered under the act that there has been a lack of consideration, on the part of some of the authorities, of the essential condition precedent upon which the act was based, namely, the insolvency of the farmer. The basis of this act is insolvency.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not desirable that farmers should be dealt with as ordinary bankrupts are, because that would involve liquidation of the assets and division of them ratably among the creditors. The purpose was to maintain the principle of bankruptcy and let the farmer work out his own salvation in fear and trembling, paying his creditors, not from the forced liquidation of his assets, as provided by ordinary bankruptcy proceedings, but by making his property more profitable. But the condition precedent to every-

Farmers' Creditors Act
thing was insolvency, that is, inability to pay his debts, and unless that condition attached there was no right to apply under the act. That has, in some instances, been disregarded, and serious consequences have followed with great complaint on the part of those who have been thrifty and saved and lent money sometimes to thriftless persons who now laugh at them.
That situation should be considered, and, as I have said, I suggest to the minister the advisability of referring the bill to the committee on agriculture or some other appropriate committee. The hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas) had suggestions to make the other day. With some of them I am heartily in accord, and I have some suggestions that I should like to make myself. The hon. member had a bill on the order paper. If the bill were referred to an appropriate committee I believe a useful purpose would be served, and it would enable the act to be amended in such a way as to afford a measure of relief that the act does not now afford.
I know there are many suggestions which many members of the house would like to make by way of amendment, and I was going to ask the minister if he could not see it in his heart-his mind rather than his heart- to refer the bill to such a committee as he might name in order that opportunity might be afforded for the suggestion of other amendments than those contained in his bill. Otherwise there will be other bills introduced embodying other amendments, which is the negation of efficiency and effectiveness in parliamentary practice. I believe this difficulty could be overcome if the suggestion I make were acted upon.


Charles Avery Dunning: With the permission of
the house may I say that I could have given consideration to the suggestion, with rather more time to consider it, had I learned of it previously.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Give the bill the second
reading and then let it stand.


Charles Avery Dunning: Naturally, in connection
with such a complex matter as this admittedly is, I have a precis of all the suggestions which have been made in connection with the act from both of the extreme points of view-extremes which have just been mentioned by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I may say frankly that until this year I despaired of getting a sufficient degree of unanimity, or shall I say compromise, between the two very wide extremes as reflected in discussions in the house on former occasions, to warrant opening the act at all. I think the leader of the opposition has a
keen appreciation of both the extremes to which I am referring. Other members of the house are conscious more particularly of one of the extremes and seldom of the other. I think I may say that without offence to any hon. member.
I thought that in introducing the bill in this form it would be possible to secure agreement with respect to the proposed amendments largely because, by virtue of one of them, the operation of the act could be terminated in those provinces in which experience has demonstrated that its usefulness is now past and that it has in fact become more generally a detriment than an assistance to those whom it was designed originally to help. At the same time provision is being proposed along the line represented to us, particularly by bodies which are in close touch with the farmer and the representative of the farmer, that in those provinces where the need still manifestly exists, the machinery might be improved and speeded up to the end that the effectiveness of the act might be greater, also with, in addition, clarification of a couple of very difficult points which were referred to in the discussion on the financial resolution, one regarding privity of contract and the other regarding the affairs of deceased farmers.
If there is a general desire in the house to have the matter referred to a committee I am inclined to accede to that desire. But I would point out that if there is a committee investigation there will be the strongest kind of representations for the termination of this act. As to whether we should really improve the act as a result of a kind of free-for-all hearing of witnesses, which would undoubtedly occur before a committee-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; that was not intended at all. To refer it to a committee for the purpose of receiving suggestions from members of the house was all I had in mind.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can tell my right hon. friend that literally thousands of representations are being received with reference to this act and the necessity and desirability, from the standpoint of a great many people, of definitely terminating its operation. On the other hand, from the sections of the country which still need the application of this law there are equally hundreds if not thousands of representations advocating the broadening of its scope, the widening of it still more in favour of the debtor as against the creditor. I do not know any piece of legislation with which I have had to do concerning which there are such wide extremes of opinion among the people affected. It was
Farmers' Creditors Act

for that reason that I felt it desirable to deal with the matter in the house if possible rather than get into a committee proceeding where it is difficult to visualize an unwillingness to hear representations pro and con from all over the country.
However, I am in the hands of the house, and if there is a disposition on the part of hon. members to desire a committee reference, I shall accede to that request. Offhand, if such reference is desired, I think I would suggest the banking and commerce committee as perhaps the most suitable for the purpose. I suppose the committee itself would have to determine whether or not it would hear representations pro and con from all over the country. I can assure the house that if such a committee is decided upon, the sessions will be lengthy; there will be many representations and many concerns desirous of appearing by counsel before the committee. If, however, there is an expression of opinion now on second reading in favour of reference to a committee, I shall ask the house to give the bill second reading and then I shall come along with the proper motion after we have had time to consider the matter further.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I might say a further word, I had no intention that the reference to a committee should involve the calling of witnesses, and I did not propose that when the minister moved that the bill go to a committee, he should embody provisions for calling witnesses. My proposal was only for the purpose of enabling members of the house who have suggestions as to reasonable methods to put them before the committee without having to take up the time of the house in submitting amendments which could not be as thoroughly discussed in committee of the whole as they could before a standing committee. I agree entirely with what the minister said as to the inadvisability of proceeding along the lines to which he has referred, and it was not intended that his motion should embody any provision for bearing counsel or witnesses; the idea was merely that members of the house might aave an opportunity to appear and suggest imendments which I dare say most of them aave had suggested to them by their constituents.


Major James William Coldwell: If this bill is to be referred to a committee, might I suggest that it be a special committee? I believe with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) that there would be large numbers of representations, probably written as well as by people who want to be heard; and as a member of the banking and

commerce committee I believe that the time of that committee is going to be very well occupied. I noticed to-day, there was a motion to allow the committee to sit coincidently with the house. It seems to me that if this matter is to be discussed by a committee, it should not be the banking and commerce committee, or no conclusion m;ght be reached this session, and I am of the opinion that we should come to some conclusion this session.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, positively.


Major James William Coldwell: I believe the Minister of Finance is taking the proper course in endeavouring to meet the needs of the various provinces in this regard, and I can assure him that as far as Saskatchewan is concerned it is a matter of very pressing need. The people there look to this session of parliament to do something in two directions; to relieve the present necessity, and if possible to give some relief to those who had their cases dealt with by a former board, conditions having become aggravated in the last two or three years. So I support the idea of having this question considered by a committee, but I think it should be a committee other than the banking and commerce committee, possibly a special committee.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I desire to support the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I think it is absolutely necessary that some further amendments than those provided in this bill be made to the act to meet the situation in Saskatchewan. I know the people there are looking for further amendment, and I support the proposal that the bill go to a committee. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is a good one. Some of these committees are getting pretty well loaded up with work, and as action should be taken promptly in this matter perhaps a special committee is desirable.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthem):: I rise with some hesitation to express an opinion on this matter. The suggestion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) is that this committee should be restricted pretty well to hearing the opinions of hon. members. Now, as I understand, hon. members can express themselves quite freely and make suggestions and propose amendments in committee of the whole house-they cannot move amendments which may involve expenditure of money, but they can suggest them, and I assume

_______Unemployment Relief-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
they will be given sympathetic consideration by the government. It seems to me that matters not as important as this have been deemed worthy of consideration by the committee of the wihole house, and I do not see why there should be the suggestion from the leader of the opposition, who has taken time for some matters not as important in my opinion as this, that this is not worthy of consideration by the committee of the whole house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would have to come back to the committee of the whole house.


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, that is no reason why the matter should be put into the hands of a special committee which, if it is to hear witnesses at all, will be subjected to pressure to hear others than members of the house. I do not see how the committee could possibly refuse to hear witnesses who wished to appear. People will say, Why should members alone be permitted to give evidence? And once the matter is opened up, as the Minister of Finance has said, there will be a drive to have this act repealed. I think the government have been wise to open this in a restricted way and keep it restricted. Any amendments worth while can be suggested in committee of the whole house, will have sympathetic consideration and will be dealt with promptly, and this procedure will save the whole matter from becoming a subject of controversy all over the country.


Mr. W. G. CLARK (York-Sunbury):: I am m favour of the view expressed by the hon. member who suggested that this could be dealt with in committee of the whole house. As far as my province is concerned I am sure that this act has been a detriment from the beginning, and the desire of our province is to have it discontinued. But we would like to have the matter settled one way or the other during this session.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the bill be considered by the committee of the whole?


Charles Avery Dunning: At the next sitting, I think, because I should like to give consideration to what has been said. There has not been a broad expression of opinion from many members, but I should like to give consideration to what has been said before the bill is again discussed. I am certainly impressed with the seriousness of the difficulties surrounding the act, and I am anxious to pursue a course which will develop something constructive, although I am quite sure
that no course can be followed by this parliament which will satisfy either extreme view. It is quite impossible to do that. Of course we may land in the position where we succeed in satisfying no one, but I am quite sure that we can succeed in improving the position of the unfortunates of both classes, creditors and debtors.


Walter Edward Foster: Mr. Dunning moves that the bill be not now referred to the committee of the whole, but that it be referred at the next sitting of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
ross (st. Paul's) on motion of

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: Mr. Speaker, as it has been the practice in parliament from time immemorial for members to present the grievances of their constituents before supply is granted, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to present the grievances of my constituents with respect to the policy of the government in the distribution of the money voted by parliament for grants in aid, as it affects my constituents in regard to providing funds for unemployment relief. This is a matter of grave urgency, and affects not only my riding of St. Paul's but the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario.
Let us consider the statement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). On Wednesday, February 23, there appeared in the Ottawa Journal a report of a statement purported to have been made by the hon. minister. It is headed, "Irresponsible Threats Futile." In this statement the Minister of Labour is reported to have said:
Nothing will be gained by irresponsible threats in the discussion of the relief problem in Ontario.
I do not know what "irresponsible threats" were made, other than that the federal government would have to take care of the relief for the increasing number of those unemployed needing relief, and that in the event of the federal government not providing funds for this purpose, the municipalities would be unable to do so and the unemployed would have to take the consequences. Why should they be the goat, when this matter is none of their making? I wish to register my protest.
The minister refers to "irresponsible threats."
It seems to me it shows rather a lack of

lul's)
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
The fiscal policy of the government-not Toronto, or Ontario-is responsible for unemployment. The policy of the government in reducing tariffs on manufactured articles, and in the non-application of the valuation of articles entering the country for duty purposes, has been responsible for a tremendous influx of manufactured goods, and also for the entry of large quantities of goods which have been dumped into Canada, on account of the drop in prices in the United States.
Every time a manufactured article, the like of which is produced in Canada, enters and is sold in Canada, it takes the amount of labour required to produce it away from the citizens of Canada, Ontario and Toronto. If labour is taken away from the workmen of this province, it must take employment from our workmen. This means more unemployment. If the government insists upon allowing this entry of manufactured articles into the country, it is responsible for the resultant increase in unemployment. The city of Toronto depends on industry, on industrial employment, for the welfare of its workers. Therefore, if the workers of Toronto are unemployed, it is the responsibility of the federal governmest to see that they are adequate!}' maintained.
Canadian manufacturers have told the government that if they had the advantage of their own markets they could employ thousands more workers, without increasing prices, and that they could, in fact, reduce costs and improve continuity of employment. They have also informed the government that further reduction of tariffs will increase^ unemployment and lower wages. If sections of the country are to have lower tariffs, people in the east will have to have compensation.
The city of Toronto is unable to collect sufficient money by taxes. Properties are assessed too highly and taxes are too great. The position is becoming such that instead of property being an asset, it is becoming a liability. Government bonds give almost as great a net yield on the capital invested; and there is no incentive on the part of individuals to risk their capital. As a consequence, building is at a low ebb. The slum situation is serious. Fine, large buildings have been tom down to save taxes, with a consequent loss of revenue to the city. Toronto is not the only municipality that is in the same position. What a deplorable state of affairs 1 The proposal of the government again to lower the tariff on articles imported into Canada from the United States through a revision of the Canada-United States trade agreement, the prospect of having these items 
bound for a period of years and the general uncertainty in this respect have had the effect of slowing up the manufacturing industries of Ontario ever since the first rumours became prevalent in September or October of 1937.
It is ridiculous to think that manufacturers with millions in capital involved, entrusted by thousands of shareholders and having payrolls of millions for thousands of workers, should be unable to gather one iota of information with respect to the contemplated changes in tariffs affecting them. These items may be bound for years.
How can a wise manufacturer make plans for the running of his plant during 1938 when all these rumours are abroad? If he has been considering extensions to his operations which would benefit his workers, he certainly would not act under conditions as they are to-day.
It is common knowledge that those in charge of industry are not acting-they cannot. This is also true: They should be able to act. But the policy of this government has tied their hands. What about 1939, 1940 and 1941? They should be able to plan for the future. And is this all?
What security is there for the workman in these circumstances? Can he give his best to his employer when he is constantly under this apprehension? Is he working for the future? When can he hope to have his new home? When can he hope to have his old one paid for? How can he hope to improve his standard of living beyond that of a mere day to day existence? How can he budget for the future? How can he save? What can he hope of the future? No wonder there is apathy when it originates here. What are all these rumours about? They are about the contemplated revision of a trade agreement.
We are to give something away in return for what? Trade with one of the most unstable nations of the world commercially, a nation with large inventories, a nation with more than ten million workers unemployed at the present time, a nation with its own house in great disorder economically. I ask you: What stability commercially can we expect from such instability? We do not want periods of great prosperity followed by periods of severe depression. We would do better if we stuck to our knitting and minded our own business. Are we trying to bargain with them to take something they do not want, or is it something that they must have and for which we do not have to bargain?


Mr. HANSON:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I have sat in this house since 1930; my English is poor and my grammar is terrible, but when I have tried to read a

______ Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
speech I have always been called to order. I notice that in this eighteenth parliament any hon. member can rise in his place and read his speech for forty minutes. I should like to have the privilege of preparing a speech and reading it in the house, and I ask for a ruling on this.


Walter Edward Foster: Does the right hon. gentleman desire to speak on the point of order?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have just this observation to make. We had a discussion the other day about amending the rules of the house and on that occasion an admirable speech was read.


Walter Edward Foster: The rule is that speeches shall not be read, but it has not always been observed. Hon. members do read speeches even though it is against the rule.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He can use notes.


Walter Edward Foster: An hon. member may refer to his notes.


Olof Hanson: If that is to be the practice, I should like to have the same privilege.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is it something that they must have from us to compete with us in our own markets? Let us sell them the goods they need; let us not try to build up an artificial relationship. That is a quack remedy. We are a nation. We built our own plant, our own canals, our own railways, and are now building our own airways along national lines. We must use these nationally. We began by building our prosperity on national lines, and history shows that every time we got away from our own national economy we had a depression. We have been grasping for artificial foreign trade.
This government has adopted a laissez-faire policy with respect to the west and has scrapped the constructive policy of the former government. The first step was in connection with the wheat board. The wheat economy of the west has failed and it will fail again. The west must have a change. It will never be continuously prosperous until industries are established. The west has the assets most needed for manufacturing. It has oil, coal and gas in abundance, and there is plenty of labour available. Protection is necessary for the development of industries. The west is dependent upon the east for its support; the east must help the west. In the meantime, the east must have adequate protection and, if necessary, the west will have to be compensated.
We are one of a commonwealth of nations. From 1932 until October, 1937, we progressed steadily in prosperity as a result of our empire
relationships. We are a nation of the commonwealth of nations. Let us have protection that protects nationally and within the commonwealth of nations, mutual protection that is mutually satisfactory. We are bound together by ties that are stronger than trade, but that are helped by trade-sentiment and mutual defence and common laws. This is not the case as between ourselves and the United States. No such ties exist.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILFRID LACROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) moved the second reading of Bill No. 14, to amend the Railway Act (telephone tolls).
He said: During the session of 1937 I had the privilege of introducing a bill to amend the Railway Act, the purport of which was to extend and clarify the jurisdiction of the board of railway commissioners with regard to telephone companies. The bill went through the first and second readings, and was then referred, according to the rules, to the railway committee, where it was defeated on a division taken at my own request.
Since the prorogation of parliament I have received so many communications asking me to follow up the measure, and have gathered such useful data, that I could not lose heart. I know that whore trusts are concerned one must fight every inch of the way. When people are acquainted with the actual conditions, the Bell Telephone Company will have to make concessions. We are dealing with a public utility. Every telephone subscriber is entitled to fair treatment. In the present case did the trust ever think of anything but collecting revenues?
In Loretteville, nine miles from Quebec, there are many subscribers who have to call Quebec once, twice or even several times a day. Is it fair to charge them each time for a long distance call? It might have been reasonable when the telephone was first established in Quebec, but surely not now. It seems as though the company did not know or did not wish to know that our town, like Montreal, Three Rivers and other towns in our province, had considerably increased. Important centres have sprung up a few miles away, and conditions are not what they were
Railway Act-Telephone Tolls
[Stage Direction]
years ago. However, the Bell Telephone Company insists on maintaining the same limits as they established when first they started to operate in our community. In certain spots the area of local calls barely covers the town. We are asking the company not to court bankruptcy, but to arrange the service according to present needs. We want the company to extend their local rates in a more reasonable way, and more particularly, to include in that local district the small surrounding farming and industrial communities.
The case was submitted to and heard by the board of railway commissioners in January, 1937, but that did not alter the situation. The commissioners arrived at the conclusion that the "establishment, the splitting up or readjustment of telephone exchanges were matters of internal economy for the company with which the board could not properly interfere." However, Mr. Garceau, a member of the board, while concurring in the decision, submitted that the board had a right to interfere when there was clear evidence that unreasonable or unfair rates were charged on account of such splitting up or readjustment.
Seeing that the board disagreed, there was only one way left, and that was to amend the Railway Act as regards the telephone rates. At the very beginning of the 1937 session I introduced the bill in order to give the board of railway commissioners the necessary powers. The bill seemed at first to be welcome, but unfortunately it did not meet with the support we hoped for. That was perhaps to be expected; but I did not give up the struggle, and I have come back with the bill.
Quebec is not the only city which is suffering from the treatment meted out by the telephone trust. Montreal is in exactly the same position. A great number of subscribers in the outskirts of the metropolis never could see why they had to pay long distance rates to call Montreal when the company was piling up profits. When the case was heard before the board of railway commissioners the repre^-sentatives of the company stated, "The expenditures that you want to force upon us are too heavy, and our company is not able to bear them." They talk about expenditures, but we are dealing now with decreasing profits. Let ' s see whether the company is unable to make a very small sacrifice for the benefit of its subscribers in the outskirts of large cities.
I have before me the financial statement of the Bell Telephone Company for 1936. It shows that the net profits amounted to $8,929,000 and that business was improving
IMr. Lacroix.]
throughout the country. But that is not enough to enable one to grasp actual conditions. As I have already said, I suggest that part of what might be called "operating expenses" is handed out to the Northern Electric, a subsidiary of the Bell Telephone Company, including but very few shareholders. They hide their profits; they dare not distribute them to the Bell Telephone Company and its shareholders. It is a manoeuvre to hide actual dividends from the public, and the people are thus prevented from sharing in the profits piled up by the company. That is a social injustice, but it is the way the trust is acting.
"Labor" of Washington, on December 29, 1936, gave out some interesting details about the company's unjustifiable methods. The Federal Board of Transportation, it says, investigated the Bell company and another manufacturing company which is one of the latter's subsidiaries, the Western Electric Company. The investigators found that about $500,000,000 of the Bell company's equipment value was sheer "water." Cyrus G. Hill, chief engineer of the board, explained how the- American Telephone and Telegraph Company made enormous profits. The Bell company, Mr. Hill stated, purchases ninety-two per cent of its equipment from the Western Electric, thus precluding any competition and enabling the Western Electric to charge whatever prices they want. The money is simply transferred from one to another of the company's coffers.
In the same article something is said about the appliance commonly called the French telephone. As a result of additional charges the company made a further profit of $24,000,000. The additional charges were levied on the ground that it entailed a further expenditure for the company. Such a claim is groundless, said Mr. Hill. As a matter of fact, the new telephones mean a great saving as they eliminate wire manufacturing costs and other expenditures, amounting to more than $85,000,000. Thus are things done in the United States.
The part played by the Western Electric Company, Incorporated, in its relations with the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, is similar to the part played in this country by the Northern Electric Company in connection with the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. I have before me a document which shows clearly how the Northern Electric is controlled by the Bell Telephone Company. I succeeded in obtaining the list of the Northern Electric Company's shareholders. Here it is-a very short one indeed. It shows that there are just two large share-

Railway Act-Telephone Tolls
holders, the Bell Telephone Company of Canada and the Western Electric Company, Incorporated, the former with 456,540 shares, and the latter with 353,130 shares. The Western Electric is the very company referred to by investigator Hill in his report.
This is the list:
Shares
Hon. Thos. Ahearn, P.C	 25
W. F. Angus	 25
The Bell Telephone Company of
Canada	 456,640
E. S. Bloom	 10
Hon. A. J. Brown, K.C	 25
R. H. Gregory	 10
J. D. Hathaway	 25
L. B. MeFarlane	 25
R. H. McMaster	 25
C. F. Sise, Bell Telephone Co. of
Canada	 25
C. G. Stoll	 10
Western Electric Company, Inc. ..	353,130
Grand total	 809,975
The Bell company claims that the adjust-make anyone believe that it is not in a position to have its system adjusted to meet present needs, even though this should entail a very small decrease in its profits. Besides, we are not requesting at the present time anything from the company itself; we simply wish the board of railway commissioners to be empowered to approve or disapprove the limits and rates of exchanges, after which the board will arbitrate on the issue.
I feel confident that the board will not allow the continuance of the abnormal conditions about which subscribers living in the outskirts of Quebec city are complaining. The company will possibly claim that since my bill was brought down in the house, it has granted a yearly reduction of $25,000 in my constituency; but the principle of the matter at issue is in no way affected; for there are in my constituency various small industrial and farming communities, in continuous contact with Quebec, which are in need of easy telephone communication in order to sell their products as well as to purchase supplies in that city. This necessitates numerous calls every day, and even when they are unable to get the interested party on the line they must pay a toll for the useless call.
The Bell company claims that the adjustment suggested would mean too heavy an expenditure on its part. My reply will be that the Bell Telephone has never granted the public a single appreciable change in its rates.
I am now urging hon. members to help me in this matter, because, if we wish to stem the rising tide of communism in this country, the best way is to give the common people,
those who wish to live and breathe freely under our fair Canadian sun, the means of providing for their wants, and to afford also to our Canadian people the utilities to which they are rightly entitled.
Clarence Decatur Howe: The bill introduced by the hon. member for Queb "-Montmorency (Mr. Lacroix) follows along the general line of a bill introduced by him last session. While I did not disagree with the principle of the bill which my hon. friend introduced at the last session, I thought it necessary to oppose its passage by reason of the fact that by its wording it would have had the effect of making the board of railway commissioners into a rate-creating commission whereas their proper function is that of a rate-regulating commission. In the present bill that wording has been corrected; therefore I find myself in entire agreement with this bill.
We must all recognize that the Bell Telephone Company has a monopoly of a great public service in the districts in which it operates, and it is entirely sound government to provide that a public service monopoly shall be regulated as completely as possible. If, as appears from the Loretteville case, the board has not ample power to pass on tolls for zones outside a city area, I congratulate my hon. friend upon introducing a bill which definitely gives the board that power.
However, in accepting this bill, I cannot agree with all that the hon. member has said about our telephone monopoly. I think it is important to the people of Canada that the telephone business be a monopoly. If, for example, in the city of Quebec there were two competing telephone companies, this would mean that every business house would have to subscribe to both services, and every householder who happened to be on one company's system would be handicapped if he did not have access to the subscribers of the other company. Therefore we may say that the telephone business is a natural monopoly, and that it is better for the population served by telephone that this should be so. However, the Bell Telephone Company, having a monopoly, must conduct its business with extreme care to see to it that no injustice is done to any group of its subscribers. I believe the Bell Telephone Company is exercising care to see that no class of subscribers should have a particular complaint as against other classes of subscribers. As my hon. friend has said, as a result of the Loretteville case, even though the board had no jurisdiction to make a ruling the telephone company of its own volition ha*
Railivay Act-Telephone Tolls

adjusted the rates complained of more nearly in line with what the telephone subscribers demanded.
There are many curious features about the telephone business in general that need to be considered before we pass judgment on a particular situation. It is the only business of which I know where it does not follow that the profits are greater with an increasing amount of business at each centre. As a matter of fact it costs the Bell Telephone Company more to give service in a city where there are a hundred thousand instruments than it does in a city where there are fifty thousand instruments. The highest rates per telephone in Canada are in the largest cities of Canada, Toronto and Montreal. The reason for that, of course, is that every telephone in a large area has to be connected with every other telephone in that area, thus making necessary a most complicated, complex and expensive system of cables, automatic connectors and devices of that kind. The larger the telephone exchange, the more complicated are its processes and the more expensive its equipment.
That being the case, we find that whereas the resident of a large city may find it worth while to pay the price required for telephone service in that city, which will connect him with every other telephone subscriber in the city, a man living outside the city whose business and connections are not principally in the city may require a different kind of service. An example of that can be found in the city of Ottawa. In the old days the Ottawa exchange served only the city of Ottawa proper, and toll charges had to be paid on calls to Rockcliffe and Eastview. However, with the steady growth of these connections we have the Ottawa exchange now serving Ottawa, Hull, Rockcliffe, Eastview and Westboro, all within the exchange and all given service at a flat rate.


Mr. MacNICOL:: If a subscriber in Ottawa wishes to telephone to a subscriber in Hull, does he have to pay a toll?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; they are served by the same exchange. But the cost of a business telephone in Ottawa is $5.50 per month, and the cost of a residence telephone is $3.10 per month. Now we come to the town of Aylmer, which is not a part of the Ottawa exchange and where it is necessary to pay a toll in order to talk to Ottawa.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How much?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Ten cents per call. But the prices of telephones in Aylmer are, of course, very much less than in Ottawa. For instance,
[Mr. Howe.)
a business telephone in Aylmer costs $2.50 per month, or about half the cost of a business telephone in Ottawa, while a residence telephone in Aylmer costs $2.05 per month. It is very probable that many residents of Aylmer find it much better to have a telephone service at a lower price, which they can use within the Aylmer zone, than to pay the higher price which would be entailed by a connection with Ottawa. There may be others who require to make frequent calls to Ottawa, and who might find it better to be connected directly with the Ottawa exchange. But the effect of the telephone company would be twofold if all the telephones in the Aylmer zone, let us say, were connected with the Ottawa exchange. There would be a tendency to increase the cost of all telephones in Ottawa, and a certain result would be that the people of Aylmer would find it necessary to pay the Ottawa rate, probably plus a mileage charge which usually goes on a telephone when the connection is over two miles from the exchange.
I am simply pointing this out to show that there is some background of equity in the theory of zones outside cities. I am quite aware that zoning is not popular with some of the people who live outside the cities. For instance, a business house located outside the free zone of the telephone exchange may have the great bulk of its business in the city, and may find that city telephone calls are rather expensive. On the other hand, I venture to say that in its zone there are private citizens who have telephones, that could not afford telephones at Ihe rates charged in the city. So sometimes we are apt to overemphasize the viewpoint of the business man living outside an exchange zone as against that of an ordinary resident living in the same vicinity, who wishes to have a telephone at a reasonable price in order that he may talk with his neighbours and occasionally telephone to the city.
I may say that the telephone company is experimenting with new plans for handling zones adjacent to large cities. I think in some of the areas close to Toronto a plan is being instituted whereby a rate is being given which will allow a certain number of free calls per month into the city. I think the arrangement is one hundred free calls plus five cents a call in excess of the free limit. I understand that this plan is being tried as an experiment, to see whether the people are better or less pleased as a result.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the minister referring to the new orders of the telephone company in connection with telephone charges between Toronto and Weston?

Railway Act-Telephone Tolls


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; that is the thought I have in mind. I may say that I have made no particular study of this situation; I have drawn on what I have learned of the telephone business generally during the past few years. I had that particular case drawn to my attention because someone was discussing it a short time ago, but I am not attempting to lay down any doctrine of telephone engineering. Since the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency has made rather a serious attack on the telephone company, however, I just wish to point out that there is a basis of reason in the attitude of the company, and that possibly while some business people in a zoned area find their telephones more expensive because they are in that area, there are many ordinary residence telephones which enjoy lower rates due to the fact that they are located in the zone rather than connected with the main exchange.
I think that on the whole, in giving Canada an efficient telephone service at reasonable cost, the Bell Telephone Company is doing a good job. We find that it is a progressive company. Recently in the city of Ottawa it has changed over from manually operated to automatic phones, and in all parts of Canada we find it constantly improving its technique. Some time ago a new process developed which multiplied by four the number of messages the company is able to send over a single wire. Automatically and very quickly thereafter long distance tolls were reduced.
The close connection between the Bell Telephone Company and the Northern Electric Company has been referred to. I think neither company would attempt for a moment to disguise the fact that the Northern Electric Company is a subsidiary of the Bell Telephone Company. I see nothing improper in that relationship. The telephone company uses about ninety per cent of the telephone and other equipment manufactured by the Northern Electric Company. The close association between the two companies permits the telephone company to buy its equipment at or near manufacturing costs, and the close connection between the Northern Electric Company and the Western Electric Company, which manufactures for the American telephone company, allows an interchange of patents and a general collaboration in connection with inventive work.
I believe that in a discussion of the operation of a highly specialized business, such as the telephone business, where the public benefits from the fact that one company controls all telephones, the operating company should not be condemned solely because it is a monopoly. But I believe that it becomes the duty of the state to apply every
legitimate form of regulation to the company, and to take full power to review its rate making, in every particular. For that reason I believe the bill is desirable, and I therefore suggest that the bill be given second reading, and referred to the committee of the whole house.


Thomas Langton Church: In attempting to clarify the present jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, does not the present bill in effect overrule the decision of the board in the case of Quebec-Mont-morency Chamber of Commerce v. Bell Telephone Company? In attempting to clarify the jurisdiction of the board, does not the proposed bill, ipso facto, overrule the board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would hardly think that is so. I am not very familiar with the Loretteville case, but my understanding is that the board were asked to give a ruling on a matter having to do with rate charges in a zone outside the city of Quebec. I believe the board stated that its jurisdiction under the act did not extend to the type of decision it was then asked to make. The bill purports simply to enlarge the act under which the board operates, and to make it clear that the board has jurisdiction as set out in the act. The position will be that if the board goes back to Loretteville it may consider the case, as it will have ample authority to consider the case to which it felt formerly that its jurisdiction did not extend.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Before the minister takes his seat, may I ask him if, before the Bell Telephone Company was committed to issue the new tolls for services between Toronto and Weston, those new tolls and service charges were reviewed by the government, through the board which has control over the Bell Telephone Company?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In a discussion of the matter with Mr. Campbell, the rate authority of the railway board, he mentioned that the proposal had been brought before him, and that he was now studying it. I believe I can tell the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) that before those tolls are put into force they will be reviewed by the board of railway commissioners. I think it is quite possible that a public hearing will be held at which representations can be made.


Mr. T. A. THOMPSON (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, may I call the minister's attention to what I have always considered an injustice in connection with rural telephone lines connected with the Bell Telephone Company. The Bell Telephone Company charge to the rural company the long distance calls originating from rural lines. They send their bills in
Japanese Immigration

monthly, for payment. On the other hand, the rural company may collect at intervals of six months or possibly only once a year. Yet they have to pay every month for long distance calls originating on their lines, and they get nothing for doing this. There is no fee collected by rural lines for long distance calls originating on those lines, where there is connection with the Bell Telephone Company. For many years I have been associated with one of the largest rural telephone companies in this section of the country, and we simply collect money for the Bell Telephone Company. If one of our customers defaults, it is our misfortune, because we have already paid his long distance fees.
I have in mind a farmer who at one time was president of a farm organization and did considerable telephoning to Toronto. Afterwards he failed, and we were left not only with our own telephone bill, but with a large long distance bill which we had already paid, but on which we could not collect. Every year in connection with rural lines we lose a certain amount of money which we have paid over to the Bell Telephone Company on calls originating on our lines. We have to look to the farmer for our money, and if he does not pay we are out that much. I have always felt that the Bell Telephone Company should allow some fee for long distance work originating on rural lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section 1-Telephone companies.
Alan Webster Neill: Should not this bill have gone to the railway committee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is now being more or less piloted by the government. A similar bill was considered thoroughly in the railway committee last year and they seemed to be for it. I see no reason why it should not pass to-night.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Neill

for the second reading of Bill No. 11, respecting Japanese immigration.
Mr. D. A. McNIVEN (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to extend my personal congratulations to the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) upon the presentation of his motion for the second reading of this bill. This was a task which he accomplished with his usual thoroughness and logic. I regret exceedingly my inability to support the measure so ably sponsored by the hon. member, as this question is regarded by all members from British Columbia as being of paramount importance to that province. I would not for one moment discount the local problem which this bill is designed to correct, but its provisions are much wider than that; they may assume national, if not international, proportions.
The world situation is so complicated and complex to-day that we should hesitate before taking any action, the consequences of which we are unable to foresee and against which we may or may not be able to protect ourselves at this time. The question of oriental immigration has always been important on the Pacific coast, and this problem is reflected in all the provinces to a greater or lesser degree. We were told the other evening that in 1923 restrictions were imposed upon Chinese immigration. At that time the matter of Japanese immigration was left open or guarded by an agreement entered into between the Canadian and Japanese governments. I have no doubt that distinction was made because of the fact that during the world war Japan was a member of the allied forces, and her fleet protected the Pacific coast and was responsible for keeping away from our shores the German raiders which had created a certain amount of havoc in that part of the world and which were subsequently disposed of by the Australian navy.
We were also told the other evening that in years gone by there had been a certain laxity in immigration matters, and as a result many orientals, of both Chinese and Japanese origin, had entered this country without authority. We were told how in recent months action had been taken to examine into these illegal entries and that some nine hundred orientals had left the country because they knew that they would be deported in any event in a short time, while another six hundred had actually been deported. As an instance of the long arm of the law I should like to cite a case in Regina. Some time in August, 1937, an oriental was arrested in that city charged with having entered

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
Canada illegally. Although he had been conducting a market gardening business in Regina for a period of seven years, he could give no satisfactory account as to how he came into the country. He was given a hearing before a board which sat in Vancouver; but being unable to satisfy the board that he had entered legally, he was put on board a ship and sent back to the place whence he came.
The other evening the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) mentioned that while it might be considered all right for hon. members to express opinions which might be regarded as the opinions of members only, it was a different matter when parliament spoke-that would be regarded as one nation speaking to another.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-STATEMENT BY MR.

[Stage Direction]
ross (st. Paul's) on motion of minister

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning for committee of supply.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: Mr. Speaker, before the recess I had mentioned that we were one of a commonwealth of nations; that we were bound together by ties which were stronger than trade but which were helped by trade-sentiment, mutual defence and common laws. Trade treaties between governments foreign to each other are likely to press with severity on one side or the other. You take a treaty as it were for better or for worse, like marriage, and for those who deem it for worse, it feels like a yoke all the time. Do not let us forget that divorce is difficult. Do not let us bind any more items under the Canada-United States trade agreement.
Earlier in my remarks I mentioned the balance of trade, referring to the trade balance between Canada and the United States. I maintain that the action of this government in departing from our national and empire policy is responsible for the unemployment situation which obtains to-day, and the prospect of a further increase m unemployment is staring us in the face. Employable unemployment is the responsibility of this government. The money must be found, but I object to the policy of this government in balancing its budget at the expense of my constituents in St. Paul's or of the people of the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: My constituents also have a grievance; it is much the same as the one which has been so ably
expounded to-day by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross). By wire, by letter, and finally by long distance call I was summoned home to my constituency to attend at the city hall, Toronto, and discuss, first, with their elected representatives, the mayor and members of the board of control, a matter of great moment to them. They felt that they could not strike on the one billion dollars of assessment in that great city an equitable tax rate which would permit it to grow and prosper as it should, the reason being that the cost of direct relief and of social services has grown by leaps and bounds, causing an increase in the necessary mill rate, whilst the assessment in each of the last five years has been shrinking, with the net result that they cannot derive enough money from their taxation system to meet the relief moneys for about ten per cent of their population, or some 70,000 people, who find themselves on relief.
About two years ago we had an election in this country, and I have a vivid recollection that my hon. friends opposite allowed their supporters to put labels here, there and yon on the bill-boards, "Elect us and we will give you some action." The plea I make to-night to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and to the cabinet generally will be along the line of asking for some of that "action." I shall first recite as briefly as possible the position in which the city of Toronto, and particularly my constituents in the Danforth riding, now find themselves.
Following our meeting on February 19, the mayors of the province of Ontario met at Toronto on February 23. They passed a resolution. I admit at once that it was in very strong terms; let me say in the same sentence that I think it needed to be in strong terms if we were to get what hon. members opposite discussed so much in the last election, namely action. The important part of this resolution, as I see it, is the last part, but I shall first read the preamble, as follows:
Protesting against refusal of the dominion government to increase relief grants in aid of the province, an emergency meeting of the Ontario Mayors' Association was held this day.
The resolution, adopted after considerable debate over how strong it should be, read as follows:
Be it resolved that this association of mayors place itself on record as insisting that the federal government immediately revise the grants in aid to the province to equal at least forty per cent of relief expenditures in Ontario, failing the granting of which we notify you that-

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Harris
And this is the important part.
-our ratepayers are taxed to the point of confiscation.
My constituency of Danforth is one of the greatest home-owning constituencies in Canada. The people there try to own their own homes, and in so doing, to my mind they make as desirable a class of citizen as one can have . in any country. But when we find that these homes are going back to mortgage companies, and in some cases even reverting to the city itself, so that Toronto, as one year follows another, finds itself increasingly in the real estate and houseowning business through its citizens losing their equities in their homes, the situation becomes serious. I shall at once be told that relief is a matter for the municipalities and for the provinces. In an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on February 23 the Minister of Labour says, quite properly:
The dominion government is not, and has never been responsible for meeting social need as distinguished from emergency unemployment need.
In the tax structure of Toronto, examining the position of direct emergency unemployment relief, we find this situation. In 1933 the amount charged by the city to its taxpayers for the payment of direct emergency relief was only $12,239. The province permitted the municipalities to issue five-year serial debentures for the major portion of the cost of their direct relief. The following year interest on these debentures had to be met, with the result that the total cost to be included in the tax bills in 1934 rose to 8656,467. Again debentures were issued, and again the interest on those debentures had to be provided for in the tax rate of the city, with the result that in 1935 the direct cost to the taxpayers doubled and approached $1,390,970. In 1936, when debentures were again issued, the amount required inclusive of interest and sinking fund charges for direct relief payments amounted to $2,381,191. The point is that we are pyramiding year by year the cost of direct relief. If, as I gather from the statements, perhaps the government would give some consideration to that portion of the relief cost which is not social services, which has not to do with the unemployables but represents direct relief to those unemployed and able to work, then I say the minister has a direct responsibility to meet the difficulty in which some 750,000 people in one great centre find themselves and the problem their representatives face in striking a tax rate for that city.
The reasons why I say it is necessary that something be done are obvious. Take build-

ing permits, for instance. Eight or nine years ago they amounted to $22,000,000. As a matter of fact, in 1931 the amount was still $22,000,000. Last year it dropped to $8,000,000. You will say at once that that has added $8,000,000 to the assessment; but as a matter of fact the grand total of the assessment in the city of Toronto shrank in the same year by $4,000,000, with the net result that that $8,000,000 was taken up, and together with the $4,000,000 we have a shrinkage of $12,000,000. In other words, the assessment is going down $1,000,000 a month, and while it is going down at that monthly rate the tax rate itself, which before the war was 184 mills and two years ago was 314 mills, last year was 34'85 mills. Unless this government takes some action to meet the direct relief situation before the tax rate is struck for this coming year, the tax rate will be one. two or three mills higher. It depends on how seriously this government takes the position in which it finds itself.
I am very much concerned about the people there who are losing their homes and are unable to pay their taxes. Speaking for the people of Toronto, I am greatly concerned that they as a city should be forced into the real estate business. Every time a quit claim deed is given the city of Toronto, it is common knowledge that the city loses those taxes, and, by thousands of feet of frontage, property is being vested in the name of the city of Toronto and they are losing possible tax revenue therefrom. At the same time I cannot remember any year during which so many buildings, many of them really good buildings, were torn down, for no other reason than the fact that people could not pay the taxes on the assessed value of those buildings. True, they make parking spaces and so on; but is it good economy to tear down really good buildings? Slum clearance? Yes. But are you going to make more slums at the same time by forcing the tax rate so high that those who have equities in their homes cannot maintain those homes and keep them in repair? As fast as you clear away slums you create more and more slums, because owners with their equities are unable to keep their homes in repair.
I do not want to be destructive in what I have to say with reference to this matter. I believe that something real could be done, and I say this to the cabinet as a whole, with that tremendous majority behind them: You went to the country with a policy of action and here and now I say to you, Put a strong man in charge of this problem of able-bodied men not being able to find work, and clothe that man with the responsibility of going to industries of every kind. He will find at the

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Harris
head of our industries men with hearts and souls, anxious to help their country. He will find them a little nervous of a strong man sent by this government if he asks these people, "Why are you not employing as many men as you did in 1929? What are you doing to help your country, to keep men at work?"
Let me divide the problem into two categories and get down to the theme of my thought, namely, the secondary industries. It is quite true that since 1929 in the primary industries the number employed have increased from 80,000 to 100,000 odd. I am glad to see that increase. But the secondary industries take ten men for every one who is in the primary industries. We had a million men and women working in the secondary industries in 1929, and we have seen that figure shrink until to-day it is only 920,000. The government will say that during the last two years there has been some improvement here and there. Yes; I grant that; but there has not been enough improvement to take care of that ten per cent of our population who are able to work, that ten per cent of cost which is destroying the tax structure of municipalities like Toronto by absorbing relief costs to the extent, last year for instance, of $2,000,000- and it seems to be doubling every year.
How is this improvement going to be brought about? It would take a superman, I admit, to do this overnight. I admit at once it cannot be done overnight. I will say this, however, that if a Minister of Labour could sit at the head of a table with the different groups of men comprising the secondary industries and particularly the manufacturing industries, which employ half a million of our people in Canada, he could tell those who have fallen down on the job two or three things which they should do on behalf of their fellow-citizens. And what are those things? He could say to them, "Study your payroll. Don't consider your employees as a commodity, as raw material; don't sit back and simply ask for efficiency from your submanagers; but remember that these men who work for you have hearts and souls, have wives and families who have to be looked after. Spread work out among your employees; see to it that every possible bit of work is given to your employees, and forget during this time of stress and strain in Canada that yearly dividend or yearly balance sheet with its big profit."
That same strong man, whom this government has the power to put at the head of affairs so far as this particular problem is concerned, could study the balance sheets which were referred to a moment ago-the balance sheet of the Bell Telephone Company
for example. What did the hon. gentleman say? Eight millions of profit in the Bell Telephone Company. Why did he not go further and say that 16,000 employees have been laid off by the telephone companies in the last few years? Why do not utilities of that kind put some heart and soul into their operations? They would do it if a strong man sat at a conference table and told them that if they did not do it, drastic action would be taken.
These men in industry are God-fearing men as a whole, decent fine citizens, 99^ per cent of them. It is my privilege to know a great number of them, and I have yet to find them resorting to sharp practice. I have yet to find them lacking in sympathy with their fellow men. They are worrying about the state of things, but they have no leadership. This government is not giving an}' leadership or bringing them together. True you have here a report, a preliminary one. You are going to have another report, and after that I suppose another. But we need action. This country needs action if we are going to get this extra ten per cent back to work. There is the iron and steel industry with a shrinkage of 35,000 employees. Get your iron and steel men around the table, say to them, "Fifty per cent of your men are working over forty-eight hours a week; can you not rearrange your working schedules to spread the work among more men and give those men a forty-eight hour week?" Some hon. member says forty-four hours; if the times are as bad as that I would say forty-four also. A total of 99,187 men are controlled by this industry, there are 35,895 fewer employed to-day than there were in 1929; yet twenty-five per cent of them are working over forty-eight hours a week.
Then there are the manufacturers of lumber. Get the heads of this industry together and ask them, "Why are you employing 8,339 fewer men than you were in 1929?" "Well, we do not have the business; what can we do about it?" Mr. Strong Man, Mr. Man of Action, and this government of action with an overwhelming majority, tell these lumber manufacturers that they are working 41,878 men over forty-eight hours a week, and some of them fifty-five hours a week. Ask them to rearrange their schedules and make work for ten per cent more men in their industry. Retail and wholesale trade, retail merchandise stores, large departmental stores-who in this government is exercising any control over what they are doing with their personnel? Who is exercising any control over the chartered banks of Canada, which are laying off men in the higher age brackets and hiring boys of eighteen

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Harris
or twenty at half the price? What action is being taken; who is doing anything in that regard? Nothing of any real consequence is being done. We have reports, academic discussions; but if the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the cabinet which surrounds him would take definite, drastic action in regard to this problem, he would have the backing of this entire chamber, and as one year succeeds another we would have more nearly cleaned up this problem which is not only menacing the morale of our people, making unemployables out of employables, but also breaking down the tax structure of our municipalities and making it impossible for home owners to continue to own their own homes.
Just next door to the farm where I was born, within a mile from where I live, the R. H. McGregor school, which houses now some 2,000 pupils and which some thirty-five years ago housed three members of this hon. house and a leader of the opposition in the provincial legislature of Saskatchewan, four boys in that little red school house that in twenty years did not have an average population of twenty-four, now looks out on forty acres of land which has been taxed $7,000 a year or more. By the sale of the ground on which the school house stands, valued at some $40,000, and another piece valued at $54,000, a total of $94,000 of taxable value has been paid back to the municipality in taxes. A most desirable piece of property on the outskirts of the city of Toronto, has been taxed at the rate of $7,000 a year, until the owner of that property could not pay any more taxes and to-day languishes in the mental hospital at Mimico, out of his mind, while on June 1 of this year the township of East York will take over forty-two acres of building land, and that struggling, broken-down, bankrupt municipality will find itself the owner of that much more real estate, knowing not what to do with it, losing the revenue of $7,000 a year from that particular property because construction is at a standstill in Toronto, as people buying homes would find themselves taxed out of those homes again, and therefore hesitate to start any construction program. Until the tax rate is brought down construction will not start.
The minister will admit, we all admit, that of all the industries which are suffering, the construction industry is probably suffering most. The shrinkage since 1929 is 25,000 mechanics. I appeal to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) to meet these mayors in conference and discuss with them calmly their difficulties, remembering that if we are to get 
back to any kind of prosperity we must make those homeowning and homeloving people contented, who are now so fast losing their equities. And, I pray the minister, do not counter some poor mayor by saying that these irresponsible threats are futile. I hope the government are not approaching the problem from that angle. We hope they approach it from the angle of conciliation and trying to find a remedy for this difficult situation in order to start again some real prosperity in this country. Action is what we need; action with the heads of all sorts of organizations who are willing to help, anxious to help, is the crying need of this country to-day. Give us that action; give us that leadership and you will get the support of all sections of the house.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that this discussion was coming up on a motion to go into supply, as my motion is number one for to-morrow. But I have no objection to the motion, although it anticipates mine of January 27. Since 1936 I have had this matter on the order paper. I was here all day yesterday and last week and the week before and the week before that, hoping to have my motion considered. It was the first motion handed in this session, but it is No. 7 on the order paper, and is up to be dealt with to-morrow. I had no notice of the present discussion.
As one of the representatives of the city of Toronto I have no hesitation in laying the case of that city before the government. I do not know whether the minister had notice of this question coming up or not, but I have brought to the attention of the house for the past four years, the problem of the condition of the real estate holder in Toronto burdened with relief. Among the larger municipalities, with populations over 40,000, you find that in every case the taxes levied on real estate amount to ninety-two to ninety-four per cent of all municipal revenue.
The hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Harris) has described the lot of the industrial worker to-day. Most hon. members are real estate owners; they are familiar with the unfortunate position of that form of investment. So bad is it that nobody wants to have any investment in real estate, if he can get a better investment. The tax on real estate to-day, Mr. Speaker, as perhaps you know, constitutes a rent in itself, as a result of Canada's overgovernment and overtaxation. The relief problem of the municipalities is directly both the cause and the effect of mistakes which we have made in taxation. There is practically no building of homes or resi-

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Church
dences going on in Toronto, the city from which I come; that kind of construction is practically at a standstill. I have before me the assessment report for the year, which shows that there is a great scarcity of homes. Now we have decreases in relief, decreased vouchers, decreased clothing allowances and so on, with increases in rent, as a result of the insane taxation policy of this country in allowing a triple income tax.
From confederation down to 1918 the income tax was exclusively within the domain of the municipalities, with the result that in Toronto they did not altogether depend upon real estate for revenue. Their income and business taxes, amounting to millions of dollars, enabled the larger cities and towns to go into social services, health services, hospitalization and so on, costing millions of dollars in Toronto, where they are doing good work for the people of the province as a whole. Our taxation principle seems to be the law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest. First, the dominion came along in 1918 and levied an income tax. I was a member of a deputation which came here to meet Sir Thomas White, Minister of Finance of that day, who told us that he did not like to impose that tax but that he hoped it would remain for only a few years, until after the war was over. It has remained ever since. The province imposed a duplicate tax, and as a result the burden on real estate is absolutely crushing.
Let me give the house the number of residences built last year, according to page 14 of the last report by Mr. Farley, the assessment commissioner. By wards the homes built wrere as follows:
Ward 1 .. 2 ..
3	..
4	. .
5	..
6	. .
7	..
8	. . 9 . .
No. of homes built .	1
.	5
.	0
.	0
.	6
.	9
.	16
.	51
.	177
In other words, only 265 new homes were built last year, which is a direct result of putting taxes on real estate. Not only has this knocked the building trade to pieces; it has mined all forms of building construction, with the result that these construction workers are losing their homes and are out of work. This state of affairs, of course, is not local to Toronto; it exists in all the cities and reacts on the municipal councils, who have not the proper funds with which to take care of those on relief. The people on relief are very largely industrial workers, who compose fiftyone per cent of the population of this country. Through no fault of their own they are being driven to the wall. Many of these families have been in Toronto for three generations after having come from the old land. They have never been out of work; they have never been on relief and have never known such a state of affairs before. The remedy for all this is to give us back our income tax and let us share the federal income tax.
I say the burden should be removed from real estate and shifted to those able to bear it. Yesterday we heard from the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) with regard to millionaires leaving the country. On page 13 of the report of the Ontario Associated Boards of Real Estate a table appears comparing the municipal taxation on $100,000 worth of real estate and the revenue on $100,000 put into four per cent bonds. The real estate taxation is figured on an average of 40 mills, which would amount to $4,000. What about the amount invested in bonds? Everyone is trying to get out of the real estate market and put their money into some other form of securities. The taxation derived from $100,000 in bonds totals only $105. In other words, the tax on the real estate amounts to 40 mills, while the tax on the bonds totals only 1-05 mills.
No commodity other than real estate pays taxes to all three governing bodies, the municipality, the province and the dominion. What other commodity pays to the municipality as much as four per cent of a capital charge? In addition to that, the income from that real estate is taxed by both the dominion and the province. This is a system which prevails nowhere in the world, so far as I know, with the exception of Canada and the United States. In the old land they have eliminated the inequalities. The city of Toronto has done its best. We have a brief here, as one hon. gentleman stated, from his worship the mayor of Toronto, showing the state of affairs, and at the meeting of mayors they said there would be a rebellion if it goes on much longer. I need not read what was said at that meeting; I am sure every hon. member has read it for himself. Some action will have to be taken.
Let me remind the house, however, that the city of Toronto has spent on relief a total of $17,765,452. Social services, care of outdoor patients and hospitalization account for another tremendous amount. In a comparatively few years over $8,000,000 has been spent in that way, and the annual expenditure has increased from 1920 until the present time. The amount spent on hospitals has increased each year. In 1922 it was $1,377,000. It rose steadily until in 1932 it was over

Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Church
$5,000,000, and in 1937 over $6,000,000. There is a total expenditure of $51,576,000 shown in this report by the Department of Public Welfare of Toronto.
The minister replied to the representations made by the mayors, and no doubt that reply was made on behalf of the government. I doubt if it will appeal to the wisdom and judgment of members of the House of Commons. After all, what control have we, sitting in this house, over the affairs of the country when the executive take things into their own hands and say they are going to give only a small amount for Ontario relief? I am wondering whether or not this is a Christian country. To-morrow will be the first day of Lent, and I wish we would look into the suffering that is going on among the working classes of this country. I know hundreds of these families on relief, and I am not satisfied with all these commissions that have been appointed and the figures that have been handed out. It is true that they deal with many industries, but a great many of these people are only on part time. Very few of them have full time work, because very few industries are running at full time. I questioned the figures, and the reply of the minister seemed rather cold to come from a warm-hearted person such as he is. I have great respect for the minister, and I do not say it is altogether his fault. I believe it is the fault of parliament in not speaking out about these problems.
The reply was a very discouraging one for the men, women and children on relief throughout this country, and the members of the house will have to interpret that reply. Only the other day we were asked by the municipal council of Toronto to interpret it. We do not want communism or fascism in Canada. We do not want to live under a dictator, and lose our freedom. They may be worshipping false gods, but at least I will say this, that they are ready to spend their lives in the service of their people, as they see it. The municipalities cry out for bread for those on relief, and the government offers them a stone. The government's answer is that they do not care to answer the question, "Who is thy neighbour?" It is the first duty ol the government to look after the health, peace, prosperity and contentment of its people. It was so in the day of the Greeks and Romans, and it is so to-day. There is no use refusing to give an answer to the requests of municipalities. When they ask for bread they are just given a stone-because that is all it is. The dominion wants to shunt the whole burden on to the municipalities.

The municipalities have no funds to buy these increased vouchers. Is the house going to say that the families of those poor men shall have no medical attention, shall have no medicine and no clothing; that their fuel allowance will be cut; that their houses shall be cold in weather like this; that they will have to look elsewhere for their vouchers-despite the increases in prices of food, rents and everything else? I say that this is an injustice to the municipalities that are crying out for relief, and asking adequate federal aid in the matter.
I say that if the party system is going to live, then it will have to deal with this problem immediately and give aid, or it will have a rude awakening in 1940. I believe in a two party system; I strongly support it. But I believe a two party system should be strong enough to solve these problems, and not make it necessary to leave them to socialism, and other isms, or permit other groups to come in in 1940 to solve the problem in a way the country might not like.
There are several members of the medical profession in the house. They have visited the homes of the people throughout the country, as have health officers, social welfare workers, district and neighbourhood investigators, surgeons and provincial and federal organizations. These people have visited the homes, and know the conditions under which some people are living. I hope the minister's reply will be reconsidered.
We now come to a consideration of the cost of effecting the necessary changes. Some years ago the government appointed an employment commission, headed by Mr. Purvis who, by subtracting and deducting, got the unemployment figure down to about 115,000. I know for a fact that his figures were not correct, and I do not believe they are correct to-day. In my view, if the commission had not been appointed and the House of Commons had kept the question of unemployment under its own control, or the control of the minister, the work would have been done much better.
The government descended on the municipalities, and took the income tax. Not satisfied with that, it passed bills by which it proposed to give the provinces direct as well as indirect taxation. If the government had its way and if this latter had gone through, every article of food and clothing would have an indirect tax on it from the provinces as well as the dominions. In view of these facts I say that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) should share the income tax with the municipalities, the way the provincial income

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Church
tax has been shared with them. Those taxes never belonged to the provinces or the dominion.
I have visited the homes of these people, and I know that the result of the present unfair, unjust system is that hundreds of municipalities are in a bad condition to-day. I see the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) in his seat. May I say to him that I have before me reports from the great province of British Columbia, and I can show him where, from his province, east to the Atlantic seaboard, hundreds of municipalities are bankrupt to-day. They cannot pay their fixed or maintenance charges. The municipalities have not their income tax moneys, which formerly supplied them with funds to build municipal institutions, schools and hospitals, to improve their parks, and all that sort of thing. Since the income tax has been taken away, the municipal public works have been starving. They have no moneys to pay for direct relief work. In the federal program of relief works voted here there was no equality of treatment. There have been some relief works in the other provinces, of which Ontario got little or nothing, because favouritism was shown. Some municipalities got court houses-I have Three Rivers in mind. Something was done for Winnipeg, and in Montreal botanical gardens were constructed. I am not complaining about that, because apparently they had enough pull to get the money from the government. But I ask that there should be some equality of privilege shown in the same way to the municipalities of Ontario which got little or nothing.
Some time ago I pointed out what Italy is doing in matters of relief for her unemployed. She is building public works and municipal institutions of all kinds, sufficient for the next forty years. She is building schools, hospitals, court houses and public buildings of all kinds, to take care of relief works, with the result that unemployment in Italy is at a very low ebb.
Some years ago, supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who is now leader of one of the groups in the house, I asked the government of that day if it was prepared to give a third of the cost of unemployment relief, in conjunction with municipal and provincial authorities. The then Minister of Labour, Mr. Heenan, replied, "The answer is No." He stated that unemployment relief, and matters respecting unemployment generally, and social services, under the British North America Act were matters for the municipalities and the provinces.
The government which has brought many of these people into the country, under the British North America Act has jurisdiction over trade and commerce and immigration. It has control of banks and banking, bills of exchange and notes. It- has almost unlimited powers of taxation to solve its problems. The provinces, like the dominion, have made a raid on the municipalities and taken income and business taxes. They have taken away from the municipalities those moneys in order to balance the provincial budgets. The result is that they balance their budgets at the expense of the municipalities, but the cities and towns are in bad condition, and the condition of real estate is deplorable.
The result is that the outlook has been destroyed. The people are becoming, to a great extent, proletarian. In the early days in Canada every one owned property. Most industrial workers owned their own homes. Some of them had small stores or market gardens. They may have kept a cow, or a few cattle. We have been slow to see how the industrial workers have lost all that. Today they do not own property, and to a great extent are becoming proletarian. Conditions are not as they were in the days of Macdonald and Laurier, which I described a moment ago. I do not know what will become of the people of Canada, if these conditions continue. The plight of the industrial workers is just as bad as that of the people in the prairie provinces who have suffered from drought, a people who have the admiration of all people in the dominion. I hope every help will be given them, but I must say at the same time that the plight of the industrial worker is just as bad, and he has had no help by federal legislation, like the farmers and fishermen. Fancy all that, in a land like Canada, which has plenty of food and clothing.


Olof Hanson: May I ask a question?


Thomas Langton Church: Now the government seeks to evade its responsibility by appointing commissions and reading figures. Let me read a few figures, and point out that we shall never be able to give vouchers by reading trade reports or commission reports. The burden which is unloaded on the large cities and towns threatens the existence of municipal institutions in Canada.


Olof Hanson: May I ask a question?


Thomas Langton Church: The government now gives grudgingly. Why do they not tell the people in Toronto: "We cannot give you an increase in relief; we cannot give you any food as we are not liable for it?" Why



Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Church
do they not tell the people of Canada themselves? Why do they not tell the members of parliament to tell that to their constituents?
The workers to whom I referred a few minutes ago are getting along the best they can under the policy of the federal government. Men, women and children are suffering in this land of milk and honey. Are we going to hide behind useless commissions while all this is going on? I think it is the duty of the government to give some active aid to the municipalities as requested by the mayors. It will be remembered that two or three years ago an employment commission was set up which it was said would improve conditions. Well, it did not do it. We hear no end of praise of our natural resources, our farm lands and forests, yet we cannot find the money with which to make this a better country in which to live.
We need something like this to wake up the people of Canada to how things are going. Hon. members may remember the reference that was made at the sittings of the price spreads and mass buying committee and commission to the industrial workers and those on relief. The conditions of the people on relief were described by witnesses. We heard of people working in sweat shops for ten and twelve hours a day, and receiving $4, $5 and $6 per week. We heard of the conditions in some of the departmental stores. I am describing the awful conditions of workers out of work.


Olof Hanson: The hon. member is wandering all over the place and criticizing this government for what they have not done. I ask him if he has any solution to offer or any concrete proposition to make to the government. He has referred to the member for Skeena, and I am proud to represent that constituency.


Thomas Langton Church: The hon. member for Skeena is very fond of rising in his place to ask irrelevant questions, but when I sit down he will have an opportunity to tell us how he stands for the electors of Skeena, Prince Rupert and other places who are on relief, and to propose a cure. He will have an opportunity to tell us what this government proposes to do about the matter.


Olof Hanson: I should like to find a
remedy.


Thomas Langton Church: The hon. member is very fond of complaining about people reading their speeches. This afternoon he objected to the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) reading his speech, but I would remind him that his right hon. leader read some pages about the League of Nations last session.

The hon. member for Skeena as a good government follower just sat in his place and said, "Me too." Where was the hon. gentleman the other evening when we heard about the condition of workers on the Pacific coast because of the Japanese? A red herring was drawn across the trail by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The hon. member did not say one word. If he is willing to lick the boots of the Japanese, I, as a member of parliament, am not. I am going to fight for the industrial workers in British Columbia, and Ontario too, who are suffering because of lack of relief and on account of Japanese matters. I am ready to fight for the industrial workers in my own constituency, and I do not want to waste any more time on the hon. member. I have the floor, and I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. Will the hon. member for Skeena first take the mote out of his eye in connection with Japanese employment, and then he can ask me to take the beam out of the eye of one who fights for those on relief. I propose to stand up for the industrial workers of this country.


Olof Hanson: I would try to treat laboui right.


Thomas Langton Church: You shifted our new deal legislation over to the law courts. I can remember the members of the opposition of those days smiling as they said that the privy council would give a decision against that legislation. They were ready to let the bills pass as they felt they would be upset by the privy council.
I did not know this matter was coming up to-night, and I have not had a chance to prepare myself. I want to refer to the reply made by the Minister of Labour to a statement made at the meeting of the Ontario mayors. I quote from the report of the statement of the minister:
The grant to Ontario was fair and reasonable having regard to the reduction of relief and the financial position of the province, it declared.
"No change will be made in the grants set out in the agreements now before the provincial governments," the statement said. " The grants will be paid to provinces under the terms of these agreements and not otherwise."
The responsibility for help and relief rests in the government. The province of Ontario contributed enough in income tax to pay the relief costs of all of Canada. There was collected from the municipalities of Ontario federally a total of 8252,000,000 in income tax, and according to the statement of the Bank of Canada the cost of relief for all of Canada was only 8212,000,000 for the same period. In other words, in that period this government

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Massey
spent $40,000,000 less than what Ontario paid in income tax for the relief of the unemployed of the whole Dominion of Canada. As a remedy, the municipalities of Ontario should have part of this income tax. According to a report prepared by the mayor's office ^ in Toronto the per capita cost for Ontario is less from the federal government than in other places. It has been said that Ontario is a solvent province, and that may be the reason for the action taken. It may be considered that Toronto is a solvent city as it owns all its public utilities which are operated at cost, and so it receives less per capita.
I believe the members on the government benches have an appreciation of the lot of these workers. Many of them own real estate, and they do not have to be told anything about what has happened. If a man owns real estate and has a tenant who is on relief, he gets no rent. The man on relief is getting only half what he should get, and the result is he can pay no rent. I see the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) smiling. He knows all about this as he has some of these tenants. In conclusion, may I say that I hope the minister will see his wav clear to revise this policy. He has until March 31 to do this, and I hope the government of the day will give some consideration to this matter.
I have figures for Toronto, for London and for Vancouver. The city of Winnipeg has got out a book the same as those published by other cities. I have before me a report by the assessment commissioner which shows a decrease in the amount of building.
I say in conclusion that I hope some attention will be given to this particular matter, because these people should not be allowed to starve. They are our own kith and kin; they are not wooden men, they are men of flesh and blood who have suffered and are suffering to-day as they have never suffered before, as a result of these horrible and unChristian conditions.


Denton Massey: The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) has introduced to-day a question which beyond a shadow of doubt is one of the most serious that the municipalities of this dominion are facing at this time. As a member representing one of the constituencies of Toronto, I feel it is incumbent upon me to speak, although briefly, on this question. I wish to dot every "i" and cross every "t" to which we have listened in the stentorian speech of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris). The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), who followed, presented
51952-60i
not only the immediate problem of Toronto but a problem that is also dominion-wide. I do not wish to repeat what these hon. gentlemen have said, or to deal statistically with the subject; but I think it is well worth while that every hon. member, whether he represents a rural or an urban constituency, should bear in mind that there is indeed a forgotten man in Canada, and that that man is the small home owner.
There is not a member of the house but has deep feelings in regard to those who have had to face the indignity and the burden of relief. We have discussed at length in this chamber the problems which arise as a result of the necessity of relief. On the other hand there has been relatively little discussion concerning the problem of the small home owner. Here is a man who by his own ability to earn and to save as he earns has contrived to purchase a small home; he has lived there perhaps for some little time and is endeavouring to pay off, bit by bit, the mortgage on that property. In recent years and even to-day he lives in jeopardy because, as a result of conditions beyond his control, his earnings have been less, his income has decreased, and he is barely able to meet the payments on his home and to pay his taxes as well. If he is out of a job for any length of time, the chances are that he is unable to make payments on his home or to ease the burden of taxation which falls upon him, and thus his ownership is challenged.
This question we are discussing is a question not only of relief, but of that which accompanies relief. It is, therefore, not a simple problem, but as the minister knows, is irreducibly tied up with the question of realty taxation. During the last session I had the privilege of introducing a resolution with regard to the subject of slum clearance and the building of low cost houses. I said, in part, as reported on page 742 of Hansard of last year:
I will also say to the minister that the financing of housing schemes and slum clearance plans is not the great bugaboo; I think he will grant me that. There are two other far greater difficulties; the one, the system of realty taxation existing through this entire dominion; the other, the fact that under the British North America Act it is up to the provinces and the municipalities to institute action.
Mr. Dunning: That is the greatest difficulty.
Mr. Massey: I have said that. The greatest stumbling block in the way of ridding our cities of the scars that mar them, the greatest difficulty in the way of rehousing our rural population, is to be found, on the one hand, in the present system of realty taxation, and, on the other, in the restrictions placed upon this government by the British North America Act. If the national employment commission has

Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Massey
spent its money and its time only on the study of taxation and can bring any recommendations on this question that are attractive to provincial and municipal governments, then their work has been well worth while on that basis alone. We cannot expect extensive building, either under building societies or under the aegis of provincial or municipal governments, until our system of taxation is completely readjusted. I urge upon the government with all the earnestness of which I am capable that full and complete study be given to this phase of our national scheme of things.
In the last municipal election in Toronto there was proposed to the electors a by-law. In rejecting that by-law, the electors declared with no small degree of emphasis that under its terms they were not in favour of any housing and slum clearance plan. But it would be unfair if this interpretation alone were to be placed upon the result of that vote. After all, the municipal voter is a realty taxpayer, and as some one recently so well expressed it, to ask a realty taxpayer to vote for that by-law was like asking the Women's Christian Temperance Union to vote for more beer parlours. There has been placed upon the realty taxpayer, particularly in the last few years, an almost inconceivable burden, a burden which has steadily increased, and his fear was expressed by his vote at the municipal election which I have mentioned. I do not believe there was a single person who voted against that by-law but had in his heart the desire to see the slums of Toronto cleared away and some low cost housing plan instituted; but in fairness to his own family and in the face of his own direct responsibility to pay taxes et al, he could not see his way clear to vote upon himself a further burden when he could scarcely carry the burdens under which he already had to struggle. That, it seems to me, is the lesson which is taught us by that incident in Toronto, comparatively a few weeks ago.
I repeat that these questions of relief and realty taxation are interlocked in the present set-up. What is being done at the moment? What is suggested is to place a further burden upon the taxpayer of the municipality, the man who has a home and who perforce must pay taxes upon it. The demand is one which is beyond the pale of reason, for after all there is a limit beyond which we cannot go if we wish to maintain our homes. I stand here to-night to speak not only for the people whom I have the honour to represent and whom I am so proud to represent in this house, but for all realty taxpayers in all parts of the dominion who find unbearable the burden of taxation for relief and other purposes, of which I have spoken. It is of paramount importance to our dominion that our ntizens maintain their homes. As I have al-

ready drawn to the attention of the house, we have neglected our housing-and neglected it, I feel, shamefully in many ways. We have forced many, who have not had the means to build or own their own homes, to live in places which are a disgrace to the community. We have done little or nothing to aid those compelled to live in such surroundings to live in better places. Very little interest has been taken in housing societies, housing centres and similar organizations which have been developed in Canada; now we are faced with a further step in the wrong direction, which places additional burdens upon those who find it an almost insuperable difficulty to maintain what they have.
In the speech from the throne we were told that the national employment commission had concluded its duties. Before the present government came into office, and during the election of 1935, we were told from coast to coast, from platforms, over the radio, in the press and other organs of publicity, that we should vote Liberal and get action. There is not the slightest doubt that over forty per cent of the people of Canada who voted, voted Liberal; but I ask you, Mr. Speaker, have they got action? The silence on the benches opposite confirms the suggested truth of my question. We have not got action.


Olof Hanson: Did we have action before?


Denton Massey: We are having reaction at the moment, apparently. If hon. members opposite go into their own municipalities and ask the small home owner if he is better off now than he was just over two years ago, and that small home owner answers as he feels, he will say, "No, I am worse off." Those are the facts; that is the situation which we face. We may have heard a good deal so far this session from hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to increasing good times. I am sure that if they will compare Canada's position as world trader in 1938 with Canada's position as a world trader in the middle of 1935, they will find that we have risen only in proportion with increasing good times throughout the world; but at the same time there is not one hon. gentleman opposite who will not admit that at the moment we are facing a recession- I believe that is the new technical term for a depression-and that times are not as good as they were a few months ago.
The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) this afternoon called attention to the fact that unemployment at the moment was increasing rather than decreasing, and yet in face of such a situation we now find that the municipalities are threatened with the problem of themselves having to assume direct relief. This is

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Wood
not in keeping with the fullest interests of the country as a whole; it cannot be; for we are challenging the very existence of our homes, and when we touch our homes we are challenging the very centre of our national life; for no national life can prevail if there are merely houses, and not homes. Accordingly, when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) feels that the mayors of the various municipalities are getting, to say the least, rambunctious, and are becoming threatening, he must realize that they in their positions of importance have a responsibility to the municipalities which they represent, and that in their own way, in the way they think best, they are attempting to protect the small home owner in the municipality. I am sure that when the minister speaks, as he will in a few minutes, he will have much to say concerning the attitude of the mayors, and therefore I make this statement in advance of what he may say.
In conclusion, I would make one comment upon the general situation. We fully realize that throughout Canada, not only in municipalities but in rural centres as well and on the farms, there are thousands of houses which are unfit for habitation. Homes they are called, but homes they cannot be in the fullest sense of -that noble word. This whole question of national housing is one the solution for which has been postponed too long. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson), for whom we all have a high regard-


Olof Hanson: Thank you.


Denton Massey: -comes from a country of which he is justly proud. Those of us who have had the honour of visiting his native heath have realized the progress that has been made there particularly in connection with housing. The hon. gentleman himself may not have been to his native land in recent years; but he is a student who is constantly in pursuit of the finer things of life, and he realizes fully what his own country has done in that regard. I am sure that if he rises in his place to-night he will say that he could wish nothing more for the peace and happiness of his own constituency than that they should have homes at least as good as, if not better than, the homes one finds in Sweden, and these homes are not taxed out of existence.
We cannot contemplate such action as has been projected by the Minister of Labour without feeling that we are striking what is essentially a death blow to slum clearance and rehousing in Canada. It seems to me nothing short of a tragedy that at this time when hopes have been raised, when faith has been placed
in the thought that something might be done, for two and a half years nothing has been done in the way of housing. I fully realize that the national employment commission when it was appointed faced a gigantic task. I have nothing whatever to say to-night in criticism of the actions of that commission. I should not like to be accused of having forecast to-night anything that may not be brought down in the report of that commission, which has not yet been tabled and of criticizing something I have not seen. I say to the minister, however- and I know that he will not misunderstand me -that the question before the house at this time is one that must bring to mind at once not only the matter of the problem about to be handed to the municipalities of raising further funds for relief, not only the method by which those funds will be raised, but also perforce the whole question of national housing. And I am sure that when the minister replies he will make some statement in regard to this all-important subject, perhaps not in anticipation of the tabling of the report of his highly expensive national employment commission, but as an assurance to the people of Canada, at this critical time, that even 1 though so far this government has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear toward those who have had to live under conditions nothing short of deplorable, and also to those who have lived in jeopardy from day to day lest as a result of ever increasing taxes they have had to pay they would lose that which they already have, there are under contemplation plans for the amelioration of the difficulties and hardships occasioned by slum conditions, and the total absence of low cost housing schemes.


Mr.  G. E. IV OOD@Brant: I feel reluctant to reply to hon. members from Toronto in this debate, which I might term a filibuster. I am not, I must admit, very familiar with the rules of the house, I do not know what the motion is. It seems to me, however, to be a sort of free-for-all for every member to air his own local disabilities, and perhaps it would be just as well if hon. members from Toronto would be like the Scotchman who wished that we could only see ourselves as others see us.
Some of the remote districts in Ontario may have a contribution to offer towards a solution of some of the difficulties which exist in the city of Toronto, because after all the demands that are made there are going to affect us in the more remote districts of the country. I have to admit that I admire the splendid way in which hon. members from Toronto, especially the hon.

Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Wood
member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), can present their viewpoint. I am somewhat jealous of the language he seems to have at his command to circle around the thoughts which he entertains. I suppose that may be due to the fact that Toronto is the centre of Ontario's educational system. The rest of us, especially in the rural districts, have to make considerable sacrifice when we send our boys and girls to the colleges and the university in Toronto, and in spite of all the hardship which seems to be inflicted upon Toronto we feel that a good deal of our money from the rest of Ontario goes into that city's educational institutions.


Denton Massey: May I ask the hon. member what he considers to be the city which provides his greatest market?


Mr. WOOD:: I am not sure that that
has anything to do with this question. Perhaps I shall answer that later on.
The city of Toronto is also the financial centre for Ontario. While it may provide a good market for the farmers of Ontario, it will be found that after paying the charges made for doing our business, we are paying the city of Toronto very well for buying our goods. Toronto also seems to have a magnetic influence drawing many secondary industries there. The very fact that Toronto is the centre of Ontario's education, finance, and more or less its industries, causes me to think that the exhibition given us to-night by hon. members from Toronto is rather a sorry spectacle to present to a self-respecting House of Commons.
I wish to draw attention to a few figures which bear out my point. The city of Toronto has a population of about 628,000. The figures I give are taken from the 1935 report of the Department of Municipal Affairs for Ontario, that being the last year available. although I believe the 1936 report is just off the press. There are five municipalities adjacent to the city of Toronto, and there seems to be an influence somewhere that creates the condition of affairs which is associated with them. Consequently I should feel somewhat shy about being too closely associated with the city of Toronto, as far as the spending of money is concerned. In Ontario thirty-four municipalities have defaulted on their obligations, and of this number five are adjacent to the city of Toronto. I have compiled figures showing the wealth that those municipalities have at their disposal. It seems that an unfortunate lack of ability to use this wealth has got them into the unfortunate condition of which we have been told to-night.

The population of the city of Toronto and its suburbs is about 800,000; the population of Ontario is about 3,320,000. That is, the population of Toronto and its suburbs represents about one-quarter of the population of Ontario. Now these municipalities have an assessment of $1,018,400,000 out of a total assessment in the whole province of $3,000,835,872. The city of Toronto has a business assessment of $118,294,435 out of a total business assessment for the whole province of $242,000,000. In other words, the city of Toronto enjoys a business assessment of about one-half that of the whole province. Again, the income of that section of which we have heard so much to-night is $35,450,000 out of a total income tax assessment for the whole of Ontario of $71,000,000. That is, Toronto has half the income tax assessment of Ontario. That seems to show that there must be something wrong in the administration of all this wealth. The total municipal debt of Ontario is $461,653,182, and Toronto and adjacent municipalities have nearly half of that debt, or '$209,925,000. It seems to me, therefore, that the present difficulties are due to their spending in recent years. Is it that they have made some errors in their general administration? After all, as I look over this report I find that out of thirty-eight counties in Ontario nine have no debt at all; many others have no county or building debt-


Denton Massey: How about Brant?


George Ernest Wood: I am glad to report that in six years Brant will not owe one cent. Furthermore, since the hon. member for Greenwood has raised the question, I am proud to announce that there is one municipality in the county I have the honour to represent, the municipality of Burford, which had a surplus this year and has already paid $10,000 on the county tax for 1938.


Denton Massey: On the other hand, if the hon. member were facing such a condition as I suggested to-night and the city of Toronto were free of debt, perhaps the situation in which we are at the moment might be reversed.


George Ernest Wood: No, I do not think it would. I should like to tell the hon. member that when it comes to downright honest-to-goodness frugality and thrift you have to give credit to those rural districts which are still close to the influence of the old pioneer blood. I understand the hon. member for Greenwood anticipates that we are going to have another recession. Well, we have many people in the riding I represent who are ready for another depression and always will be, because

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Wood
they live within their means and know how to finance. There is a character in this old foundation stock which makes them refuse to sacrifice their homes and go into debt. Their wives will go without a new dress; they will go without things instead of going into debt for them. That is the spirit which is responsible for the fact that so many of these rural municipalities have no debt.


Mr. HEAPS:: I should like to ask the hon. member as a matter of information whether when he gives figures of the debt of the municipalities it is gross or net debt.


George Ernest Wood: It is the gross debt.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Should he not as a matter of fairness to the cities he has mentioned give the net debt?


George Ernest Wood: 
Abraham Albert Heaps: If I might continue the question-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think the hon. member objects to answering this question. In the case of a municipality such as the city of Toronto I think it is hardly fair to speak of the gross debt without explaining as to the utilities-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: We should like to hear this speech.


George Ernest Wood: It just depends upon your philosophy of life and the things you are in the habit of enjoying. I may go into debt to buy an automobile; I will enjoy it, and I have some value for it. But my philosophy is that I would rather have that automobile paid for before I started to use it. I know it is a lot easier for me. Perhaps that answers the question of the hon. member.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, it does not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Ernest Wood: I have often wondered what the unthrifty people are going to do after the thrifty people have exhausted their funds, and how they are going to make a living then. True, there seems to be some magnetism in our industrial centres by virtue of the fact that living there is a great deal easier. You do not have to put as much energy into making a living. I go to Toronto quite often, and I find that their picture shows are flourishing, and you can see a great deal of prosperity
in and about Toronto. They enjoy life. I should like to draw the attention of the house for a few moments to something I happened to see in the Toronto Daily Star in regard to an Indian by the name of Charlie Jones, who came to Toronto from Shawanga, which is somewhere near Parry Sound. I should like to tell the house what one of our aborigines had to say about the city of Toronto, and I quote this for the very fact that he comes with an open mind. He has made his living in remote districts, and his judgment is not warped by the fact that he has been associated with any other municipality. Apparently he was taken through the city of Toronto by a representative of the Toronto Star, and this question was put to him:
"What do you think of it so far?" . . . "It is beautiful," said Charlie. "Everybody hurrying, but maybe going no place."
This is what I want hon. members to notice:
"But everybody looks contented. I never saw' anybody before that was in such a hurry and yet looked so contented. When people hurry like this, you expect them to look worried. Nobody in this city looks w'orried."
That is the opinion of one of our Indians upon seeing the city of Toronto, and I think that state of affairs is wholesome when we consider that hon. members come here to-night hoping that they can pull a long face and induce us to help the city of Toronto even more, when after all it would be just as well if they would actually give us the expression of their own hearts. In defence of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) to-night, may I say that I had occasion-


An hon. MEMBER:: Can he not defend himself?


George Ernest Wood: Yes, he can easily defend himself, but for the benefit of the house there is one observation I should like to make. Last year I took advantage of the opportunity to go to that section of our country. I had occasion to stop off at Prince George, I believe it was. I am not sure whether that is in the constituency of the hon. member for Skeena; but in any case when the train stopped I commenced to talk to one of the residents of that community, asking about the condition of affairs in that locality. He said, "You know, in 1935 we had fourteen sawmills, and only two were operating. Now not only are the fourteen running but two additional sawmills have been put in." Perhaps that answers the question fairly well.


Denton Massey: Ottawa agreements, 1932.


Mr. TURGEON:: United States agreement, 1936.

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Wood


George Ernest Wood: I do not want to delay the house very much longer, but I thought perhaps some of these observations would be worth drawing to the attention of the house. A person should be reluctant to criticize until he has some constructive suggestion to offer. I generally try to observe that rule as much as possible. It is easy to criticize, but sometimes it is difficult to substitute anything better. The nearest I could get in the case of the hon. member for Greenwood would be to suggest that he go back to the city of Toronto and recommend that it be placed under the municipal board of Ontario, as several other municipalities have been. I would also recommend that he go to some of these rural districts that are out of debt and select a group of commissioners there under which Toronto could be operated.
I take this matter seriously. I really believe there is such a thing as a city getting so large and having all the centres of education and finance that it begins to think all the wisdom is concentrated in it. There are some other municipalities, such as the one I represent, which have not done so badly. In 1932 we farmers were selling our eggs at eight cents, our butter at sixteen cents and our wheat at forty-two cents, but we were able to weather the storm, pay our obligations and at the same time reduce our municipal debts. I am very happy to say, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, that the constituency which I have the honour to represent will be out of debt in a period of six years, and I am satisfied that the people living there will be reluctant to go into debt again. After all, debt is one of the things that make it very hard for us to take our place in industrial society. We are carrying too large a debt for our population, because concealed in the purchase price of every commodity we buy is some part of this debt.
Some mention has been made of the tariff. I believe the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) drew attention to the fact that it was unfortunate that there was such a large importation of goods which could be manufactured here, thus depriving these people of work. I do not think the solution suggested is a particularly good one. I am sometimes inclined to take the view that we hold the tariff guilty, either by going up or going down, of doing a good deal more than it really does. We give it a great deal more credit and a much more important place in our national life than we should. My attention was called to an incident that occurred in the town of Paris. I happened to go into one of the mills there, and the manager showed me a cloth of which he said it would take about seven yards to make a suit for an

average man. The manufacturer would get about $5.04 for that amount of cloth. I was told that the cloth would make a suit somewhat similar to the one I am wearing to-night, and that the suit would sell for something around $40, showing the difference between what the manufacturer gets for the actual goods and the price for which the suit sells after the tailor makes it and it is retailed. So you see that a great many costs seem to enter into it, and I think a great deal of that cost can be traced to extravagant municipal, provincial and federal administration.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to express my indebtedness to the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) for the answer he has already given to those who have spoken from the other side of the house in connection with the matter of grants in aid to the province of Ontario. I am sorry I was not in my seat this afternoon when the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) brought up this matter for consideration. Due to a misunderstanding, I was not aware the question was coming up this afternoon, and did not learn of it until after the six o'clock recess. However, I have followed carefully what has been said by other hon. members who have spoken on behalf of the city of Toronto, and I should like to deal-


Denton Massey: Mr. Speaker, if the minister would permit an interruption:	I was not
speaking on behalf of the city of Toronto alone. I am sure he will understand my remarks were national in character.


Mr. ROGERS:: I am glad to accept the correction. 1 understand fully, of course, that those who have spoken have done so particularly on behalf of the city they represent, but also with wider considerations in view.
Let me make it clear at the outset that the dominion government does not make grants in aid to the cities or to any other municipalities. The grant in aid which is paid by the dominion government is paid to the several provinces of the dominion, and the grant payable to the various provinces is restricted by the amount of money which has been appropriated by parliament for the purpose.
It will be within the memory of hon. members that at the last session $19,500,000 was voted for this purpose. In the allocation of that sum the government has done its utmost to meet the needs of the various provinces, as those needs were determined, first, by the dimensions of the unemployment problem and, second, by the financial position of the province concerned. I should like to

Unemployment Relief

Mr. Rogers
say emphatically that there has never been any discrimination in the allocation of grants in aid to the various provinces. It is necessary to mention that to-night, because I understand a suggestion was made this afternoon that because of drought conditions in western Canada, of an emergency nature, that total grant of 819,500.000 was heavily charged by increased grants to the western provinces. I should like to contradict that statement- if it was a statement-or to remove the impression which may have been created by what was said this afternoon.
I realize fully that in the distribution of the grant in aid to the various provinces, it is of great importance that the dominion government should avoid any suggestion of discrimination or any preference to one group of provinces over another group of provinces. Therefore, when we were obliged to deal with the emergency situation which developed in western Canada last summer, we did so upon the basis of governor-general's warrants, voted especially for this purpose, and there was no reduction of grants in aid which would otherwise have been available for the eastern provinces.
I will say-and I believe it will be fully understood by hon. members-that in the circumstances we did not feel it possible to make as drastic reductions of the grants payable to the western provinces as we felt justified in doing in the case of the eastern provinces. However, there is only one province in which the grant has been maintained steadily throughout the year, namely Saskatchewan. That grant was maintained because, when the drought area was defined within which the dominion government assumed one hundred per cent financial responsibility, its boundaries were drawn very strictly, and did not by any means include all the areas in the province which suffered severely from the climatic conditions which existed in western Canada during the past summer. I doubt if any hon. member would seriously urge that the dominion government was in error in maintaining the grant in aid to Saskatchewan without reduction throughout the year.
The grant paid to Ontario for the months of October, November and December was $465,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: Per month?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. Under the terms of
the agreements which are now before the provinces, including Ontario, that amount is continued as a maximum, subject only to the qualification that it shall be reduced if the amount should be in excess of thirty per cent
of the total expenditures for relief in the province. But according to the figures we have received from the provincial government, there is no possibility that the maximum will not be reached during the months of January, February and March, the period covered by the agreement now under discussion.
We have not as yet brought down the estimates for the forthcoming year, and therefore we have not dealt with the grants in aid to the provinces for the next fiscal year. I stated after meeting with the mayors of Ontario that, having regard to the reduction of unemployment, and the financial position of Ontario, the grant paid to that province was a fair and reasonable one. May I point out to hon. members from Toronto, or from other municipalities in Ontario, that to my knowledge the dominion government has never interfered with the provincial government in the distribution of the grant in aid to the municipalities. In other words, Ontario is able, of itself, to determine the financial needs of the municipalities within its borders. We try to meet the situation as we see it in the various provinces. It is the duty of the provincial government, therefore, to deal with the situation as it is observed in the various municipalities.
While I am on this point, I should like to observe that it is also within the power of any provincial government to widen the powers of taxation enjoyed by the municipalities. I know of nothing to prevent a provincial legislature from conferring upon a municipality any power of taxation which the province itself possesses. I fully agree with what has been said to-night regarding the plight of the small property owner. From the time I first came into active contact with the relief problem in Canada I have been impressed with the unfairness of a system of relief which presses as heavily as it does upon those who own real estate. But I would suggest to hon. members that the only solution to this problem does not lie in an increase in grants in aid payable by the dominion to the provinces. It is within the power of the provinces to increase the grants to municipalities, over and above the amount received from the dominion government. It is also within the power of the provincial governments to confer wider powers of taxation upon the municipalities within their borders.
The whole question of the respective obligations of various governmental agencies towards relief is one which is coming before the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. Submissions have been made on behalf of the municipalities of the various

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Rogers
provinces. I have no doubt further submissions will be made on behalf of the mayors of the dominion. No one can doubt the importance of this aspect of our system of public finance. But until that question receives the wider consideration it deserves, I think we should bear in mind that the dominion government is two degrees removed from the municipalities. It has never been indifferent to the plight of the municipalities, but the primary responsibility for dealing with the position in which the municipalities find themselves rests with the provincial governments. I believe that has always been well understood.
At the same time I should like to make it clear that although that is the correct constitutional position-I do not hesitate to use that phrase in describing it, for it is a position which has been accepted alike by the preceding and the present administrations-when this government came into office it was so much impressed with the plight of the municipalities that one of the first things it did was to increase the grants in aid to the provinces by seventy-five per cent. At the same time it was made clear in the order in council that the additional amount should be passed over for the relief of the municipalities. I think I am entitled to point that out to hon. friends opposite.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Was that not a seasonal increase? The grants go down in the summer and are increased as the winter months come on. Was that increase not made in October with the winter coming on?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The grants were increased for December, January, February and March by seventy-five per cent.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Over the previous year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Over the previous year.


William Earl Rowe: For the same months?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Over what they had been for a period of fifteen months.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: For the same months?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Over what they had been since August, 1934. They had been maintained at the same rate from August, 1934, to December, 1935, and we increased them by seventy-five per cent for the months I have mentioned. Thereafter, as employment improved, we made gradual reductions, first by way of a percentage and later in the form of adjustments which had regard rather to the actual unemployment conditions in the various provinces.


William Earl Rowe: Which had been done every season.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Which had not been done every season, if I may correct my hon. friend. Prior to August, 1934, the grants had been on a basis of 334 per cent by the dominion, 334 per cent by the province and 334 per cent by the municipality. Following a dominion-provincial conference, in July, 1934, the previous administration decided to pay the grants upon the basis of a fixed grant in aid payable monthly to the various provinces. That system was maintained up to the time to which I have referred. In December, 1935, two months after this administration came into office, we increased those grants by seventy-five per cent.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Was that seventy-five per cent increase for the whole year or just for certain months?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have tried to make myself clear. It was an increase of seventy-five per cent in the amounts which had been paid monthly in the preceding year. As I say, there was no revision from August, 1934, to December, 1935.


Charles Avery Dunning: No increase or no change.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No change whatever.


Charles Avery Dunning: They ran the same from August, 1934, to December, 1935.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I mention that because I think it should be recognized by hon. members opposite that this government has had in mind the position of the municipalities. When we reduced the grants in aid, the reduction was upon the basis of the improvement in the general employment situation, and also the improved financial position of most of the provinces of the dominion.
I doubt very much if we are going to make progress toward a reduction of the relief problem unless we take account of these essential factors. For example, if the dominion government were to increase the grants while the problem remained the same, it would simply afford an inducement to the provinces and the municipalities to relax their efforts to reduce the relief problem. I say that with some knowledge of what has happened in previous years. As a matter of fact, those who were members of the previous administration will understand me when I say that the chief reason for the dominion government departing from the principle of percentage payments was simply the fact that with a percentage basis there was no way in which relief lists could be kept properly under control. That was the reason why the

Questions
percentage basis was abandoned and grants in aid adopted as a substitute. Following the recommendations of the national employment commission, we have attached to the grants in aid a maximum percentage rather in order to avoid the periodic and somewhat disturbing revisions of grants in aid from one quarter to another.
I think it must be recognized also that there has been a marked improvement in the unemployment situation. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) suggested that there is a real need at this time for a strong man or a superman.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: With a strong voice.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sure he will not misunderstand me when I remind him that he was a supporter of an administration which certainly in his view and in the view of many people in this country was headed by a strong man, a man who, some people believed, was a superman. I should like to give my hon. friend the unemployment record for those years. I should also like to remind him of the fact that this record occurred during the years following the changing of the tariff policy of this country at an emergency session. The result of that policy was not an improvement in employment, but rather a marked increase in unemployment.


Joseph Henry Harris: Will the minister give the world record for that period?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Here are the number of unemployed for the months of December in successive years:
1930		 413,000
1931		 543,000
1932		 675,000
1933		 623,000
1934		 571,000
1935		 546,000
1936		 502,000
1937		 381,000
In the past year there has been an improvement of 120,000. Not only that, but the relief lists show that there have been removed from the relief rolls and added to the wage rolls of this country a number very close to 100,000. You cannot go back to any year from 1929 to the present time and find as great an improvement in a single year.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Has the minister the figures for December, 1937, and January, 1938?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The figure for December, 1937, is 381,000. I believe there will be a
further opportunity to-morrow to continue this discussion in connection with another motion.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 2, 1938