[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) presented the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: There is a matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), arising out of a report in the press of this morning to the effect that-
The United States House of Representatives passed and sent to the senate to-day a bill to authorize the president to appoint a five-member commission to negotiate with representatives of the Canadian government "on the prospect of arrangements for building" a
highway from the Pacific northwest to Alaska through British Columbia and the Yukon territory.
The committee is also reported to have said:
Canada's desire to aid cannot be questioned.
Can the Prime Minister make a statement to the house at this time with regard to the matter?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: All I can say is that I have seen the press dispatch to which the hon. member has alluded and it is the first and only intimation that I have had of the matter. I have not made any representations as to whait Canada's attitude will be if the subject should come before us for consideration at the instance of the United States.



PRIVILEGE-MR. CHURCH STATEMENTS OF FATHER GRAVEL AND ILLEGAL IMPORTATION OF ARMS INTO QUEBEC  ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON MAY 2

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I rise to a question of privilege and to correct, under the rules of the house, a report regarding two replies by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to two questions I asked and placed on the order paper.- I wish to call Your Honour's attention to the fact that the privileges of a member have been taken away by the answers given by the minister. In the first question I complained of a large public meeting held in Quebec city on April 6 and reported at length in the three newspapers of that city, L'Evenement and Le Soleil and another, in which the speaker referred to in the question, Reverend Father Gravel, said:
There must be a revolution. There is no good saying it can't happen here... .1 am for revolution. I will support a revolution that will fight for the independence of this province. Our people must unite and retake the soil which belongs to us.
A lengthy report appeared in L'Evenement of April 6. Practically the same report appears in Le Soleil of the 6th:
When a nation is as sick as this, there is only
one way to save it, revolution___That is the
only remedy which will save us.
Other papers, fifteen in all, had lengthy reports along the same lines, and more details.
Under standing order No. 44, material facts may be cited in order to make a question intelligible. The rule then goes on to refer to the privileges of members; it refers to misquotations. In my question I simply drew attention to a report of a large public meeting in Quebec, and in order to make the question
24S2
Privilege-Mr. Church

intelligible I referred to certain facts-the reports of the meeting. I submit that I was quite within the rules of the house. I did not seek to supply any information to the house but simply to ask a question based on the reports of a meeting which became an unlawful assembly, and therefore the question as I worded it was, I submit, in order. My other question was based on a long report in the Toronto Star Weekly of Saturday, April 23, in a dispatch from Montreal and quoting L'Autorite, in which a scheme to seize Rideau Hall, Ottawa, and the public buildings here was set out at length under a heading Fascist Scheme to Seize Ottawa by Force. These matters I complained of were in many other papers including all our leading Canadian dailies.
Under the rules I was prevented from reading a verbatim report of what the reverend gentleman said. I waited for the government or for some responsible minister to raise this question of public importance and get the real facts and to take action, but nothing was done.
At page 2431 the minister is reported as having made this answer to the first question I asked:
This question serves to show the soundness of the rules of the house to the effect that a question should seek to obtain information, not to supply it to the house.
I repeat, my question did not supply information, but I sought government action; for the information is contained in a two-column verbatim report published in many newspapers. I supplied no answer, only a reference to lengthy press reports. The minister went on to say:
The government is not aware of the facts mentioned by the hon. gentleman-
The occurrences and the meeting to which I have reference in the question were in the minister's own constituency or city and were reported in his own city press. He continued:
-but I know personally that he has been wrongly informed, at least in some important particulars.
I did not make the statement myself which I quoted in the question I asked; it appeared in three newspapers published in Quebec and in others throughout Canada. The mere fact that the minister says that my fears are groundless does not make it so. I simply stated the facts, and as a further question of privilege, I object to untruthful comments in this morning's Citizen and reflections on me. It is in the public interest that in times like

these the government should find out what address this gentleman did make, and examine the press reports and comments, and decide whether any action will be taken in the matter under the law. Section 98 was repealed, but other sections of the code are there with regard to unlawful assemblies and threats of force and revolution.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask the hon. member to state the point of privilege which he is raising and to do so in terms as brief as possible.


Thomas Langton Church: I have received certain information through the mail also, sent to me by revolutionists and others. Am I as a private member to get all these particulars while no one in a responsible position will take any action? I should like to have an answer from the minister as to what he intends to do.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I have nothing to add to the answers I gave the hon. gentleman yesterday.


Thomas Langton Church: What about your padlock law?



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUESTION AS TO CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. MacG. YOUNG (Saskatoon): I desire to ask the government a question based upon a report which appeared in the Ottawa Evening Citizen of Monday, May 2, of an address by the premier of Ontario before the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. I quote:
"And now may I express a long, deep note of discontent," the premier continued, stating the first notice he received of the appointment of the commission, " came at the breakfast table, from a morning newspaper"....
He suggested the objective of the commission bore so directly on the affairs of provincial government that all provinces should have been consulted about the commission appointment. "And I suspect several of the provinces were consulted," he said.
My question is: were some of the provinces consulted regarding the appointment of the Rowell commission?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my hon. friend that as far as I am able to recall none

Relief and Agricultural Distress
of the provinces were consulted as to the intention of the government to appoint the commission. The decision of the government was reached by itself after careful consideration of the whole matter and announcement regarding the intention of the government to appoint the commission was made in this house, if I remember rightly, in the middle of February. The commission itself was not appointed until August. The personnel of the commission was made known at that time. In the interval representations were made to the government from many sources as to persons who might be considered and these representations were considered. I cannot say at the moment just what these various representations were, but I would say that no single province was treated differently from any other. All were treated exactly alike. I speak subject to correction, but my recollection is that representations were made by a member of the government of Ontario as to a person who might be appointed to the commission, and the name of that person was considered along with other names which were submitted. The Hon. Mr. Rowell was subsequently appointed from Ontario.



NIAGARA FALLS BRIDGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) whether or not the letter he referred to the other evening in the discussion on the Niagara Bridge bill has been laid on the table.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: I was out of the city yesterday, but this morning I made inquiries regarding the letter. My files indicate that the letter was sent to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, but I am arranging to locate it and will undertake to lay it on the table this evening or possibly this afternoon.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 2, consideration in committee of Bill No. 105, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress-Mr. Rogers-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 3-Undertaking of measures:
Mrs. BLACK:: It has seemed to me that
in the last week or two a great many speeches have been made that would not have been made if the speakers had more sense of responsibility. We in opposition have no responsibility but to criticize, or possibly offer suggestions. I had no idea of speaking on this bill, but perhaps because I am a woman and have had children I have received letters from women from one end of Canada to the other saying to me: "School days are ending; my boy is coming out of school, what am I to do with him? I have two daughters leaving school; what faces those girls? You as a woman should be able to tell me."
This is quite a responsibility to put on my shoulders, because I do not know what to do with other people's children. As I have watched the minister and listened to the criticisms showered upon him I felt that if attrition could wear a man down he would not be in the house to-day. I do not know that I have ever seen anyone look more exhausted than did the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) when I spoke to him last night. He was tired, he was worn out. I have enough faith in him to believe that he is honestly and conscientiously trying to do his best.
I have watched from the gallery since 1921 government after government: I have heard the same questions asked by the various oppositions: What are you going to do? Why don't you tell us when you bring down your bills what you are going to do? No government I have ever heard of has taken the general public into its confidence until it has fully made its plans; therefore I should not expect the Minister of Labour to take us into his full confidence at the present stage. But when he is employing men to spend the amount of money that is to be voted to him -and it certainly will be voted to him by practically all hon. members of the house, whether they approve of his policy or not- I suggest that he be very careful to place the spending of that money in the hands of men who know how to deal with it. It is easy enough to give to a political supporter the spending of enormous sums of money; and I understand as well as anyone that to the victors belong the spoils. But surely among the ranks of any party there are good men, conscientious men, who in spite of their affiliations with the party in power will do what is right and what is best for the general public.
I want our boys and our girls to have a chance. In the city of Vancouver there are two women well known there who in their
Relief and Agricultural Distress

own way, small though the scope may be compared with the thousands that are out of employment, have done wonders towards helping the young people of that city. One of them is Judge Helen G. MacGill. Speaking from this side of the house, I am sorry that I must say she is a Liberal. She has been for a long time the judge of the juvenile court there. With the help of friends she organized the training of girls for housework. Each year she has exhibitions. The shopkeepers there have helped her place these girls as best they could. Mrs. MacGill organized and has done that work herself. She drew her friends of all shades of politics with her, and has done a wonderful work. The other woman-I know that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) knows her-is Mrs. McKay. She organized the Arts and Crafts Association-although I believe that is not the correct name-but she has brought from all over British Columbia men and women who were immigrants or are the children of immigrants, into an organization in which they have done the work in which they or their parents were skilled in the country of their origin. Each year men and women all over British Columbia come to Vancouver for that show; thousands of people attend. Mrs. McKay has trained the women, shown them how to bring their work to public notice, and helped many who otherwise would not have been able to show their work and sell it professionally to the general public.
This may be a small thing in relation to the thousands who are out of employment, but every little helps. The constant dropping wears away the stone. If more of us did what we could in that way, and if more women and the men themselves were encouraged by the government to help, irrespective of politics, we might in time solve part of our great problem of unemployment.
Yesterday afternoon I heard one hon. member say that every child born had just as much right to a living as the birds of the air. For the last month or six weeks I believe the birds of the air have been pretty busy on the grounds in front of this building, and it has been my experience with the birds of the air that they hope to scratch gravel or pull worms; nobody is going to do that work for them. I have stood and watched the robins brace themselves and pull until they get out a nice fat worm. I have watched the robins hopping around from bush to bush and tree to tree gathering the material to make nests.

The birds of the air have a right to a living, but like human beings they have to work for that living.
To the minister may I say, will he do the best he can to give our young people a chance for a living, a chance to work? The young man or young woman who is brought up without the discipline of work is no good to the community, no good to himself or herself. I look around on the hon. members of this house, young and old; the successful ones, the large majority of them, came from stock which forced the children out of the nest in early life; they are the ones we look up to. There have not been many men in this house during the time I have been watching since 1921 who had everything laid before them. So I say, if we can only give our young people that chance! Road building is good; we need good roads. Last spring, after the house adjourned, my husband and I motored to California. As we travelled through the states of Washington, Oregon and California I frequently made the remark: Your worst road that I have travelled over is better than the best we have in Canada. That may have been a little harsh to Canada. When I came east again this spring, I found the roads down there marvellous. Our best crop is the tourist crop. We want to harvest that crop every year. To do so we have to have good roads, and we must have good and sanitary accommodation for the tourists who come. The tourist from the south demands more than we in the north; I know full well, because I have lived practically half my life in bdth countries, or a little more than half my life here. I would say to the hon. member that I chose this country; I was not born here, but I chose it, and I have never regretted my choice. It has been a good country to live in; it has been good to me and my children, but I want to make it better for those who are to come after us. I feel sure that when he speaks of roads, housing and so on the minister wants to do all he can, but on the west coast-and I know Vancouver and that coast very well, since I have been going there for forty years-there are many people with monthly incomes of $150, $200 and up to $400, though they are not alwayg sure how long they are going to last. I ask hon. members here how those young people can raise their families of two to four and sometimes six children, and pay the taxes they would have to pay on the homes they would like to build. From my own experience I know that in the long run on that west coast it is much cheaper to rent than to build. That is too bad,

Relief and Agricultural Distress
because personally I would much prefer to live in a one, two or three roomed house that was my very own than be able to pay rent for a ten, twelve or fourteen roomed house. But the taxes are almost prohibitive; they prevent people from owning their own homes. That is another thing that must be looked after. We want our homes; we want our gardens; we want -every chance we can possibly have.
Then I should like to make just one suggestion to the minister. I do not intend to offer advice; God knows I am not fit to give anybody advice on this matter. When we think of the unemployment question and the matter of relief it seems to me that we are a good deal like the dog chasing its own tail. Just as we get hold of it the end slips away and we do not really know what to do. I have yet to meet a man or woman whom I could -pin down, who could conscientiously say to me, "Mrs. Black, I know what should be done," and then go on and tell me. They cannot do it. They can offer plenty of theories, but we do not want theories. The minister has a fearful task before him. A family may have lived in Quebec for twenty or twenty-five years. There may be illness or some other reason for a change. That family may come to Ontario, having run up against evil days. Are they going to receive relief here? No. They are Canadians, but Ontario is not going to help them. A family may have lived in the far north for forty years, grubbing away, working and living a dog's life. They come down to British Columbia, Alberta or Saskatchewan. Will they be helped? No, they can starve, unless they are helped through the generosity and kindliness of their neighbours. That is not right. We who vote these allowances do not belong to Quebec, Nova Scotia, the Yukon or British Columbia; we belong to all Canada. I firmly believe that the time must come when Canadians, as Canadians, will be helped if help is necessary, or will be given work-which is better than any relief that can be given- whether they come from the east or the west, the north or the south, so long as they are Canadians.
I wish to thank the minister especially, Mr. Chairman, for having listened so patiently to what I have had to say.


Mr. ROGERS:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Yukon both for what she has said and for the very genuine and kindly manner in which she has said it. I am very sure her speech is one that ought to be recorded and preserved in the debates of this house. She has referred particularly
to the importance of the work done by individuals in making easier the lot of those who have suffered during recent years. I am very glad that she did so. Obviously one who holds the position of Minister of Labour cannot refer to individuals engaged in this work without making invidious comparisons; but certainly anyone who is aware of what has been going on during recent years will testify to the fact that without this voluntary work done by individuals, much of it by women, the policies of governments certainly would not have their full effect. I should like to thank the hon. member also for her other suggestions, and to assure her that I shall keep them in mind.


Mr. WALSH:: Mr. Chairman, before we leave section 3 I should like to make a few observations which I hope the minister will receive in the kindly spirit that has been exhibited already this afternoon, and which I hope I may make in the spirit with which the previous speaker initiated the debate this afternoon.
I recognize the tremendous task with which the minister is confronted in connection with a problem of this nature. I know it is a complex problem, not easy of solution; and I for one would not wish to complicate the problem any further. But I should like to offer a few observations and suggestions in the hope that by some means the multitude of contributions made in this -house during this debate might eventually prove of some assistance in at least partially solving the problem. We recognize the magnitude of this question. When I consider the matter of unemployment in this country I often pause and compare it with our effort during war time periods. I consider that when we are faced with the problem of unemployment we are faced with a war within -our own borders, and I feel that the question of unemployment should be approached in the same way and with the same spirit that we would approach the problem of a real war. I know that if we were brought face to face with the question of going to war we would immediately plunge into that difficult task and see that it was successfully accomplished in the shortest possible time. There would be enough money properly and effectively to prosecute that war; we would not appoint a commission or committee, nor would we hesitate a moment in trying to bring to a successful conclusion the fight then on our hands.
I feel that the problem of unemployment might be approached in a somewhat similar fashion. We might throw ourselves into this



Relief and Agricultural Distress
fight within our borders with a great deal more vigour, and try to bring about a condition that, if it would not eliminate unemployment, at least would make it less severe than it is at the present time. We are now engaged in a war upon a social condition which has been very much aggravated by the recent depression. Talking about it will not eliminate it. Action must be undertaken, and I feel that we have been rather slow in undertaking that action.
I have already spoken on this question when the minister introduced the resolution on which this bill was based. On that occasion I brought to the attention of the government certain conditions with which I was not satisfied. To-day I want to approach this same subject from another angle, and I am asking the indulgence of the minister and of the committee if I seem somewhat tiring in the presentation of the facts and figures I want to place on Hansard. I wish particularly to place them before the minister and the government.
It is my view that the government should work in very much closer cooperation with the provinces, and I might add, although this might not meet with favour, with the muni-.ipalities. I know it is almost a recognized principle of government for the federal government not to deal too closely with the municipalities. But in a matter of this kind we are confronted with such serious possibilities that we must recognize the fact that municipal governments have a much more direct contact with the problem and with the people most concerned than either the provincial or the federal government. For that reason I do not believe the minister or the government in Ottawa should be adverse to receiving suggestions or delegations from municipalities, and particularly from those municipalities which have been most effective during the depression through which we have recently come in dealing with the unemployment which arose somewhat as a consequence of that depression.
I feel, too, that the government should not bear in mind the complexion of any provincial government with which it might be dealing. I am afraid there is sometimes the tendency in government to consider suggestions from the provinces in the light of the provinces from which the suggestions may come. I am afraid that provinces having governments which politically do not bear the same relation to this government as those in other provinces may not receive the same reception. In fact, that might be the reason for the attitude indicated in section 3 of the bill

now under consideration, which is somewhat different from the measures introduced last session and the session before.
Last year we discussed in the house the subjects of housing and slum clearance, problems which might adequately be faced at this time. Housing is a difficult problem, but one which offers a solution to unemployment, and a field to which we might go with some degree of hope for the eventual alleviation of distress through unemployment. I have in my hand a pamphlet read before an organization in Montreal by Professor Percy E. Nobbs of McGill university. Professor Nobbs, as most hon. members know, is recognized as an authority on town planning, slum clearance, housing and problems of that kind. At the beginning of his address he quoted from the observations of Henry Vivian, also a world recognized authority in the same field. Mr. Vivian's concluding observations were that in most Canadian towns-
-less science and forethought are given to the care of human beings than the modern farmer gives to the raising of his pigs.
That is a strong statement, but I believe it is a good introduction to a discussion of housing and slum clearance. I should like to quote further from the observations of Professor Nobbs. What he states has direct reference to Montreal, but would apply equally to any large city in Canada. He said:
As I have been pointing out for years, Montreal is notably deficient in low rental dwellings when the numbers of low wage earners in the community are taken account of. There has never been any concerted attempt to house our workers. Now we find that while rental values for superior accommodation are still going down, or are still as low as they ever have been since the war, the rental values of the poorest accommodation in the city are rising. During the first years of the depression, the Montreal proprietors housed the unemployed rent free. With the institution of unemployment relief, the unemployed were accommodated in $25 a month dwellings at $12 rents. Those dwellings are now better rented and the Unemployment Relief Commission has entered the market for lower rental property. I shall not say whether the next fact to be disclosed is a matter of cause or effect, but there is a notable tendency to the consolidation of this class of property, rented to the Unemployment Commission, in fewer hands month by month. So if ever there -was a case for large-scale, low rent housing operations, that case exists in Montreal to-day. for there is a shortage of dwellings of all classes, from $50 a month rentals, downwards, and the shortage of dwellings renting from $14 to $9 is most acute.
That is what Professor Nobbs said after a very careful study of conditions existing in Montreal. With what he has to say I am in hearty agreement; in fact, I am in complete accord. It was my privilege to spend

Relief and Agricultural Distress
some time in the office of the metropolitan commission in Montreal where, with one of the directors, Mr. George Mooney, a gentleman well known to my friends immediately to my left, we studied the problem of slum clearance and housing. He pointed out definite spots on the map of Montreal where projects could be commenced immediately to the advantage of the city, the workers and those at present unemployed. He deplored the fact that nothing of a concrete nature was being pushed forward at the present time in the larger cities.
While I speak with direct reference to Montreal I have in mind that there are other large cities and towns in Canada. I have no doubt that what has been said respecting Montreal could be said with equal force about Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, or any of the other larger centres. It is my hope therefore that under section 3, where the minister contemplates certain works of a public nature, slum clearance and housing with rental values from $10 to $15 per month may be undertaken, so that people who are forced to live in accommodation of that kind may obtain it and may live as decent human beings desire to live.
Reference has been made to unemployment insurance. My recollection is that one of the first speeches I made in the house was concerning that subject. I am just as strongly in favour of unemployment insurance to-day as I was at that time, although I do recognize certain weaknesses. I make that statement despite the tirade against unemployment insurance lodged by one of the social credit members last night. He did not convince me in any way that the workers of Canada were making any mistake in urging the institution of unemployment insurance. I know the difficulties with which the minister has been confronted in connection with this question. I know, too, it has been decided by the courts that unemployment insurance is within the provincial field of jurisdiction. But I know he recognizes, I recognize and every hon. member recognizes that it is a question with which it is quite impossible for provincial governments to deal. It is a question of national importance; it is a question that will have to be faced eventually and solved by a national government sitting at Ottawa.
I have in my hand a report that was issued in the United States of America in connection with the social security act recently passed in Washington. I notice that this report refers to a possible solution of the unemployment insurance problem. It states that the social security act can be divided into two 51952-1581
distinct parts, the first being the old age retirement benefits, which are contributions collected from both the employers and the employees, and the second being the unemployment insurance benefits, which are provided for employees out of contributions paid in those states which have unemployment insurance laws. The social security act is designed to induce the states to adopt such laws. I know the minister is as fully conversant with this document and with that act as I am. After reading certain sections of the social security act as passed in the United States and as adopted by many of the states of the union I feel that there is a possibility of solving our problem along that line without the necessity of altering the British North America Act in any way.
I know that certain provinces are not opposed to unemployment insurance as such, but they are opposed to anything that might be interpreted as an easy way to amend the British North America Act. They like to feel that that act is almost impossible of amendment. For this reason we should try to find another means of approach so that unemployment insurance can be brought into being and put into effect without causing any offence to any provincial government, whether it be a Social Credit government in Alberta, a Union Nationale government in Quebec, or a Liberal government in New Brunswick. I feel sure the minister is giving serious thought to the possibilities of action along this line.
I have also in my hand an extract from an article written by a great friend of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who is personally well known to the Minister of Labour. I refer to Mr. Bernard Rose, K.C., a prominent lawyer in the city of Montreal. Writing in Le Monde Ouvrier under date of April 23, 1938, he states:
Mr. King positively pledged his party to adopt a national contributory system of unemployment insurance if he was elected. Having the utmost confidence in the word and pledge of the Prime Minister, hundreds of thousands of voters throughout the dominion cast their ballots in favour of his party's candidates.
He continues with his article and towards the close he states:
I would hazard the opinion that the government, in view of the situation and promoting public welfare, is constitutionally justified in enacting the measure under the "peace, order and good government" clause of the British North America Act.
Remember, this article is written by a lawyer in Montreal who has always been a supporter of the Liberal party. It sounds rather strange to hear the words "peace, order and good

Relief and Agricultural Distress
government" mentioned as a foundation for an enactment by one who pretends to be of Liberal persuasion. Nevertheless he uses these words in good faith and I refer this article to the minister. It continues:
If any one or more provinces were dissatisfied the onus of constitutional attack would be upon them.
. That is written by a gentleman who presumes to be and who is I believe an authority on the matter. He is known to the Minister of Labour and has done special work for the Department of Labour from time to time. He has been actively engaged in labour movements from the time he was able to take part in any movement. He gives it as his opinion that unemployment insurance can be brought into effect by this government should they desire to take action under that oft-repeated clause of peace, order and good government. He believes that should this action be challenged in the courts, the decision would be that the point was not well taken and that the government was within its rights in passing legislation under that particular clause. I refer this to the minister for what it may be worth and I am sure he will give it the consideration it deserves.
To continue the argument further with particular reference to the city of Montreal, I do not desire to burden the committee with all the facts and figures that I have before me, but I might state that the metropolitan commission gave me, in tabulated form, certain facts and figures in connection with Montreal. I know that we have before us many tabulations with reference to unemployment in Canada, but I thought these figures were illuminating and interesting, dealing 4s they do with one city and showing the conditions that prevailed in one unit of our population. With the permission of the committee I should like to place on Hansard certain figures which were compiled by the department of unemployment relief showing the persons given relief, employables and unemployables, during September, 1937.


The CHAIRMAN:: It will have to be with the unanimous consent of the committee.


William Allen Walsh: Figures are given for heads of families, single cases and dependents, both employable and unemployable, and then there is a .recapitulation. With the consent of the committee, I should like to place these figures on Hansard. They are as follows:
Department of Unemployment Relief-City of Montreal Persons Given Relief, Employables and Unemployables, During September, 1937
Men	Women	TotalEmployable Heads of families.. ..	1936 .. 25,567	1937 18,820	1936 4,855	1937 2,889	1936 30,422	1937 21,709Single cases	.. 6.531	3,978	2,891	1,509	9,422	5,487Dependents (more than	16	years old)	.. 8,705	6,355	6,724	5,156	15,429	11,511Total employable..	.. 40,803	29,153	14,470	9,554	55,273	38,707Unemployable	Wives or housekeepers.	24,999	18,673	24,999	18,673Dependents (less than 16 years old)..	.. 34,274	25,094	33,839	24,620	68,113	49,714Dependents, to school (more than 16 vears old)	.. 851	562	567	354	1,418	916Dependents (more than	16	years old)	.. 964	284	1,422	703	2,386	987Total unemployable.	.. 36,089	25,940	60,827	44,350	96,916	70,290Employable	Recapitulation .. 40,803 29,153	14,470	9,554	55.273	38.707Unemployable	.. 36,089	25,940	60,827	44,350	96,916	70,290Grand total	.. 76,892	55,093	75,297	53,904	152,189	108,997
Employable dependents of 16 years old and more: having previously been employed, 6,436; never having been employed, 5,075; total, 11,511.


Mr. DUNNING:: Where are the figures from?


William Allen Walsh: From the department of unemployment relief of the city of Montreal. They were given to me by the metropolitan commission. I have also before me a recapitu-

lation for the months of January, February and March. I should like to quote these figures to show that in the city of Montreal there has been a steady and appreciable increase in the numbers of unemployed during the past three months. In the month of

Relief and Agricultural Distress
January, 1937, there were 35,875 heads of families on relief. That figure dropped to 25,167 in January, 1938. In February, 1937, there were 35,890 heads of families on relief as against 25,636 in February, 1938. In March,
1937,	there were 35,322 as against 25,867 in March, 1938. There had been an increase in the number of heads of families on relief from 25,167 in January, 1938, to 25,867 in March, 1938. This increase can be accounted for only by the fact that conditions in that city were not what they had been a few months previously. Apparently another recession has occurred. Whether that recession is of a permanent or a temporary nature, we are unable to tell at the present time. There were 5,433 single cases on relief in January,
1938,	and this number had increased to 5,769 in March. The total for January, 1938, for all persons on direct relief was 125,015, and this had increased to 128,742 in March, 1938. These figures show that the number on relief was steadily on the increase.
For my own information and that of those who are particularly interested in Montreal,
I also found out the racial origins of those who were unemployed in that city. We have French Canadians unemployed to the extent of 78-5 per cent. Of course we must bear in mind that over 70 per cent of the population of Montreal is French Canadian. Other percentages are: English Catholic, 6-25; English Protestant, 6; Italian, 3; Jewish, 1; other nationalities, 5-25,-all on direct relief in the city of Montreal.
With the unanimous consent of the committee I will place before hon. members the figures obtained through the same source, namely the department of relief through the office of the metropolitan commission. These statistics show the ages and the causes of certain incapacity when it is referred to as "incomplete capacity," with categories of married, single, widowed and so on. I have this statement before me. If the committee would give me permission to place it on record it would save me the trouble of reading the figures.
Department of Relief-City of Montreal (Statistics of persons of 16 years old and more, able to work, having been on relief during September, 1937)
Heads of
Ages	families
16 to	19	years	old	
11320 to	29	"	"	
3,59230 to	39	"	"	
6,96740 to	49	"	"	
6,01450 to	59	"	"	
3,39660 to	69	"	"	
1,59270 years old and more	
35Total	
21,709Complete capacity	
18,304
Incomplete capacity-
1.	Sickness	
3342.	Infirmity	
5403.	Age	
1,4554.	Mental sickness	
95.	Idiot	
16.	Broken home	
8307.	Unmarried mothers	
1318.	Addict to drugs,	or alcohol. ..	09.	Other causes	
105Total	
21,709
Sex-
Men	 18,820
Women	 2,889
Total	 21,709
Persons 18 387 871 1,379 1,694 1,100 38	Cases total 131 3,979 7,838 7,393 5,090 2,692 73	Dependents 5,776 4,319 603 214 272 300 27	Total 5,907 8,298 8,441 7,607 5,362 2,992 1005,487	27,196	11,511	38,7074,215	22,519	10,958	33,47786	420	94	514205	745	200	945934	2,389	239	2,6289	18	11	295	6	0	64	834	1	8351	132	3	1354	4	0	424	129	5	1345,487	27,196	11,511	38,7073,978	22,798	6,355	29,1531,509	4,398	5,156	9,5545,487	27,196	11,511	38,707
Reliej and Agricultural Distress
Department of Relief-City of Montreal-Continued
(Statistics of persons of 16 years old and more, on relief during September, 1937, Heads of	able to work, having been -Continued Cases	TotalCivil State-	families	Persons	total Dependents	1. Single	
1,444	3,536	4,980 	2. Married	
.. 17,525	288	17,813 	3. Widower. . ..	
1,281	450	1,731 	4. Widow	
567	626	1,193 	5. Concubine.. ..	
57	0	57 	6. Separated.. ..	
500	401	901 	7. Abandoned.. .	
332	182	514 ....	8. Divorced.. ..	
3	4	7 	Total.. ..	
21,709	5,487	27,196 11,511	38,707I have also the	same figures showing	the	number	of unemployed by trades	and professions, and then	a recapitulation of	all	these figures that I am submitting.	
Department of Unemployment Relief-City of Montreal-December 10, 1937 (Classification of unemployed receiving direct relief and their dependents, aged 16 and more, and able to work during September, 1937)
Classification
Professions
Lawyers	
Notaries	
Doctors	
Dentists	
Opticians	
Graduate nurses	
Teachers and institutors	
Civil engineers and surveyors	
Chemists	
Accountants	
Architects and draftsmen	
Artists, sculptors and painters	
Journalists	
Musicians	
Photographers	
Others	
Total	
White collar
Office workers	
Salesmen	
Store clerks, messengers	
Managers, industry and commerce	
Other employees of commerce	
Bank, real estate and insurance clerks	
Insurance agents	
Civil employees	
Actors	
Theatre employees	
Sport managers	
Restaurants and hotel employees	
Barbers and hairdressers	
Domestic servants	
Total	
Building trades
Masous, brick and stone, and apprentices.. ..
Carpenters and apprentices	
Plasterers, finishers (cement) and apprentices..
Latteners and apprentices	
Electricians and apprentices	
Painters and glazers	
Plumbers, steamfitters and apprentices	
Structural steel workers	
Assistants and labourers	
Foremen	
Total	
Heads of
families Dependents	Total
2	1	3
3		3
2	. .	2
4		4
4	i	535	18	5351	11	626	2	811	6	1773	2	7513	1310	2	128	3	1151	8	5912	4	1612	5	17297	63	360637	154	791167	11	1781,291	1,187	2,478188	8	19686	8629	3	3288	1	8939	6	4521	3	246	1	76	1	7813	177	990227	27	2542,893	918	3,8116,522	2,525	9,047201	13	2141,124	40	1,164349	20	36982	12	94294	28	3221,369	97	1,466550	54	60468	5	733,654	234	3,88889	5	947,780	508	8,288

and keep off the rolls than if he is continued on the rolls, merely looking for a position and not able to find one.
I read with a great deal of interest in today's Hansard the remarks of the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) and also those of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and for the most part I am in accord with their particular reference to unemployment and their suggestions along that line. They are rather vigorous in their criticism of the policies of the present government and the lack of anything definite or concrete actually before us. In discussing this bill, I for one cannot see why the Minister of Labour cannot stand before parliament and, instead of telling us to wait for the supplementary estimates or to wait for something before disclosing the whole program, give us in concise terms exactly what his department proposes to do in order to carry out the provisions of the bill that we are now studying. I do not think it is asking him to do too much to take the members of the house into his confidence, because they are deeply interested in what the government are going to do in the immediate future. I know he proposes to make that statement before the house rises, probably when the other estimates are before the house; but here is an important bill, and many members have expressed a desire to know exactly what the government intends to do. The minister should be in a position now to express an opinion and to give the house very definite information as to what he has in mind at the present time in regard to employment relief in Canada. I hope that before the debate concludes he will have a detailed statement ready to present to us.
It was rather gratifying to listen to the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) last evening. He brings with him into debate a wholesome atmosphere, and in my opinion, if there were more solid, staid Canadian citizens like him this country would be better off and we would have less unemployment. I rather like his complimentary remarks to the Minister of Labour and his sympathy with him as he listens from day to day to the debates in this house, particularly on this measure, and I hope that the minister will take cognizance of what the hon. gentleman had to say, especially the commonsense point of view he gave to the house in reference to many of the suggestions that are indirectly referred to in this bill. I have already referred to the fact that the building trade was the one most seriously injured. The member for Brant last evening made reference to higher wages being paid in the city, and he did not think that was a cure

for unemployment. I want to assure him that the country is always more prosperous when higher wages are paid in the cities. Thereby more purchasing power is put into the cities to relieve the agricultural population of their produce at a higher price than they would otherwise obtain.


Mr. DEACHMAN:: Real wages, or money
wages?


Mr. MacINNIS:: Wages add to cost.


William Allen Walsh: Yes, but they benefit the
farmer. If the hon. gentleman will study Canadian history from the point of view of our economic progress he will notice that the most prosperous times have been when wages were higher in the cities.


Robert John Deachman: Real wages, or money wages?


William Allen Walsh: Money wages.


Robert John Deachman: Money wages and
real wages are two different things.


William Allen Walsh: I prefer to talk in terms
which the workingman can understand. I am referring to the money that is put into the pay envelopes of men who are empiloyed for seven, eight and nine hours a day. When those wages are high you put greater purchasing power into the hands of the workers and they are able to use it to advantage, and as they use it agriculture and other industries develop and thrive. On the other hand, if you put low purchasing power in the worker's hands it depreciates the products of other people who are engaged in either primary or secondary industry. That is a well-recognized fact.


Mr. THORSON:: It is the other way round.


William Allen Walsh: No, it is not; you have to
look at it from the broad point of view of the workers.


Mr. MUTCH:: The hon. gentleman should distinguish between wages and purchasing power.


William Allen Walsh: 
Leslie Alexander Mutch: 
William Allen Walsh: You have to take the wage of any particular class and compare it with what is paid for the services of other people in similar walks of life. It is no use arguing

Relief and Agricultural Distress
the point; it is obvious to anyone who will give it proper attention. The question must be looked at not from any narrow point of view, not only from the point of view of the workers, but from the point of view of every Canadian citizen who is interested in the maximum distribution of money, wages paid in the country. If we can get that maximum distribution there will be little or no unemployment.
I have in my hand the "Report of the Investigation Committee re Unemployment", in the city of Montreal, and I notice certain very broad features in connection with the building trade. I see that from 1925 down to 1936 there was at first an increase up to the year 1929 from 825,000,000 to $46,000,000, in the total amount of building being done in the city. Then it gradually decreased until in 1936 it had gone down to $6,905,323. I read these figures in order to emphasize the tremendous decrease in building operations in the city of Montreal alone, and that accounts for a large part of the unemployment, and hence the number on direct relief. That is why I urge slum clearance and a cheaper housing program for the larger centres in order to stimulate industry in the building trades. If we make a comparison between January 1 and May 31, we find that there was an increase from $1,698,067 in 1936 to $2,992,235 in 1937. On the same page, under the heading Loan Facilities, the statement is made:
Statistics of the last three years show that while savings are gradually increasing by 900 millions per year, loans to business and money in circulation are constantly decreasing. Means shuld be taken to prevent this decrease.
Again looking at the "Report of the Investigation Committee re Unemployment", city of Montreal, page 29, we find that in 1936 deposits in bank savings amounted to 818,218,588,511; loans to business in the same year amounted to 88,384,277,880; money in circulation in the same year amounted to $1,434,067,677. If we compare that with 1935 and 1934 we find a decrease in loans, showing that we are gradually receding as far as loan facilities are concerned. And that is not in any way helping to make matters better as far as Montreal is concerned. These observations are not made in the spirit of political criticism; I did indulge in that when the minister first introduced his motion covering this bill, and I felt I was justified in doing so on that occasion. But to-day I wanted to put before the minister these facts with particular reference to the city of Montreal, not only because I am particularly interested in that city but also on account of it being a centre from
which I could get direct and authentic information, and knowing that conclusions drawn from that authentic information could be applied to other large centres in Canada. I urge upon the minister the necessity of giving serious consideration to a slum clearance program in the larger cities, and the building of low rental houses.
Have we had tabled in the house any report of the employment commission in connection with low rental houses, or slum clearance, or both? If not, will such a report be tabled? For I understand that the employment commission made a very complete study of general conditions not only in Canada and the United States but also in Great Britain and some European countries. I know there is reference to it, but I wonder if a complete and detailed report, making certain suggestions and recommendations, has been before the government but has not yet been placed before this house, something on which we could base an argument for immediate action which would bring alleviation to the building trades of this country.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The report of the national employment commission does contain what in the view of the commission itself was a summary of their plans with respect to low rental housing. I am speaking now not of the earlier references to housing, but of the statement of the plan as set forth in the appendix to the report. That does contain to my knowledge the entire plan submitted by the national employment commission with respect to low rental housing.


William Allen Walsh: Then the full report of the national employment commission has not been placed before the house?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not able to say at the moment from recollection how much more extensive was the recommendation made to the government on low rental housing, but certainly this contains the summary, and was submitted as such by the commission.


Mr. STEWART:: The debate on this bill has extended over a considerable length of time, and been characterized by repeated demands and continued pressure upon the minister for more information and for details of the program he has in mind. We have had before this house seven or perhaps eight bills for the relief of unemployment. Reviewing them all and looking now at Bill No. 105 at present before this committee, I fail to find in any of these bills very many differences in the general scheme and outline and plan proposed for the relief of unemployment. I recall that in years gone by when bills such as this were
Relief and Agricultural Distress

first introduced there was strong pressure, carried to extreme limits, for details, estimates, statements of policy. I submit that after this lapse of time, and after the setting up of an employment commission whose investigation covered at least a year and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, hon. -members are not unreasonable in pressing the minister for a more detailed and more expanded program than has been presented in the past. I submit in all seriousness that at this stage we have a right to ask the minister for much more information, much more detail, much fuller explanation of the plans of the government for the coming year-if they have any

than hitherto we have had.
One criticism in particular of the bills brought in from 1931 to 1935 was, as the minister well knows, that they were in the nature of a blank cheque; that they gave to the governor in council authority and discretion to do practically anything and everything. I ask the -minister to compare this bill with the others and to point out, if he can, how it materially differs in that respect from any of its predecessors.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The matter of parliamentary appropriations, of course, is a material difference.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think that makes a bit of difference.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It bears directly on the blank cheque question.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I -think not. I expected the minister to make that point. We have parliamentary appropriations with respect to certain items, not all. But where do -parliamentary appropriations come from? They come fro-m the governor in council; it is the governor in council who places before this house estimates of what is to be expended.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But there is a limitation upon them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This bill says that the governor in council shall determine what expenditures shall be made out of moneys which are provided by the governor in council. What authority has any hon. member of this house to increase or modify by one dollar the appropriations made by the governor in council?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The appropriation is a limitation. With a blank cheque there is no limitation. Surely that is a material difference. Under the blank cheque legislation

there was no limitation of any kind, with respect either to the amount or to the direction of expenditure.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is a distinction without a difference; for there is no limitation now upon w-hat the governor in council may place in those estimates. The estimates for this purpose may be $20,000,000, $50,000,000 or $100,000,000; there is no limitation. So in the end it is fixed by the governor in council, and it is the governor in council that has control of it. In section 3 I find these words:
The governor in council may out of moneys appropriated by parliament authorize the execution of such undertakings as the governor in council may determine-
Then in subsection 2 of the sa-me section:
In the execution of any such undertaking provision shall be made, so far as it may be in the opinion of the governor in council practical and consistent with reasonable efficiency-
And -so on. Then in section 4:
The governor in council may enter into agreements-[DOT]
Then follow two or three subdivisions. Then section 5:
The governor in council, where necessary, may out of any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund grant financial assistance to any province-
And so on. Then in subsection 2 of section 5:
The governor in council may renew or consolidate for such periods and upon such terms as the governor in council may determine, loans, advances

And so on. Then further on in the same section:
-may accept such treasury bills, bonds, debentures or other securities as may be approved by the governor in council-
Then in section 7:
The governor in council may make all such orders and regulations as may be deemed necessary or desirable to carry out the purposes and intentions of this act.
Section 8 provides:
All orders and regulations of the governor in council . . . shall have the force of law and may be varied, extended or revoked-
Then section 10:
Subject to the approval of the governor in council the minister may appoint such officers, clerks and employees

So it is my contention that in all essential respects and for all practical purposes, considering that the estimates in the first instance are determined and settled by the governor in council, the administration of the act and the amount to be expended under it are

Relief and Agricultural Distress
within the control of the governor in council. In that respect it does not differ from previous bills, and I do not see how it could well differ. It is difficult to ascertain or anticipate what may be the requirements, and under the circumstances the governor in council must have a wide discretion. I am simply mentioning this in answer to the criticism of years gone by in regard to the policy that was adopted.
As I have said, the minister has been pressed for information. It seems to me that if he had adopted the course that was followed last year his position would have been much better to-day. Last year the special supplementary estimates which accompanied a similar bill were tabled in the house at a comparatively early date. According to the journals of the house they were brought down on March 3, and from that time on the members of the house had before them details of the expenditures proposed by the government for these purposes. A summary of those estimates shows that $19,000,000 odd was included for grants in aid. In going through these estimates one finds large items, such as must be expended under the terms of this bill. For instance, there was item 302, under the Department of Labour: To provide for federal contribution to provincial and municipal relief projects, $7,000,000 odd. Item 304: To provide for federal contribution to farm employment and supplementary plans, $3,000,000 odd.. Item 308: To provide for development and training projects for unemployed young people, $1,000,000. Item 309: To provide for direct relief in the dried out areas, $2,000,000. Then: Grants in aid: amount required to provide for monthly grants in aid to the provinces, $19,500,000. So, as I have mentioned, every member of this house had information as to the amount which would be available for expenditure during the coming year under the provisions of the bill.
The second reading of the bill similar to the one we are now considering did not take place until March 31, 1937. Now, for some reason which the minister may be able or may desire to explain, a different course has been followed. This house is asked to consider and pass this bill in this blanket form, without information similar to that which was furnished last year; without any estimates before it and with the knowledge that when the estimates do come down they cannot be increased by one dollar. Under these circumstances I ask the minister if he thinks the members of this committee are acting
unreasonably in pressing for this information. Here we are in the month of May. We ought to be beginning work for the relief of unemployment, but we have not the estimates before us. Last year we had them on March 3, and it was possible to consider the bill in the light of those estimates. Why was not a similar course adopted this year? Cannot the government make up their minds, with the report of the employment commission before them? Why are they withholding from this house their plans, their program, their intentions, and a statement of the amount of money that they expect to expend for the relief of unemployment during 1938? That is what the members of this committee wish to know. That is what they are pressing for, and I do submit to the minister that the position they are taking is fair and reasonable, and the only one that will enable the committee to come to a conclusion as to whether the plans proposed are adequate or inadequate; whether they are sufficiently broad and comprehensive.
I had hoped that in view of the statements of the minister on previous occasions we would have had presented a plan covering more than one year. The minister has spoken of a long range program, but here we have the same old proposition. This act expires March 31, 1939. There is no provision, no plan, no scheme, no program except a temporary makeshift one for the year 1938. There is no housing plan, so far as we know. I do suggest to the minister that we might embark upon a program to cover more than one year, for the construction of highways, particularly in connection with secondary roads rather than main highways, of which we have perhaps enough for the time being.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Would not my hon. friend
think that secondary roads, even more than main highways, -were principally a provincial responsibility?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That may be so, but each year it is growing more difficult to draw the line between federal, provincial and municipal responsibility, and to divide the work and the cost of unemployment relief. I do suggest that at this time there is less cooperation among the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion than there ever was, so far as unemployment relief is concerned. All one has to do is to take note of what he reads in the press. There we find evidence that some of the provincial authorities criticize the dominion government for evading responsibilities, and the municipalities criticize provincial and federal governments for the same
Relief and Agricultural Distress

reason. To my mind it has become at least to a certain extent-and I do not use the term offensively-a process of chiselling, where each one sees how much it can get from the other.
I believe we are driven to find any field of employment in which men can usefully be set to work. We cannot draw the line too finely as to whether it is municipal, provincial or federal. Reforestation and works of that kind might be undertaken as a program not for one year-that is the point I am impressing upon the minister-but extending over several years. In view of the statements made by the minister respecting plans, and in view of the visions he had outlined of a program covering a long-range attack, I had expected something greater than a program for only one year. I would suggest that it be laid out for a number of years, and that enough money be appropriated to make available a certain amount over a period of five years to overtake the work. There is enough useful work to be done in Canada to extend over that length of time, and I would urge the minister to consider something of the kind.
Almost every criticism has been advanced, and it is not my desire to take up further time. I do not wish to embarrass the minister in connection with the problem before him for solution, but I do say that if he had adopted the course followed last year and had brought - down estimates much time would have been saved, much information would have been available and we would have had some understanding of the plan the government intends to follow, a plan which at present is obscure and about which we know practically nothing. We are asked to pass the bill, and then when estimates are brought down-which we cannot increase and the points concerning which the governor in council will settle and determine-it is out of these and these alone that anything can be done.
I suggest the minister might well leave the bill in committee until he places the estimates before the house as he did last year. I would ask him to make clear in what respects this measure is an expansion or extension or development of or an improvement upon any of the plans submitted in the last six years. Wherein is it wider or more comprehensive? Wherein is it better than any which have been proposed previously, and to what extent has the report of the employment commission influenced or expanded the program? Is anything to be done as a result of the recommendations of the employment commission?
I repeat that the minister would make better progress and would receive greater support from hon. members if he would bring down the estimates to which the bill refers

and out of which all the activities here outlined must be provided for. Otherwise we are giving a blank cheque and cannot come to any intelligent conclusion as to whether or not the program is sufficient or will really meet the requirements. Under the present procedure, when the estimates are brought down we will be in the unfortunate position of having our hands tied by the passage of this measure, and will be unable to increase the amounts appropriated. If the amounts are insufficient we shall have committed ourselves in. advance. I do not wish to say more with respect to section 3.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I assure the hon. member
that there has been nothing deliberate or sinister in the fact that the bill has been introduced in advance of the supplementary estimates.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I did1 not suggest there
was anything sinister.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I understand that; but I
want to remove any possible misgiving in that regard. It is true that last year the bill was introduced at about the same time the special supplementary estimates were brought down, and those estimates were before the house when the bill was under consideration. I believe I am correct when I say that in the previous year that was not done, and at that time we were in a position somewhat similar to that in which we are to-day.
As to the reasons, I would point out that this year, as already indicated by the Minister of Finance, it is the intention to combine the final with the special supplementary estimates. Last year there were three sets of estimates, namely the main estimates, the special supplementary estimates and the final supplementary estimates. This year it is the intention to combine the last two sets, and to dispense with the final suplementary estimates which were brought down just before the close of the last session. Of necessity that has entailed some delay in the submission of the estimates with which presumably this measure will deal.
May I point out, as I have done before, that the provisions of the present measure are as wide as the provisions of any bill could be in enabling the government either directly or in association with the provinces to make expenditures for the relief of the unemployed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it wider than any of
the other bills?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Precisely the same in that regard.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Exactly.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My point is that I can conceive of nothing in the consideration of the supplementary estimates to follow which might affect what the house might wish to do with respect to the present measure, because it simply gives authority to the government to make expenditures to deal with unemployment and agricultural distress.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That has always been the practice.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, I agree that has always been the practice, and I also agree that if, as the hon. member suggested, instead of having this as an annual bill it had been submitted without any date of expiration indicated, no possible question would have arisen here with respect to the authority under which we might act. All the discussion of the past two weeks would have taken place, and properly so, in the consideration of the supplementary estimates. If the hon. member will look back at the special supplementary estimates of last year he will find items 301 to 311 listed, and under each of those items he will find provision for specific expenditures in relation to unemployment and agricultural distress.
I have taken occasion to say to the house that with respect to at least most of these matters the experience of the preceding administration and that of this one has suggested that these forms of aid should be continued. I refer particularly to grants in aid, grants for drought relief, for farm employment, for youth training and for agricultural reestablishment.
Last night I said that any legislation with respect to housing would have to take the form either of new legislation or of amendments to that which now exists. That is not a matter which under the present distribution of legislation in this government comes under the Department of Labour. It might be dealt with under the bill now before us, but I feel it could be dealt with more suitably under special legislation. Both the Dominion Housing Act and the Home Improvement Act were dealt with in that way, and both are administered by the Department of Finance. They are concerned almost wholly with financial provisions in the form of loans.
I do not know that I can say anything more in answer to my hon. friend, who has made what I think is a perfectly fair criticism from his point of view. I have tried to point out why this bill precedes the supplementary estimates. I wish it were otherwise, but that is how it stands. It is the intention to have two sets of estimates instead of three
as we had last year, and this has involved rather more delay in the presentation than might have been the case otherwise. I cannot see that the action to be taken on this bill, which after all confers general authority upon the government, would be influenced in any degree by a discussion of particular items of expenditure which might appear in the supplementary estimates.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Perhaps I did not make my point clear enough. My point was that the housing act or anything which might be designed for the relief of unemployment in any way should have been before the committee before this bill was introduced or pressed to a conclusion. What the minister says about the items for the relief of unemployment is perfectly correct, but the supplementary estimates contained a large number of items for public works. I did not refer to them, but there was a long list of large appropriations.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I was correct in saying that there were three sets of estimates last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Quite right, but the final set of supplementary estimates was for a comparatively small amount, $11,000,000. The special supplementary estimates to which I have referred amounted to $96,000,000 odd. Those estimates included some items which should not have been included because they were for government-owned enterprises and should not have found a place in supplementary estimates in connection with the relief of unemployment. There was $36,000,000 voted for government-owned enterprises. I can understand that it would be well, as a matter of bookkeeping, to have these estimates brought down together. I suggest that it would be well to have many items of the supplementary estimates included in the main estimates, but I submit that this unemployment relief measure should have the right of way over everything else. It is the most important measure before the House of Commons this year, and any minor convenience in connection with the preparation of a second set of supplementary estimates should give way to the greater need of having the program complete at the earliest possible date. I think the minister will agree with me when I say that it is rather late in the year. We should be working on these things. We are into the month of May and we ought to be putting men to work.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is why I was anxious to get the bill through as soon as possible.

Relief and Agricultural Distress
Mr, STEWART: Quite so, but your estimates are not down. Getting this bill through cannot help you.


Norman McLeod Rogers: This bill would give us authority.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The moneys must be appropriated. If the minister got his bill through to-night he could not expend a dollar of the money until parliament had voted the money under estimates which have not yet been brought down.


Mr. BONNIER (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, the observations of the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) prompt me to say a few words in order to show his inconsistency. About a month ago, the hon. member criticized the ministers for their methods in stating during the St. Henry by-election campaign that the unemployment situation in Montreal made it necessary to complete certain works undertaken in that city. To-day he seems to contradict himself, since he admits that there is grave distress in Montreal. But he forgets to say that the expenditure for relief in the city of Montreal has greatly diminished during the past year. From 810,526,000 in 1936 it has fallen to $8,600,000 in 1937, a decrease of approximately 82,000,000. While not entirely satisfactory, this decrease is quite substantial.
As the hon. member for Mount Royal now claims that the situation is serious in Montreal, he should not have objected the other day to the completion of the tunnel and of the central station which are indispensible to that city. I am still of the opinion that direct relief should never have been initiated by any government, but, in the present circumstances, we are compelled to suffer the consequences of the acts of his friends who were in power at the time.


Mr. PELLETIER:: The minister may
think me rather insistent, but I should like to refer him to the statement he made last night. He said:
I should like, however, to discuss the references made to the importance of a Peace River outlet. Highway connection with the Peace River is, I believe, appreciated on all sides of the house.
The minister has had time since yesterday evening to formulate some plan about this project; he has had an opportunity to discuss the references made to a Peace River outlet, and I should like to know if he is willing to make a statement.
[Mr. Rogers.!


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend is optimistic if he thinks that I have had sufficient time to consider the matter or that I have the authority to commit the government to the expenditure of the amount he has suggested. I am sure he is aware of that. I did tell him deliberately that I felt that the importance of having a Peace River outlet was appreciated on all sides of this house. But surely he understands that even though I had the authority to say here in connection with his representations, "Yes, on behalf of the government I say that this road will be built," that would not be a satisfactory method of conducting government in this country. He knows perfectly well it would not. I suggest to him that his question is really not a relevant question at this stage.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The hon. member for
Leeds (Mr. Stewart) put the situation very well. After this bill passes the house the estimates will be brought down, and the minister himself has stated that they are to be consolidated, that there will not be three sets as there were last year. How are we to know what is to be undertaken? I did not expect the minister to commit himself to a definite project, but if he could say-


Norman McLeod Rogers: I thought that was what
my hon. friend was asking me to do.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I am sorry if I conveyed that impression. I wanted to know if the minister was in a position to say that he was favourable to such a project. I did not expect him to commit himself definitely and say, "Yes, it will be done." I realize that that is not possible.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Suppose I were to say that as Minister of Labour I was favourable to the project, and subsequently the matter was considered by the government, as all matters of expenditure must be; if it was not agreed to then I would be in the position of appearing to favour something which the government could not undertake. That would not be a tolerable situation. That is why, when any of these representations are made with respect to expenditures of public money, decision has to be reserved until they can be considered by the government and supplementary estimates brought down, which after all represent the considered opinion of the government as a whole. As my hon. friend is aware, when estimates are brought down they are preceded by a message from His Excellency the Governor General, and these formalities are desirable in order that there shall be a satisfactory control over expenditures. I could not say more to him with

Relief and Agricultural Distress
respect to this particular project than I said to him last night. I am quite sure that upon reflection he will appreciate that.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I quite agree, except
that the remarks of the minister may have led me to believe that possibly he would have had more to say about the matter than he has at this time. However, I see the minister's position and quite accept it.


Mr. MARTIN:: I do not want to hold
up this matter, but as the representative of a constituency which has a great population of unemployed in the urban centres, I feel that I should make one or two observations, and it is particularly the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River which bring me to my feet. I may be doing his project and other similarly proposed projects a great injustice; but my impression is that the area from which he comes is not, in terms of unemployment, at all comparable with the great industrial centres where unemployment exists in very serious proportions. If one were to carry out the program suggested by the hon. member who has just spoken, there would not result in any substantial measure any real relief. I suggest to the minister that when he comes to consider what shall be done by way of works for those areas which find themselves in the greatest distress he should bear in mind, as undoubtedly he will, the need of providing work in those centres where work in temporary form is required most. A great road scheme, meritorious as it may be, would not be of very much assistance to the city from which I come. I cannot speak for Toronto, Hamilton and other industrial cities; but my impression is that a large road building scheme, while it may give work to many who probably need it, will not provide the same opportunities for others who undoubtedly need it most, I do not think one can stress this point too much.
I have sat through this entire debate; I do not believe I have left the house for ten minutes; and my earlier intention was to say something which now has already been said by many hon. members. I therefore wish merely to make this suggestion. The problem is particularly acute at this time, although not so acute as some have made it out to be. This condition exists, not so much because of what this government has failed to do, not so much because of what the previous government failed to do, but because when this country enjoyed prosperity we failed to take precautions to deal with a
state of unemployment which has been traditional with us almost throughout our history. The right hon. leader of the opposition yesterday interjected a remark that in this respect unemployment was essentially a seasonal matter. That I think is true. I mention this, not with the purpose of suggesting extenuating circumstances for the minister or for the government, but as a fact which must be borne in mind in trying to meet this problem.
I suggest to the minister that either we are going to do something about this problem of unemployment or we are not; either we are going to spend the people's money in an effort to temporize with this problem or we are not. If we are going to take out of the public exchequer funds with which to provide in an artificial way employment for those who do not have it, we should do so in an effective manner; otherwise the economic waste, let alone the disastrous results which must follow from an attempt to impress upon sections of the unemployed that the government intends to take care of them when in the final resort the government for some reason or none finds that it cannot, will have more serious consequences than the attempt which has already been indicated.
I have tried, as I sat in this house during the last few days, to think of something to suggest to the minister that he does not already know, but I am afraid there is nothing I can say that he does not already know. The speeches that have already been given probably cover the entire ground. But I do suggest, in view of the brief presented yesterday by the Ontario government, that the record of practically every country in the western world in respect of unemployment insurance should convince this country of the need for it. The question arises whether we are to have unemployment insurance at the initiative of the provinces or of the federal government. My view is that unemployment is a national problem and that it is for this parliament to deal with it. I quite appreciate the attitude which will undoubtedly be taken by areas wherein the population is essentially rural and not urban. But I suggest that the economy of Canada is such that we cannot make distinct differentials in respect of geographical divisions. It is true one can speak of the western provinces, but in doing so one must not forget that that region contains cities. In British Columbia, of course, is the great city of Vancouver; in the maritime provinces there is Halifax as well as other large centres. To talk of unemployment insurance in terms

Relief and Agricultural Distress
of only two provinces will not, in my judgment, adequately meet this problem of unemployment. I am particularly interested in unemployment insurance, for this reason. The workers in many of the factories of Windsor, for instance, are not employed for the full year. They will work for five, six, seven or eight months and then they are thrown out of work. In many oases they have to be maintained by the state, through the agency of the municipality or otherwise. That condition cannot go on forever. The longer we postpone action the more difficult it is going to be. Fully appreciative as I am of the great labour and sincerity the minister has put into his job, I suggest to him that it will be a matter of deep satisfaction to the people of Canada, and certainly to the area from which I come, if before this parliament rises we shall have at least taken steps to initiate a scheme of national unemployment insurance.


Mr. HEAPS:: How can it be done under present circumstances?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I venture to suggest that this is the way to do it, that if we cannot get the provinces to agree to it we should assume that power. We have -to face sooner or later the question of jurisdiction. We have to face sooner or later the continual shifting of responsibility from the provinces to the federal government and from the federal government back to the provinces and ultimately to the municipalities.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is that not exactly what parliament did in 1935?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, parliament did it in 1935; but the situation to-day 's altogether different. There are provinces that have already signified their willingness to accept a system of unemployment insurance, and in regard to those provinces you could have a scheme. I suggest, just as the hon. gentleman himself last night suggested, that if one or two provinces had the benefit of unemployment insurance, as in the case of old age pensions, the others would ultimately come in. But someone must make a start, and I suggest that if we postpone this question too long we shall find it will be too late to make the necessary start.
I want to commend the minister as strongly as I can for the work done on behalf of youth rehabilitation. It is all very well for some hon. members to say that nothing has been done by this government. That is not so. I say that the initial work done by the minister in ascertaining the scope and the nature of the problem, the registrations and

the surveys that were made, is a work that was necessary, work that should have been done earlier, and if that work was not done it would simply have magnified the problem. With regard to youth rehabilitation there is in some provinces an inclination not to take the matter seriously. In my opinion this government has made a great contribution. First of all, there was the appropriation last year based upon similar appropriations from the provinces. That has already brought results and I would mention one illustration. In my own community the home training centre, while at the moment it affects only sixty young ladies, is nevertheless something that will prove of great consequence not only to these young ladies but also to others who will have the same opportunity later on; and I am glad to note that the minister hopes it will be possible to extend this work. I suggest that if it is in his power, those provinces which have not taken full advantage of the appropriation made by parliament should be asked to do so.


Mr. HAYHURST:: In regard to these
youth training centres, has not the province to take the initiative?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, the administration is
for the province; but if this parliament had not taken action it is fair to suggest that the provinces would not have acted. This parliament has made an appropriation of $1,000,000.
There is another observation I wish to make. We have heard a great deal about low cost housing. I do not think the minister requires from me, or anyone else, at this stage, arguments for or against this proposal. These, I am sure, are before him. I suggest to him, however, speaking in a representative capacity for an area where there is now a shortage of houses, that a wide embracing scheme of low cost housing would be a most effective measure of providing for the time being work in a city like Windsor. I also suggest that in considering the question of increasing our tourist trade, a city like Windsor, bordering as it does on the city of Detroit and on the great republic of the United States, presents opportunities for river front development and so on. This matter has already been discussed by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. McLarty) and myself with the minister and his department. Schemes like that will prove of great assistance to that area.
I am fully conscious of the fact that I have merely made a few observations which will in no wise really help the minister. I am frank enough to admit that in trying to

Relief and Agricultural Distress
consider this problem I find that the proposals put forward by the hon. member for Huron North and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar represent the two ends of this great question. We are passing through difficult times. Many of us believe that we are perhaps passing from one form of economic society into another. My own view is that certainly we are going through a transformation of our economic society. What the ultimate form will be I do not know and I do not believe that anyone does; but I do suggest, by way of brief comment upon what the hon. member for Huron North said, that a mere reduction of taxation, which I am sure is necessary, and a mere change of fiscal policy, will not take care of this problem of unemployment. Let us face that reality. On the other hand, in reference to what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said, I do not believe that socialism or the cooperative state, if established, would take care of the problem, because in those areas where the cooperative state exists, where there is socialism, you are still confronted with the problem of unemployment.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not to the same extent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The problem of unemployment in Russia is an acute one. I was reading only last night in Current History an essay on the cooperative state, and while I believe that offers perhaps more opportunity than the socialist state, even there you find the problem of unemployment. So that we are faced with two alternatives-one, a laissez-faire world, and the other a world in which the state has complete control of industry to the extent of ownership. In any event, whether the utopia of my hon. friends opposite is realized or not, the fact is that it is not here, and we are consequently compelled to deal at the moment with a very practical problem.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Can the hon. member suggest a middle way?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am trying to do that. I have been frank enough to admit that I find the problem fraught with all sorts of difficulty. We can spend millions for the time being to provide work, but we cannot go on doing that forever. In my opinion, an effective scheme of unemployment insurance, somewhat along the lines of the system in England, would take care of the unemployment problem, and during the period of transition those great sections of the unemployed not provided for in that way would be taken care of more effectively.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: How is it possible to build up a fund in Canada under existing conditions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a perfectly proper question. If we were to adopt the English or the United States system, it would mean that there would be a period when unemployed individuals would not receive the benefit of it and thus we would have to take care of them in some measure. I think we would have to see that until such time as the scheme began to operate men would have to be provided, as they are now, with the necessities of life. We would have to face that aspect of the problem. It would mean the expenditure of a considerable sum of money, but we would have to do it. We must face the problem ultimately.
While the constitutional problem is a great one, and while there are indications now that some of the provinces regard unemployment insurance as essentially a provincial matter, my own view is that it is a national question and that it is for this parliament, while admitting the constitutional difficulty, to make a start. This whole question of conflict or jurisdiction might be treated compositely, that is by taking all questions in which it arises, lumping them together and making an issue of it. I have no doubt that if that were done public opinion in this country would subscribe to the view that in respect of essentially national problems this parliament should have the necessary authority. However, I believe that we can deal with unemployment insurance now. I venture to suggest that while one or two provinces might put obstacles in the way, the others would come in.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) is charged with a great task. Any criticism made by myself, or I am sure by any hon. member, has not been against the minister personally-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think there is anyone in this house or this country who could hold the portfolio of Labour with greater distinction and render greater service to the country than the present Minister of Labour. It is all very well to criticize his academic background and the like, but I would prefer to see my problems or the problems of the country in the hands of a man whose intellectual training is such as to give him some ability to determine rightly the courses he is taking. Some hon. members, I am sure, will appreciate the force of that statement. I say that not merely by way of empty compliment, but because I think this slight



Relief and Agricultural Distress
tribute is due to one who has an extremely great task on his hands. I only hope that when he faces this parliament again he will receive credit for a ministry in which he has already displayed great ability and energy; that he will be able to show greater and greater results, and that not only because of what is done in this parliament; for, after all, this is not only a governmental problem but a problem in which industry and private enterprise have their share. If we could come to a basis of cooperative effort and aggressive leadership in this house I am satisfied something would be done.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Just a few remarks in reference to some statements made by the last speaker. In regard to unemployment insurance he said he favoured the idea of the government enacting legislation and taking a chance to see whether it was constitutional or otherwise. The hon. member, who is a lawyer and a student of constitutional problems, knows that is exactly what was done in 1935; upon the change of government the party now in power tested the validity of that legislation, and it was declared by the highest court in the empire to be unconstitutional. So if the present government followed that suggestion, we should be in the same position as we were at the beginning of 1936.
The hon. member, however, suggested other alternatives. He proposed that this government enact legislation along the lines of the Old Age Pensions Act, making it pennissive for the various provinces to come in. If the government would make an act of that kind sufficiently attractive, I think many provinces, if not all, would elect to come under the operation of such an act. Whether or not it is advisable to do so, I cannot say. Another alternative is along the lines of legislation enacted in the United States, where they are confronted with the same constitutional difficulty. That country has also adopted permissive legislation, and I observe that at the present time nearly all the states have come within the provisions of the social security act enacted there. Then there is another alternative which I suggest, although I have not given it very serious consideration. In view of what was said by the premier of Ontario before the Rowell commission, there seems to be a good deal of conflict as to jurisdiction, as to which authority should undertake certain legislation. In certain provinces the idea seems to be that more power should be given to the provinces. But in regard to such questions as old age pensions and unemployment insurance I think it would be admitted on all sides that they are federal matters. Perhaps
kMr. Martin.]
it would be well for us in this parliament to consider whether there should not be a national referendum on the question whether such problems as this should not be entirely under federal jurisdiction, and this federal parliament have the right- to amend the constitution, giving to the federal authorities the right to legislate on such matters as unemployment insurance. I think if such a referendum were held it would show that the overwhelming sentiment of the electors of Canada is in favour of giving to the federal authorities the right to legislate on such matters. If that were done, we might once and for all do away with the conflict as to jurisdiction in matters of this kind.
Personally I am anxious to see the government enact legislation in regard to unemployment insurance. But even that is not in itself a sufficient remedy for the difficulties facing us at the present time. As pointed out so ably by the speaker who preceded me, in the city of Windsor many men work for only eight months in the year. It would be almost impossible to keep a scheme of unemployment insurance actuarially sound under such conditions, maintaining those people for the other four months of the year. Consequently, we have to go far beyond the. mere question of insurance, and provide public relief works or private sustenance, as at present. However, I just rose to say that I am extremely anxious to see if the government cannot now find ways and means of doing something towards bringing into being a scheme of unemployment insurance. I fully realize the constitutional difficulties in the way, but if the government, even at this late date, with all the knowledge they have at their command and their skilled experts, brought in a comprehensive scheme, I am sure that ultimately the people of this country would commend the government for such action.


Mr. STIRLING:: The section which we are now considering makes reference to financial assistance which may be given to projects under provincial jurisdiction. I understood the minister to say yesterday that it should not be taken for granted that the arrangements with the provinces would be identical with those of previous years. Would the minister elaborate a little on that? I should like to know whether the initiative will come from the provinces, as on occasions at least it has done in the past, by their submitting to the dominion government certain pieces of work which they would like to have undertaken with the assistance of the dominion government, after which of course, the

Reliej and Agricultural Distress
dominion government has to say whether that particular piece of work is suitable for the purpose or not.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I might refer back to what I said in this connection during the discussion of the resolution before the Easter recess. I pointed out that it would be the policy of the government to concentrate its expenditures on projects within federal jurisdiction. I am not in a position to go beyond that statement at the present time except to say that, in the expenditures to be provided for in the supplementary estimates, we propose to emphasize projects which will be within federal jurisdiction. It may be that there will still be some measure which will provide for joint works with the provinces; there may be a continuation of existing projects for which there will be a revote in the estimates, but in general the intention is to concentrate expenditures under federal jurisdiction and to avoid the difficulties-and to some extent the abuses-that have occurred under joint works programs.


Mr. JAQUES:: Might I suggest that the problem is not so much one of unemployment as one of getting paid for employment. There is no difficulty in finding work; the difficulty is in finding money to pay for the work. In that connection I should like to read a short extract which throws some light on what I have just said. It is from The Art of Central Banking, by Mr. R. G. Haw-trey, who is a secretary to the British treasury. He says:
The common factor in pre-war, and post-war, experience is the intimate association of the state of trade with the enlargements and compressions of consumers' income and outlay effected by central banks. If this fundamental casual sequence were understood, the public would hardly acquiesce in the central banks proceeding from their position of complacent detachment to generate depressions, unemployment, bankruptcy, budget deficits and defaults, with all the resulting political and social convulsions while government after government is broken because it can neither stem the flood of ruin nor even provide tolerable palliatives to alleviate the consequences.
When I previously read this quotation in the house, on February 28, I went on to say:
The fact is that neither side can do anything until parliament regains control of the issue of currency and credit. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) can shake his head-


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say anything.


Norman Jaques: I am merely reading a
quotation:	,
Mr. Dunning: We have control of it right here. That is why I shake my head.
Since that was said, I cut a quotation out of the Financial Post. This is a report of what was said by Mr. J. A. C. Osborne, deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, when speaking in this city recently to the junior board of trade. The report states:
He outlined to them the functions of the central bank. He pointed out that in many countries the policy of the government was the policy of the central bank, and declared " no respectable central bank would accept from its government a policy with which it differed fundamentally."
I might suggest, since we have an ultra respectable central bank in Canada, I have no doubt that they differ most profoundly with regard to policy. I have not the slightest criticism to make with regard to the ability of the right hon. Prime Minister or the members of his cabinet. With regard to the Minister of Finance, who of course has a thankless task, if I may risk being personal I sometimes think his manner is able to charm money out of the public. I confess that sometimes when I observe the minister smile-


Charles Avery Dunning: I thought I had the
reputation of being hard-boiled.


Norman Jaques: Well, sometimes when I observe the hon. gentleman's smile I confess that I find my hands straining towards my pockets. It is a pity they are so empty. I should like to pay the same tribute to the right hon. leader of the opposition and the late government. There is no one in Canada who does not realize the extraordinary ability and industry which the former Prime Minister brought to the conduct of the affairs of the nation. I say that simply because we in this comer believe that the trouble is not with governments; it is with the system which governments administer, just as Mr. Hawtrey says. That system breaks government after government; more than that, it is breaking the institution of parliamentary government itself. People are losing faith in the power or ability of parliament to achieve anything. There is no doubt of that, and the question is whether we are going to put the needs of the people first or whether we are going to put the needs of the financial system first. No man can serve two masters; neither can a government. They cannot serve the people and at the same time serve the financial interests.
When we come to unemployment we know, because we have recent history to back us up, that if we wanted to we could abolish unemployment to-morrow. We did it once, and no member of this house can deny it. During the war there was no unemployment, and if

Relief and Agricultural Distress
war came again there would be no unemployment at that time Why? There is only one answer; it is that in the danger with which the country is confronted in the face of the enemy, all other considerations are put to one side; they must give way to the supreme duty of preserving the safety of the nation. In such times money is put to its proper use, and the financier is put in his proper place. Parliament asserts its real authority, and the money is found. It does not matter where or how it is found; it is found, and we could do the same in regard to unemployment if we wanted to. But we cannot do it and still preserve what is known as sound money, or, in other words, scarce money. That, as I see it, is the issue before the country. We can either preserve what we call sound money and sound economics, or we can adapt our economic system to a different age so that the people of Canada may be able to consume all they care to produce. When we do that we shall solve unemployment, and not before.
As for unemployment insurance, I am not going to say much against it. If the people want it, let them have it; but to my mind you might just, as well take a case of smallpox and send it to a beauty parlour. Unemployment is not the disease; it is the symptom of a disease, and until we attack the disease, itself I do not think we can get very far with the symptom.
Those are all the observations I wish to make at this time. I know hon. members in this section of the house are laughed and jeered at, but I have heard nothing in or out of the house to check my belief in what we in this corner of the house say. If there are other remedies I should like to hear them, but so far I have not heard anything which offers a real remedy to the problem with which this and other countries are confronted to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To the future student of history there will be nothing more interesting than the study of Hansard during the last seven or eight years. When I hear hon. members opposite talk about the terrible strain and anxiety they have to carry, and when I hear the fulsome adulation with which followers refer to the government and to the ministers, I recall days when those same hon. gentlemen, sitting to the left of the Speaker, could not find time enough in which to express themselves, or language strong enough to ex-oress the condemnation of those who were endeavouring to do the very thing that the present government is now endeavouring to do. Let there be no mistake: Except with

respect to one insignificant expenditure there has been not the slighest change in everything that has been done by the department in connection with unemployment and relief. Every single thing that is being done to-day was being done by the late administration, except the work in connection with the so-called youth movement, about which we will speak when the proper time comes.
Yet the student of history, in reading Hansard from 1930 to 1935, will find that the men now occupying the treasury benches were then spending their hours, days and weeks in condemnation of the then government for doing what they now do. As I hear these observations, and the sympathy that is being extended; when I compare the buoyant revenues of to-day with the revenues of those days, and when I think of the changed world conditions as compared with the conditions of those days, I wonder where their milk of human sympathy and kindness was to be found. I bring that fact to the attention of the committee this afternoon. There is no reason why the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) should look sadder than anybody else, although I must admit he was one of the chief offenders.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I was smiling.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he was not the only one. It is just a matter for the historian to think about. Day after day and week after week in one year we had our efforts prevented from being realized, and condemnation was hurled from this side of the house against the very measures which are now said to be the very best possible of production. Bom out of wide experience and great knowledge these measures which, after all, simply follow what had been done-excepting the one instance I mentioned-are presented. We are told we must accept them as the great contribution of far-sighted statesmen in dealing with these problems.
If it ended there, it might not be quite so bad. But the historian of this country will also find that the present government when in opposition was going to take this whole problem out of the realm of politics, and that an independent commission was going to administer relief; an independent commission was going to correlate the activities of the provinces and the dominion; an independent commission was going to deal with the municipalities, and their difficulties with relation to the provincial and federal powers. That commission came into being with powers very-much restricted, when compared with those with which it was expected it would be clothed.

Relief and Agricultural Distress
The commission has gone out of business, and the same political administration which marked the administration of the days in which control was vested in the government still prevails.
The great evil that -we face to-day in the administration of unemployment relief is found in political patronage, about which, at the proper time, I propose to say much. There is not a day which does not bring me letters from men who are unable to find employment because they have not the proper sanction, the sanction of those who sit in authority either as defeated candidates, or otherwise, for the purpose of determining whether men shall or shall not have jobs. One park in this country is run by the Liberal party executive, and men are dismissed from their positions and other men put in their places for the purpose of enabling them to circumvent the law. That is what is going on. I spoke yesterday about Long Branch; I could name other places as well. I could mention place after place in which either the defeated candidate, the head of the Liberal association in the locality, or someone else, must be consulted before it is possible for a man to find employment, for which he is paid with my taxes and the taxes of other taxpayers in this country.	[DOT]
That is the reason that this thing fails- and it is failing. Of course it is failing. The hon. member who judt took his seat referred to the fact that we are not dealing with the disease. In my place yonder between 1930 and 1935 I pointed out that these measures were palliatives, not cures. They do not cure the disease; they are but palliatives. Every thoughtful man knows that is so. Everyone knows perfectly well, sir, that with respect to the problem of unemployment we must realize it can never be dealt with in the manner which is being followed.
Who, listening to the political speech in connection with farm implements the other evening, but must realize that in this country we have a population over one-half of which is in urban areas. Remember that. No longer is half or more than half of the population in rural communities. This means that unless we supply that urban population with employment measures there will be constant unemployment. There is no thoughtful member of parliament who does not realize that the essential obligation resting upon the house at this time is to provide employment for our people by submitting policies which will ensure that there is work to do.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh yes. but the "hear, hear" which finds a responsive echo in every part of the chamber can 'be realized only by doing something which apparently some of the people do not wish to have done. In other words, a substantial part of the population believes it is better to have immediate benefit in contemplation-not reality-than to have some measure of cure effected with respect to the disease from which we are suffering.
You cannot have your goods manufactured for you in another country, give employment to people in that country and at the same time not put out of employment those who are doing the work here. Let there be no misunderstanding about that fundamental. You may differ from me on the particular problems connected with the fiscal policy of a country. We may differ; but we cannot differ about this, that if the consuming population of Canada requires for its use and sustenance a million dollars worth of goods, and those goods can be made in this country, then unless we afford the opportunity for the people who have now flocked to the cities tc engage in industrial life they will be unemployed, while people somewhere else will be employed. They will make the very goods that we consume. There can be no misunderstanding about that. It was all right when you had the great majority of your people on the land; it was all right when the major part of your population was rural, but our population has shifted. The other evening the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Mallette) referred to the population that had shifted from the soil to the city. This has brought about a condition which we must face. That condition involves action being taken of a kind that apparently some of our friends dislike.
This government is in a position to make its choice. It has behind it a majority that enables it to make any choice it pleases and to give effect to that choice. It has made its choice. It has balanced the probabilities. It has selected one particular way of dealing with the matter. What has been the result? This is not the time, or the place perhaps, to deal with it in detail. There has been this result. The national railways for three months of this year have not been earning sufficient money to pay the cost of operation. There has been no lessening of employment in the large sense so far as they are concerned, and yet to earn a dollar, to earn one hundred cents on that great system for the last three months, has cost more than one hundred cents, more than a dollar. Mark you; that is without

Relief and Agricultural Distress
interest on the capital invested. It is merely the cost of operating, fuel and labour and upkeep.


Charles Avery Dunning: That has happened
frequently in the past.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has not happened frequently in the past.


Charles Avery Dunning: In the early months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has not happened frequently in the past.


Charles Avery Dunning: We differ.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not the figures with me, but it has not happened frequently in the past. It has happened in the past, but not frequently. During the dark days of the depression from 1930 to 1935, bad as conditions were, I ask hon. members to compare the results then with those of the last three months. Remember, there is not a cent for interest. Let that thought come into our minds and see what it means. Let us ask ourselves, why? I shall be prepared, when another debate is precipitated, to deal with that in greater detail. I shall deal with it in detail then, not now. These are palliatives; that is all they are. What is the sense of trying to call them anything else? Why not be frank about them?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Who is calling them anything else?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have heard the adulations of the warm and loyal friends of the minister on the other side describe them as something else. I have read in the public press of this heaven-born vision of the minister, of his looking out upon the troubled world and bringing peace and happiness to all the unemployed. There was the great vision that came to him during his academic life which enabled him thus to deal with the matter. Then I contemplate the patronage in Frontenac and Kingston. After all, the results of an academic life do not fit a man for public life any better than would life in a sawmill. It has been said that the solution is to be found in a housing program.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Expansion of trade.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Expansion of trade." Well, I thank thee, Roderick, for the word, to quote Sir Walter Scott. If there was one term calculated to make ridiculous the whole performance in connection with this matter, it is just that statement, "expansion of trade."


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is my right hon. friend opposed to it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has a record of effort in that direction which will compare favourably with that of the minister. That is all he has to say. That is the record in connection with which every Liberal, except the Liberal who sits behind the minister, the Minister of National Revenue, (Mr. Ilsley), rose in his place to vote against empire preference. He also knows that the minister in his eulogy of his leader vindicated his position. Now he sweetly talks about expansion of trade.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend favours it, then?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That anyone with the attainments of the minister should find it possible to ask such a question indicates the extent to which politics can destroy the vigour of an intellect.


Mr. GARDINER:: The right hon. gentleman has been in them since 1898.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the Saskatchewan oracle spoken?


James Garfield Gardiner: Probably the explanation of the right hon. gentleman's attitude toward public questions is the fact that he has been in politics since 1898.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have been in politics since 1898 with the exception of ten or twelve years, when I was not. But I have not yet found it necessary to follow other than a consistent course with respect to the matters to which I have referred.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the same on this side.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have never prostituted such talents as I have for place or power.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Against whom is that
aimed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I referred a moment ago to the observations that were made in this house with respect to a housing program offering a solution of these difficulties. I do not intend to do more at this time than merely point out what a strange thing public opinion is. One would think that everyone in this chamber believed that all that one had to do was to engage in the housing business and the matter would be settled. For instance, I have in my hand a plan of action suggested by the Vancouver youth council. It is divided into five sections. The first refers to a survey of housing conditions; the second

Niagara Falls Bridge
refers to publicity; the third refers to by-laws, and the fourth, which refers to a building program, reads:
Building program: Consideration of concrete proposals to effect a low cost housing scheme to be financed with the assistance of the dominion government and administered on public utility lines, through a civic housing commission.
The fifth part reads:
Education:	Simultaneously, a systematic
policy of hygienic education to be made available to all who will occupy the new houses provided.
That was passed at a slum clearance rally held in Vancouver.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the date?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was held on Tuesday, February 15, at 8 p.m., in St. James parish hall under the auspices of the greater Vancouver youth council. The opening remarks were made by John Jopson, first vice-president, and there was an address by Alderman Halford D. Wilson. The resolution, which was drafted and endorsed, reads as follows:
Whereas:-The investigation of the Vancouver civic housing committee, with the cooperation of many interested organizations, have revealed an acute housing shortage and the increasing prevalence of slum areas in Vancouver.
And whereas:-Private building stimulated by funds available through the Dominion Housing Act has been unable to provide adequate housing facilities, particularly to the low income groups.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 29, consideration in committee of Bill No. 15, to incorporate the Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company-Mr. Damude-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Frederick George Sanderson: I desire to draw the
attention of the committee to Hansard, April 29, 1938, page 2414, when this bill was under review, and I quote from Hansard as follows :
Mr. Stirling: It is two minutes after nine.
Mr. Bennett: My attention has been directed to the fact that it was two minutes after nine when you made the declaration that the section had passed.
Mr. Stirling: It is not playing the game.
Mr. Bennett:	My colleague says that it is
not playing the game to go beyond the hour.
I think there is much to be said with respect to that. I had no idea that we had gone beyond the hour; but in view of what the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) says, it is my duty to bring that fact to your attention.


Frederick George Sanderson: I did not think the right
hon. gentleman was aware that it was nine o'clock. I waited some minutes and I thought be would be disposed to have the amendment carry. However, I am in the judgment of the committee.
I take exception to the remark of the hon. member for Yale, namely, "It is not playing the game." I would have taken exception at that time if I had heard clearly the remark of the hon. member. Apparently Hansard correctly reported him. His remark is a very grave reflection on the chair. It implies that the chairman was partial, biased and unfair in the conduct of his duties. The hon. member for Yale is an old parliamentarian and is familiar wdth the rules governing debates, and I now ask him to withdraw the remark to which I take exception.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Chairman, I used
the phrase I did because it accurately expressed my opinion of the incident. It appeared to me that, the hour for private bills having passed, it was not in accordance with the rules of the house to move that an amendment be adopted or a section passed. There was fresh in my memory at the time an incident which had occurred four or five days before, when an hon. member to my left, a new member, was called upon by certain supporters of the government, when there was but three minutes to go, to proceed with his speech, and not the least strident voice that I heard was that of the chief Liberal whip. I did not think at the time that was in accordance wdth the amenities of the house, but on that occasion the government desired to adhere closely to the rules. On the occasion on Friday evening you, Mr. Chairman, saw fit to suggest at 9.02 o'clock that we should do something which, in my opinion, could properly be done only prior to nine o'clock. That was the reason why I used the phrase which I did. I regret that you have taken it in the way you have. It has not been my custom in this house ever to make reflections upon the occupant of the chair, and so far as I am concerned I have no desire in any way to insult the chair or detract from the honour of the chair. If it is the wish of you, Mr. Chairman, that the phrase should be deleted from revised Hansard I am quite agreeable.
Niagara Falls Bridge


Frederick George Sanderson: I am not entirely
satisfied with the withdrawal. I take it from the remarks of the hon. member for Yale that he withdraws the remark. Am I correct in that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He does not withdraw, but correctly states what took place.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am addressing my remarks to the hon. member for Yale.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully point out to you that under the rules you have no right to make any such request at this time. You have directed attention to the incident, and the hon. member for Yale has indicated exactly what took place, which is in accordance with what you yourself have stated, namely that at two minutes after nine o'clock you took action which under the rules should not be taken. The hon. member is reported to have said, " It is not playing the game." That is a correct statement. That is perfectly clear. He says he regrets that you have taken offence at what he has said, which was intended not to give offence but merely to state his appreciation of the fact; and if a man does not intend to give offence and uses some expression which is not in itself offensive, surely the chair has no right at this time, whatever its right may have been at the time in question, to do more than direct attention to the incident. It seems to me the incident is closed when the hon. member has stated that he had no intention of insulting the chair, that the remark will be deleted if it is thought desirable, and the circumstances under which he made the observation he did are not disputed. There is no question as to the fact and the circumstances in connection with it.


Ernest Lapointe: My own opinion is that the incident does not deserve the great importance which seems to be given to it. At the time I thought the objection of my friend from Yale was not very well taken, because it happens quite often that we ignore the clock for a minute or two in order to conclude some debate. However, the hon. member having explained the matter as he did, I am quite satisfied that his request that his words should be deleted from Hansard is better than any possible withdrawal.


Abraham Albert Heaps: On a point of order, I should like to ask who has the authority to order a deletion from Hansard.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, we all accept it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I know. I am just querying, as a point of order, how that is to be done. I should like to know. Perhaps the chairman or the deputy chairman has the right.


Frederick George Sanderson: I may inform the hon.
member that the Speaker has the right. However, the incident is closed. We shall proceed with the bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I desire to lay on the table a letter dated March 5, 1938, and signed by the Hon. T. B. McQuesten, provincial minister of highways, regarding the Niagara Falls bridge.
On section 9-Construction subject to governor in council regulations.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Before clause 9 carries, I should like to tell the Minister of Transport that if, on the occasion when this bill was last before the committee, he applied his remarks about a filibuster to me, I want him to withdraw them. Any time I say anything in this house or in committee I say it after having made a careful study of the matter; if I oppose anything I am not filibustering, and there is no power in this country sufficient to change my mind when once I make it up. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) knows what the Scotch are like; when once they make up their minds, it takes a good deal to move them. I hope the minister will rise in his place and say that those remarks did not apply to me, because what I have to say on this bill or any other before the house is said with sincerity. I had in my mind nothing but to do the best I could for the country. If the minister is as good a sport as I am-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would assume that when my hon. friend makes a statement the first time, he expresses his opinion; when he makes the same statement a second time, he is confirming the opinion; I have some doubts about the third time.	However, I shall
accept my hon. friend's statement that he is incapable of conducting a filibuster.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The other evening, when we were discussing one of the sections of this bill, the Minister of Transport said that he would produce the letter which had been written to him by the minister of highways of Ontario. He was good enough to send me the letter to-day before it was laid on the table, and I think it well that it should be read, because it deals with an important factor which has to do with this legislation,

Niagara Falls Bridge
and one to which I think the attention of the government has not been sufficiently directed:
Ontario.
Office of the Minister of Highways.
Toronto, March 5, 1938.
Honourable C. D. Howe,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Re-Niagara Falls Bridge Dear Mr. Howe:
Mr. H. J. McNulty, K.C., has advised me that I should write you as to the position of the province in this matter. W. G. Welby, et al, are applying to the dominion for a charter in the name of the Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company. These applicants have executed an assignment, which I have not seen, but which I understand is filed, to assign their rights, as directed when the charter is granted, to the Highways Department of this province or to the Niagara Falls Parks commission. In any event they are acting as trustees for the province.
The purpose of the province is to bring about the erection of a new bridge at or about the location of the International Railway Company's bridge which recently collapsed. A week ago I visited Governor Lehman of the state of New York with Mr. Suitor, the representative of the city of Niagara Falls, New York, in the New York state assembly. Mr. Suitor, in cooperation with us, has brought in a bill in the state of New York assembly to create an authority similar to that which constructed the bridge at Sarnia and the Thousand Islands bridge last year. This authority is to contain an equal number of representatives from the state of New York and Ontario. It is proposed that it follow the practice already established to issue bonds and erect the structure with the approval of the federal government at Ottawa. The bonds will be charged upon tolls and when the same are retired the bridge will become a free bridge. This is a similar arrangement to that in the two cases above mentioned and in the additional case of the Peace bridge at Fort Erie over the Niagara river.
The procedure followed on this side is the same as in the cases of the three bridges above mentioned. Private applicants obtain the legislation and assign all their interests to the state authority of the state of New York. This includes the approval of the dominion government to the construction of the bridge which has to be obtained.
The province of Ontario would be willing to finance the structure directly and build it directly, either as a work of my department or through the Niagara Parks commission, of which I am chairman. This latter commission, as you may know, administers a part extending from lake Ontario to lake Erie and including practically the whole water front along the Niagara river. Unfortunately we are advised that we cannot, as a highway department of the province, either enter into an agreement with New York state or the New York state authority, nor build a bridge directly. Moreover the state of New York does not wish to use its funds, but prefers that private funds should be used as outlined above through a public authority which would ensure the ultimate public ownership of the structure.
This province is very much in favour of working towards the elimination of all tolls on these international bridges, as we realize it is greatly to the advantage of this province to have as many points of access as possible to the great population to the south without any charge for entry.
May I also add that Mr. H. J. McNulty, K.C., is acting for this department and for the Niagara Parks commission in bringing this bill before parliament.
With kind personal regards, believe me, Faithfully yours,
T. B. McQuesten,
Minister of Highways.
The important part of that leltter is the following statement in the second paragraph; it is of the utmost importance:
The purpose of the province is to bring about the erection of a new bridge at or about the location of the International Railway Company's bridge which recently collapsed.
I have already pointed out, in the letter which I read the other evening from Senator Lee, that this matter had been brought to the attention of the governor of the state of New York; that Mr. McQuesten had been present a)t the conference; that the governor stated he had been advised by his counsel that the International Railway Company has the right, under the laws of the United States and the state of New York, to construct such bridge, and that the state of New York cannot and will not interfere with the exercise of such right. We now have before us a letter for which the Minister of Transport becomes responsible, asking parliament to pass an act which will destroy the vested interest of an existing enterprise, to which procedure the governor of the state of New York says he will not consent.
It was for that reason I was the more anxious to see the communication in question, because I had been informed that the real purpose of this legislation is to destroy the International Railway Company's rights. I pointed out that they had $500,000 worth of property at the two ends of the bridge; that they have had a bridge there for some forty years or thereabouts, and that this bridge is now to be replaced by one which is promoted by the province of Ontario for the direct purpose of destroying the vested rights of that enterprise. It seems to me strange that a representative of the crown in file right of
Niagara Falls Bridge

the province of Ontario should say that the purpose of the province is to bring about the erection of a new bridge at or about the location of the International Railway Company's bridge, which recently collapsed. In other words, this is a bridge promoted by the province for the purpose of destroying the vested rights of an existing company. I make no pronouncement, obviously, as to whether they have or have not a valid right to construct. I can only read the documents I see before me. The letter of the senator .ndicated that Mr. McQuesten, who signed the letter which has just been read, was present at Albany when they met Governor Lehman on February 21, 1938, and this letter is dated March 5, 1938.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It states he was present in New York.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but I was not quite sure whether it might be said to be the same conference or not; I was desirous of fixing the date. Senator Lee says it was February 21. and the letter, as a matter of fact, is dated March 5. I do not know if this is an accurate statement of the situation-and you will observe, Mr. Chairman, obviously I must say, "if it is," because I have no personal knowledge of the matter. I do know where that bridge used to be; I have been there a sufficient number of times to know exactly where the bridge that was destroyed was located, but what I do not know is the exact location of the proposed bridge in relation to that. I therefore accept Mr. McQuesten's statement that the purpose of the province is practically to destroy the vested rights of the existing company. We have now a matter which I really think the federal government, the government of this nation, should consider, that the governor stated he was advised by counsel that the International Railway Company has the right, under the laws of the United States and the state of New York, to construct such a bridge, and that the state can not and will not interfere with the exercise of such right.
A vested right in the United States is a constitutional right; in this country a vested right is not necessarily a constitutional right. The provisions of the United States constitution were imposed to meet, among others, just such difficulties as -you have here, that is, that a right existent could not be destroyed by legislation without the consent of the parties affected. And what we are doing on this side of the Niagara river is, in the language of Mr. McQuesten, to destroy the right of the International Railway Company to construct

a bridge. That was the point which I was not in a position to establish clearly the other evening, until I had seen the exact terms of the letter. I did not care to make the statement without seeing those terms. But Mr. McQuesten's statement puts that beyond peradventure. Unfortunately or otherwise, the province of Ontario has nothing whatever to do with respect to that matter at all; the nation speaks through its central government, not through the government of one of its provinces. It will perhaps ibe remembered that reference was made by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) to the opinion given by the deputy minister of justice which I think should at this point be referred to. His letter is in these terms:
JR 3380/38
Re Bill No. 15, An act to incorporate the Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company.
Dear Sir:
I have had under consideration your letter of the 18th instant and beg to advise you as follows:
I am of opinion that it is not competent to parliament to authorize the crown in the right of the province to build the bridge in question, and that as the Minister of Highways and the Niagara Parks Commission are agents of the crown in the right of the province parliament is equally incompetent to vest the necessary powers in them or either of them. In order that parliament may effectively control the construction and maintenance of the bridge, which is a work or undertaking exclusively within the legislative jurisdiction of parliament, in relation to both its national and international aspects, it is in my judgment essential that the powers should be conferred upon a body, corporation or person answerable to parliament and amenable to the courts.
Yours faithfully,
W. Stuart Edwards, Deputy Minister of Justice.
If we read those three communications together, it does seem to me that it would be a very unfriendly act for this parliament to act until such time as the legislature of the state of New York , has acted. The Minister of Transport very properly said the other evening that it was a matter of indifference as to which acted first; that inasmuch as one legislature could not authorize the construction of a bridge in a country other than its own, one or the other would have to act first in bringing about a condition where there might be a unity of interest for the purpose of construction. Now we have the opinion of the deputy minister of justice that this is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. We have the letter of the senator from the state of New York in which he points out that the

Niagara Falls Bridge
governor says that the International company has the right under the laws of the United States and the state of New York to construct such bridge, and that the state of New York cannot and will not interfere with the exercise of such right. I take it that the term "cannot" refers to the constitution of the United States, that constitutional provision which does not permit the state to destroy a vested right or to pass ex post facto legislation. Under these circumstances, together with the statement made by the responsible minister in Ontario that what he proposes to do by this device is to destroy the International company-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He does not say that.


Mr. EULER:: He does not use the word
"destroy."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not suggest that he used the word "destroy."


William Daum Euler: A few moments ago my right hon. friend used that very word.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I used the word because that is what it means, if it means anything.


William Daum Euler: My right hon. friend said, "in the words of the minister."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not.


William Daum Euler: My right hon. friend will find it in Hansard to-morrow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend will find I
did not. These are the words:
The purpose of the province is to bring about the erection of a new bridge at or about the location of the International Railway Company's bridge which recently collapsed.
In addition to that, the other evening I pointed out that when Mr. McQuesten was here before the committee the records show he made a statement that when he returned he was going to introduce legislation dealing with bridges, and that would be another hurdle for the International company to cross. That was the sense of the words; I am not quoting the exact language. Here in my hands is the bill he passed. This has been assented to. That bill in terms would, if the legislature had jurisdiction, prevent the construction by the International company of its bridge. It is designed for that very purpose, in view of what took place. I direct the attention of the Minister of Justice to the language used:
1.	This act may be cited as the Bridges Act, 193S.
2.	This act shall apply to,-
(a) every river or stream or part thereof of which the bed is vested in His Majesty in right of Ontario; and
(b) every place upon a river or stream where His Majesty in right of Ontario, or any board or commission constituted under any act ol this legislature, is a riparian owner.
3.	(1) No bridge or other structure shall be built, placed or constructed over or across any river or stream or part thereof, nor shall any bridge or other structure over or across any river or stream or part thereof be rebuilt, replaced or altered where the cost of such building, placing, constructing, rebuilding, replacing or altering will exceed $2,000, except with the approval of the lieutenant-governor in council.
Against that I place the o; mion of the deputy minister of justice to which reference was made the other day, in which he uses these words:
... in order that parliament may effectively control the construction and maintenance of the bridge, which is a work or undertaking exclusively within the legislative jurisdiction of parliament, in relation to both its national and international aspects.
In view of that, can we proceed further with this legislation without doing violence to the friendly relations that exist between us and the neighbouring state of New York and the republic to the south of us? That is the position I wanted to make clear the other day, but could not until I had all the documents before me.


Mr. McLARTY:: Might I ask the right hon. gentleman whether the amendment he moved the other night did not specifically provide that we could not do anything without the consent of the appropriate jurisdiction in the United States? If that be so, what violence could we possibly do, when nothing can be done until those powers are conferred upon the corporation incorporated under this act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is just that point that I desire to make, if my hon. and learned friend will permit me to say so, that as a matter of international comity, this bridge having originated from United States legislation, not Canadian, and we having acted seconding it, after they had acted in the first instance, it would be doing violence to our understanding of friendly relations, in the light of what was said by the governor- assuming he did say it, as for my purpose I have done-to proceed to pass this legislation which assumes that we are willing to do something which under the laws of the state of New York cannot be done.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Without their express permission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But which they cannot give without the consent of the International company.
Niagara Falls Bridge


Norman Alexander McLarty: Might I remind my right hon. friend that this corporation, clothed with the powers provided for in this bill, cannot do anything without the consent either of the state of New York or of such other appropriate authority as has the right to give it the power of extraterritorial jurisdiction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad my learned and hon. friend directed attention to that. Unfortunately we do not purport to deal only with that part of the bridge which is on our side; we undertake to deal with the bridge in New York as well, to provide where it should land. How can we deal with a location in another country?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Subject to the consent of the state of New York.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But how can we say where that bridge is to be placed in New York state? That is the point I am putting, in view of what the governor said. How can we undertake to say what we do? These are the words:
. . . to a point in the city of Niagara Falls in the state of New York, one of the United States of America, north of the present upper steel arch bridge. . . .
That is, it is located. And with the letter of the minister stating that the .purpose is to bring about the erection of this new bridge "at or about the location of the International Railway Company bridge which recently collapsed," you have a situation in which the parliament of Canada is undertaking to do something which the state of New York says cannot be done.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. gentleman or to be tiresome by reiterating remarks which I have made. The purpose of this bill, I think he will agree, is to clothe a corporation with capacity to build a bridge between two certain points. One point is in the state of New York. It can build to that point only subject to the approval of the appropriate United States authorities. If that approval is not granted, irrespective of any capacity with which we clothe the corporation, the bridge cannot be built.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The provision, as I have said, is this:
. . . but the company shall not commence the actual construction of the said bridge nor exercise any of the powers hereunder until an act of congress of the United States or other competent authority in the United States of America has been passed authorizing or approving such bridging of the said river. . . .

I have pointed out what the governor has said with respect to that, namely, that there is a vested interest which neither he, the state of New York nor the congress of the United States, under the constitution of that country, can take away. I take it that is the reason for the reference to the United States. That being so, should we defy that authority?


Mr. YOUNG:: This bridge is not going
to be built on that site; it is to be six hundred feet away.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But six hundred feet
away is the same site. That is what the minister meant when he said you could not put these two bridges within six hundred feet of each other. The hon. member must know that. The real fact is that this is an effort to destroy the other bridge, to prevent it from being rebuilt, and I have pointed out the legislation which was introduced and passed a few days ago to bring about that end. That is the story, and I cannot do more than direct the attention of the committee to it, having exhausted every means at my disposal for the purpose of ascertaining the facts, which I think may be definitely stated as lying within a very narrow compass indeed.
May I restate them? 1. By appropriate legislative authority the International company was authorized to construct a bridge from the state of New York towards the Canadian shore. 2. Nearly forty years ago the Canadian authorities arranged with the United States authorities to complete a bridge which has been known as the international railway bridge. 3. The international railway bridge was destroyed by act of God in January, 1938. 4. A petition has been presented to the parliament of Canada praying that certain gentlemen now alleged to be trustees for the crown as represented by the province of Ontario-trustees, mark you-may be empowered to build a bridge. 5. The governor of the state of New York has stated that he is advised by his counsel that the International company has the right to rebuild this bridge; further, as a corollary, that under the laws of the United States and the state of New York it has the right to construct such bridge and that the state of New York cannot and will not interfere with the exercise of such right.
These are the facts. I direct attention to one other relative fact, which we cannot overlook whether we would or not, namely, that the deputy minister of justice, speaking for the Department of Justice, has said that it is not competent for this parliament to authorize the crown in the right of the province to construct this bridge. He went further;

Niagara Falls Bridge
he said that we could not authorize a commission to do it, because they would be the agents of the crown in the right of the province. We now have a statement made by the minister himself that not only are these men the agents of the crown; worse than that, they are trustees for the crown. Here are his words-


Alexander MacGillivray Young: It is not in the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I am reading the language of the letter produced by the Minister of Transport.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: It does not state that in the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point exactly.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think my right hon. friend will admit that trustees can do certain things which the direct party is not capable of doing. Is that not the effect of this assumption of trusteeship?


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I can say is that the opinion of the deputy minister of justice with respect to that phase of the matter is in certain terms. I do not want to mislead anyone. The hon. member for Saskatoon is not a lawyer, but let him just read the way in which this is put by the deputy minister of justice:
I am of opinion that it is not competent to parliament to authorize the crown in the right of the province to build the bridge in question, and that as the minister of highways and the Niagara parks commission are agents of the crown in the right of the province parliament is equally incompetent to vest the necessary powers in them or either of them.
Now I turn to Mr. McQuesten's letter, in which he says these people have already assigned any interest they have to the crown. He says he has not seen the assignment, but that is his understanding, and he uses these words:
In any event they are acting as trustees for the province.
Then, if the deputy minister's opinion is sound-and we must be bound by it-parliament is incompetent to vest the necessary powers either in the commission or in anyone else as an agent of the crown. If that is so- and those are his words, not mine-then it follows that parliament is incompetent to vest in these trustees the power which they seek, they having disclosed the fact that they are trustees.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not think my right hon. friend would suggest that it is outside the capacity of trustees to act in a way in which the principal could not act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to that 1 can only say that I am expressing no opinion about any of these matters; I am merely taking the documents which speak for themselves. I did not prepare these documents, but listen to the language used by the deputy minister of justice:
. . . and that as the minister of highways and the Niagara parks commission are agents of the crown in the right of the province parliament is equally incompetent to vest the necessary powers in them or either of them.
That being so, I submit with all deference that this is equally true with respect to those who, as Mr. McQuesten says, are trustees for the province, to which they have assigned their rights. It therefore follows that the crown in the right of the province is acting in this matter in a manner in which Mr. Edwards says they cannot act. That is the story at the present moment.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I submit that this bill should not be proceeded with further at this session; that it should be proceeded with in the proper course, namely, when the authorities in the United States have dealt with the vested interests which have arisen, and given them that consideration which, under the constitution of the United States, is required to be given to them. Then this parliament could deal with the matter. It is quite clear that the legislature of the state of New York has risen, as I pointed out, and will not meet again this year for the purpose of dealing with these matters. That being so, I put to you, Mr. Chairman, the question as to whether or not we are doing what would be called a reasonable thing if we proceeded with this legislation before such time as that question, which has been raised by the minister of highways of Ontario, has been dealt with for the purpose, in the first place, of ensuring the active cooperation of the state of New York, and in the second place, of ensuring that what we do has not the effect of endeavouring to destroy a vested right which, mark you, is no longer a vested right in that country only.
That is the last point I desire to make, and I direct the attention of my learned and hon. friend to this fact. The vested right is no longer a vested right in the United States only. It is a vested right that attaches to a company which owns property on both sides of an international stream. It is a vested right in the United States which cannot be taken away by any act of the legislature or of congress, except by consent of the parties.
Niagara Falls Bridge


Norman Alexander McLarty: Does my right hon. friend suggest that there is anything in this act taking away any vested right from any other company?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly say there is, because, first of all, there is the bridge act of the province of Ontario.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is not in this act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but that is one thing. Second, there is the fact that you cannot maintain two bridges at that point. No one knows that better than the gentlemen who have put the project forward. It is impossible to maintain two bridges within six hundred feet of one another.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: It would not be financially
a good thing to do, but it could actually exist.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am told that even that is questionable, whether any engineer could be found on this continent who would locate these two bridges within six hundred feet of one another. I do not know personally. I express no opinion upon the fact, but that is the view which has been expressed. But the effect is, undoubtedly, to endeavour to destroy the vested rights of people not in this country. I am sure that there is no member of my profession who does not realize that the vested right, which was once a right in the United States only, is now a vested right in Canada as well, because we have become a party to the merging of two companies into one. The rights on both the United States end and the Canadian end are now united and vested in one corporation, and the vested right is the right of the International Railway Company which owned the land and bridge and cannot be taken from them without adequate arrangements.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask if the
right hon. gentleman implies that a vested right may take the form of a perpetual monopoly? I cannot understand that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said to the committee
that this is a complex and technical question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, Mr. Chairman-[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I shall answer the
question directly, if the hon. member will permit.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
submit that those of us who are not "legal gentlemen" are nevertheless members of this House of Commons, and while it is a common practice for those who have had legal training to look down on other members not so

qualified, I do submit I have a perfect right to ask a question, and expect that it be replied to in terms which can be understood by noillegal members of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I need hardly say I am
wholly in accord with the hon. member; and had he possessed his soul with that Job-like patience for which he is noted, there would have been no difficulty at all in having received an answer long ere this.
A vested right is a right which continues until it is disposed of by due process of law. I wish to make that clear. The constitution of the United States is explicit with respect to the point. A vested right may be lost by expropriation, for instance. That is one way in which it may be lost. Then, it might be lost by agreement between the parties; that is the usual method by which it is disposed of. I am pointing out that in this case a vested right in the United States is a right which, by action of this parliament, extends beyond the boundary of the United States. That is, our parliament has become a party to the union of rights that enabled the bridge to be built on the Canadian side, with the power exercised in the state of New York that had to do with its commencement in that state. Under the law of the state of New York they cannot, if they will, according to counsel's opinion-and in my judgment that is the law, but that does not add to the weight of it- interfere with the constitutional rights of those who possess vested rights. The state may take it. That right is called the power of eminent domain in some countries, the power of expropriation in others. The arrangement and agreement for compensation would dispose of vested rights satisfactorily. The power of expropriation is a power which I believe has been exercised by Ontario on more than one occasion.
It is for these reasons I have ventured to bring these salient facts to the attention of the committee, after a great deal of difficulty in getting the papers together. I have felt that where you have an existing enterprise that has built a bridge across an international stream, with the legislative aid of this parliament, and a willingness on the part of that company to rebuild and reconstruct, and then have a statement by the responsible minister in the province that the purpose is to do so and so, which means the destruction of a bridge from the standpoint of its value as a bridge, we should not proceed until such time as the original creating authority, namely the state of New York, has again acted. I understand they say it is not necessary that there should be any action taken for the purpose of

Niagara Falls Bridge
rebuilding it; that the company have a right anyway in the state of New York to rebuild it.
Having regard further to the fact that Mr. Edwards has said that this is within our exclusive jurisdiction, I say we should not act, especially in view of the fact that nobody is being injured and nothing is being lost. Not a dollar is being lost, for the simple reason that the legislature of the state of New York has declined to pass the necessary legislation, which was different from ours. And until such time as that legislature reconvenes, no such action will be taken. Therefore, by delaying the action until the next session of *he New York legislature, we shall not have imposed upon the nation-and mark you, this is a case where the nation is now concerned, as Mr. Edwards has said, not the province of Ontario -a difficulty arising out of a private venture which should not be brought to the attention of the federal power until such time as the neighbouring power have said that some arrangement has been made with respect to the bridge which has gone out, or that they have found some method, which is convenient to all parties concerned, of dealing with the situation.
Mr. \OUNG:	Mr. Chairman, I was a
member of the committee before which this bill came. I was very much interested in it because I took the view that if the international bridge was going from the province of Ontario to the United States, and Ontario wished to become responsible for building one-half of the bridge, there should be no question at all that the province should have the right of way over any private concern. I brought that matter to the attention of the committee, and as has been stated over and over again, as a result of my urging the matter was called to the attention of the deputy minister of justice, and his opinion was sought. That opinion was received. I am very glad to-night the leader of the opposition has seen fit, himself, to quote that opinion as an authority that nothing further should be done. But I am obliged to say that when I made that suggestion the other night with respect to the opinion of the deputy minister the leader of the opposition was not quite so sure, on that particular occasion, as to the worth of the opinion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because we had not the opinion before us.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: It was not any different
from what I stated it to be. There was an old bridge at the site of the bridge which has recently gone into the river. I am informed that; authority had to be sought in
the United States, as well as in Canada, for the former bridge. For some reason or another it was destroyed. I am further informed that a similar type of legislation had to be sought for the bridge which has recently fallen into the river.
We have no opinion in the house to-night to say what the governor of New York actually did. All we have is a letter from some senator which states that the governor of New York said something. Right there I am of the opinion that it is a violation of the rules of the house to quote that opinion in order to influence or attempt to influence the vote of this chamber.
But the salient point is that the leader of the opposition and every hon. member opposite who spoke has been endeavouring to seek


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not look this way.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I was referring to the Conservative members. They have been endeavouring to uphold the rights of some United States concern. There is no Canadian connected, as I understand the matter.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Chairman, is the
hon. member including me in upholding anybody's rights? I am trying to uphold the rights of Canada.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Hon. members opposite who have spoken have been endeavouring to see that this bill would not pass. They have endeavoured to lay before members of the house the information that there was a vested right or a vested interest in the United States, and that that vested interest, which has existed for forty years, must be maintained over there. The province of Ontario owns all the roads in Ontario, and it now wishes to build this bridge across that river to connect the roads of Ontario with the roads on the other side. We have this wonderful spectacle of Conservative members from Ontario doing their 'best to see that their own province cannot build a bridge which it desires to build. I should hate to be in their shoes when they go back to Ontario to ask the people for support in the next election. I think I know what the people will say should they find that those hon. members have been successful in blocking this bill.
I ask the committee to look at the other side of the matter. Of all the persons who might come here to ask for the right to build a bridge, who would be the most logical? The province of Ontario. Why does not, the province of Ontario ask directly for this
Niagara Falls Bridge

right? Apparently it cannot. Certain individuals are named in the bill, and these individuals have shown their good faith and intentions by giving an assignment to the province of Ontario or the Niagara parks commission. If that is illegal, as has been inferred by the leader of the opposition, then it would have no effect. So far as this bill is concerned, there is no assignment in its provisions. According to the best legal advice at our disposal, this bill could not be drafted in any other form.
This committee has listened to objections to the province of Ontario constructing a bridge to connect its roadway system with the other side of the river. After all the debate we have had, I think this bill should be allowed to pass in order that the province of Ontario, in so far as it has the legal power, may be enabled to construct this bridge.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I understand the situation, we are now considering section 10.


Frederick George Sanderson: Section 9.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We have not made as
much progress as I thought. This section reads as follows:
Subject to the provisions of section eight as to location, the said bridge shall be constructed and located under, and be subject to, such regulations as the governor in council prescribes, and to such end the company shall submit to the governor in council for examination and approval, a design and drawing of the bridge, and a map of the location, showing the location of other bridges, and shall furnish such other information as is required for a full and satisfactory understanding of the subject; and until the said plans and location are approved by the governor in council, the bridge shall not be built or commenced, and if any change is made in the plans of the said bridge during its construction, such change shall be subject to the approval of the governor in council, and shall not be made or commenced until it is so approved.
I submit that that brings up the whole question of the purpose and reason for this undertaking. The preamble of the bill is very interesting.


An hon. MEMBER:: Dispense.


An hon. MEMBER:: Only a few minutes to nine o'clock.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I could read this in half the time taken up in interruptions by hon. members.
The preamble reads:
Whereas a petition has been presented praying that the persons hereinafter mentioned may be constituted a corporation for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and operating a bridge across the Niagara river from a point between a point north of the present upper

steel arch bridge and the north limit of Bender street in the city of Niagara Falls, in the county of Welland, in the province of Ontario, to a point in the city of Niagara Falls in the state of New York, one of the United States of America, north of the present upper steel arch bridge, for passage of pedestrians, vehicles, carriages, electric cars, street cars and other like purposes across the Niagara river and to charge a toll: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-
I submit that that preamble is misleading. It suggests that this is an entirely new undertaking, whereas, as is known to every hon. member of this committee, the fact is that until quite recently there existed in this immediate locality a first-class bridge which was handling traffic between these two points. That bridge was destroyed by an act of God during the present year. That is something which should be taken into consideration. The company that owned this bridge maintained it efficiently. Parliament is said to be the highest court in the realm and, as has been pointed out already, the effect of this bill is to prevent the rebuilding of a bridge by the company which owned the one that was destroyed-


Alexander MacGillivray Young: In what way?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -and which had a vested right. I said it practically prevents it, because if this bridge is built there would be no need for the other one. The effect of the construction of this bridge would be to destroy the investment of the company.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Is my hon. friend aware
that it became abundantly clear in the committee that not only had this bridge been paid for, but that for forty years it had paid handsome dividends? Surely there is nothing more coming to them. Is it not time that the province of Ontario should be given the right to build a bridge?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is an absolutely
irrelevant and unsound statement. It does not in any way touch the point which I am raising. No matter whether the investment has been profitable or unprofitable in the past, there is a vested right. The fact that great dividends have been earned is no justification for ruthlessly destroying the investment without compensation and without negotiation. The fact that the investment has been profitable has nothing to do with the legal rights, has nothing to do with the inherent justice of the case.
Section stands.
Progress reported.

Relief and Agricultural Distress



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 105, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress-Mr. Rogers-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 3-Undertaking of measures.
Richard Bedford Bennett: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was reading a portion of a resolution that had been adopted by the greater Vancouver youth council with respect to slum clearance in that city. I had concluded reading the second recital of the resolution. The third recital proceeds:
And whereas:-This conference, here assembled, representing a large cross-section of public opinion is unanimously agreed that there can be no solution to the problem without government intervention.
And whereas:-A large scale economically sound housing program under government restriction and supervision would be the means of stimulating the building construction trade and providing a substantial increase in employment.
Therefore be it resolved: that the federal parliament now assembled be urged to give this matter immediate consideration and to enact legislation necessary to provide adequate housing for people with low incomes.
And further be it resolved: that this resolution be forwarded to all B.C. representatives in the federal house and the responsible authorities at Ottawa.
I read that merely for the purpose of directing attention to the fact that throughout Canada there is a widespread impression that if we embarked on a large low priced housing scheme we would do something for the solution of the problem of unemployment. It is a resolution similar in terms to that which has been passed in most of the great cities of the country, in somewhat different terms, according to the city in which it was passed or the group which sponsored it.
But there is another view also to which attention might be directed; and as that view has not been presented to the committee, I thought it might be well for me to do so, as indicating that the dearth of houses in some of our cities is said to be because of the change of style with respect to our houses. The following letter received by me from British Columbia directs attention to this: lie wish to very strongly protest against further government competition in home building, especially low rental ideas.
It is not fair to penalize one class for the benefit of others.
Hundreds of people have worked very hard and saved their money, investing it in homes 51952-160
and rental property so that they and their families would not become public charges in ill health and old age.
It used to be work and save. Now it is do little and spend. This is gradually becoming a nation of mendicants. Poverty used to be a disgrace and people hid it*-now it seems to be something to brag about.
Certain interests-some selfishly, others thoughtlessly-are fostering ideas of a housing shortage without regard to the eventual outcome. Regardless of what they report there is no acute shortage. One has only to pick up the papers to see plenty of houses for sale and for rent all the way across the dominion. Rentals are greatly reduced, it is becoming increasingly harder to get renters and they are demanding more and more.
These people who have built up the country and are its very backbone built at high prices and have had to spend thousands of dollars in increasingly higher taxes and maintenance (labour and material) all through these trying times. Now they are to be sacrificed in order that the great lending companies can get a safe outlet for their hoarded millions, and with government backing; and that the lower class might be properly housed-a class as a whole who has contributed very little in actual dollars to the upkeep of the country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which part of British Columbia is this from?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It came from Ladner. As a 'matter of fact, I may say to the hon. gentleman, I think it represents the views of a group.
The trust companies are violating their trusts there are many rental properties left on their care for widows and orphans and the growing old Now these very tenants are being enticed to build as per propaganda and solicitations- [DOT]Why are you paying for a house which you vmII ne\er own? \ou are-if you live in a rented house! And maybe you rent because you think that you cannot afford to either buy or build a house. But have you ever figured out just how amazingly your rent is mounting up over a period of years?" Etc., etc., but they forget to state that there is very little profit and that these properties have kept up the structure of the country.
. 1 be spirit of fear has entered private initiative, they are trying to unload and refuse to further invest. You surely must realize that private enterprise is what actually makes a healthy prosperous country.
If all this subsidizing, etc., actually and permanently helped employment, one could not kick so much but they are merely stop gaps. They have not actually helped in England or France or the United States as facts and figures show. "The French government has been prodigal in its expenditures. Legislation galore has been enacted to take money from those who had accumulated savings and to hand it over to those who had not saved. 'Redistribution of wealth' is a fine-sounding phrase. It appeals strongly to those President Roosevelt calls the 'under-privileged.' But, carried far enough, such a policy inevitably ends in disaster.



Reliej and Agricultural Distress
Governments earn nothing. They can only rob Peter to pay Paul. And unless restraint is exercised, the day comes when the plundering process becomes no longer possible.''
Let me quote from a letter from a New Yorker who is very well informed and who has been in business there for years. I think that it very adequately gives the facts.
Really I am reading this part of the communication because of that quotation, and it is an amazing quotation: I have not before seen it:
"You mentioned housing shortage, but there just isn't any such thing. The truth of the matter is that style trends in houses are partly responsible for a peculiar situation. New York anyway is overstocked with old-fashioned houses and apartments. No one wants to buy an old-fashioned type of house, without the latest in tiled bathrooms, modernistic kitchen and oil or gas heating plant. The same is true with apartments. Large ones of five, six or seven rooms are a drug on the market, and all the older type are large. Consequently people keep vacating the houses, and in many cases being unable to sell them, board them up, and the older apartment houses that aren't salable are being boarded up. Why isn't there a wholesale pulling down of old houses and putting up what people want, you will say. Because those who own the old property want to get something out of it-they want to sell it for whatever cash they can get and apparently there is no disposition on the part of those who lend to do so until they unload their holdings. Families are living with their relatives in increasing numbers because jobs are so difficult to get that a young man can't think of getting married and going out and buying a house. It is true that if all the young people living with relatives were to go out and want to buy a house, there would be a housing shortage. But the trouble is they haven't got the money and in the second place they would be afraid to buy a house right now if they did have it. So in New York at least there is a great deal more property idle than I have ever seen, including business property. In downtown New York, whole buildings are vacant and the trend is toward the merger of two firms because neither is making money, with the consolidation of both in one office, leaving the other vacant. Uptown there is plenty of office space available too. It is a standing joke about the inability of the Empire State building to rent most of its space."
There are plenty of public works crying to be done-roads for tourist traffic and our own travelling public. Etc., etc. Give people jobs and food and clothing and housing will take care of themselves.	_ _
You are the opposition, of course, but politics must be forgotten when it comes to cancers starting to eat at the very vitals of our country. If the great middle class is forced to give up, what then?
I have read that so that the minister may-see there is at least something in the point that styles in houses and sizes of houses have had to do with the situation in the larger
cities. In the smaller towns and communities that is not so, but I noticed a few days ago in New York that large numbers of houses were marked "for sale."


Charles Avery Dunning: That condition is nowhere more apparent than in London, England.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the Minister of
Finance says, that condition is nowhere more apparent than in London, England. I point it out only because it indicates that there may be two sides to what seems to be a one-sided question. I confess that until such time as my mind had been set thinking along the line indicated by that communication, I would have wholly agreed with the view that there was room for large numbers of low priced buildings. But after reading that communication and setting my mind to think about some of the conditions to which my attention had been directed, I did not find it difficult to realize that there are two sides to this question.
With respect to highways, I think we should bear in mind that tourist trade in this country has become one of the most important if not our most important medium of securing moneys for the stabilization of our exchange. Last year, according to the figures presented to us, our tourist traffic amounted to more than our exports of gold. Every time a tourist tears off a ten dollar express order on New York, this means that a contribution of ten dollars has been made towards the stabilization of exchange, and every dollar that we spend which results in large tourist expenditures in this country does much not only to stabilize exchange but to give value to our dollars in other parts of the world as well as in the great republic to the south. But may I direct attention to the fact, referred to this afternoon, that in most places our roads are in an unsatisfactory condition. I know that steps have been taken to improve the situation at the entrances to our parks, and yet-I do not want to anticipate a discussion which must take place later-the truth is, because of the condition of our roads, that hundreds of people turned back last year at filling stations rather than come into Canada. They were told that the dust was such a nuisance that it would be inadvisable for them to go into our country, and they turned back and went somewhere else. I know that was so in some parts of our western country, and I believe that in one section of the maritime provinces the same was true, although to some extent it is being remedied.
With respect to the objection which was raised yesterday that we should not spend money upon provincial roads, I think there

Belief and Agricultural Distress.
was some misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member for Cariboo, or he would not have made the statement, because it was the settled policy of all governments since 1930 to assist the provinces in the construction of these very roads. The hard surfacing, for instance, of the road west of Winnipeg, for the purpose of enabling traffic to get to the parks without travelling through dust areas, was assisted by the federal government Right here I should like to make this observation with respect to the road between Rio Grande and Hansard. I had not known yesterday that the matter would come up in the committee and I had not the papers with me, but on looking it up I find the position to be this. There was no survey of this road. The minister asked me a question, as did the hon. member for Cariboo, and I indicated that I had no memory of a survey. I looked the matter up and there was no survey of the proposed road in this direction, but this is the position. What is known as the Northern Alberta Railways extend into the north country until they reach well up past Sexsmith and other points, Grande Prairie and various other small stations; and it was and is still believed, that from Rio Grande a road of 130 miles would take the settler down to Hansard without crossing the Fraser river but reaching that station on the Canadian National on the north side of the Fraser river, and thus he would be able to find an outlet to the coast with as little inconvenience as possible. I cannot think that the hon. member for Cariboo misunderstood me, for I would be the last man in the world to suggest that such a highway would be a solution of the transportation difficulties of that country. All it would do would be to provide a main highway from a point connecting with the Northern Alberta Railways at Rio Grande, which is not on the railway itself, but is a nearby station on the Northern Alberta Railways. When I say "nearby,' it is not as much as fifty miles; according to the figures I have it is under thirty, though possibly distances are measured in different ways in western Canada. At any rate, it is within reasonable distance of the Northern Alberta Railways. And the only point in the construction of the highway would be that it would travel west and south so as to connect with the Canadian National at Hansard station on the north side of the Fraser river. The communities having their small highways, not very good ones, would be able from the north to move south and connect with this highway, thus getting access to the coast.
That was the story which was put up by the settlers who desired this temporary solution of their difficulties. The hon. member for 51952-1604
Cariboo is quite right when he suggests that it would not offer a permanent solution of the transportation difficulty in the Peace River district. It would not, but it would be helpful in enabling the people of that area to find access to the coast through connection with the Canadian National railway at Hansard some 130 miles distant from Rio Grande. The hon. member for Cariboo overlooked one fact. Rio Grande is in Alberta and Hansard in British Columbia, and there has never been any question about our assisting interprovincial roads, because that has been done usually by the dominion itself with the cooperation of the two provinces for the purpose of providing what might be known as pioneer settlers' roads. That is all it would be in any event, and it would take the place of a railway for a little while at least, and enable these people to reach their markets through the Canadian National at Hansard without being driven back as they now are to Edmonton and the prairie country. In other words, they have no close rail connection that enables them to get out to the Pacific. As it stands now, that block of settlers who are settled north and east of Rio Grande have to find their way out on the Northern Alberta Railways to Edmonton instead of to the coast, which is nearer and through to which, they cannot hope under present economic conditions to secure a railway. I lend what support my voice can give to their request that they be given some little assistance for the purpose of enabling that road to be built as a joint enterprise on the part of three governments for the purpose of enabling them to get to the coast.
The other suggestions that have been made, it seems to me, resolve themselves into answering the difficulty to which attention was directed yesterday and to which my colleague beside me referred at length this afternoon.
I was called out of the chamber and did not hear the whole of his address, but it is clear that last year we had the appropriations before us and then the legislation at the same or at about the same time. Now we do not know what the appropriations are, and until such time as the appropriations are voted by this parliament the minister cannot do anything. This legislation does not enable him to do anything; it must be done under the appropriation. This only indicates that an appropriation is to be made and authorizes him to do certain things; but those certain things can be done only if he has the money, and he cannot get the money until the supplementary estimates are passed. That is the sequence of the movement of legislation,

Relief and Agricultural Distress
and as I said yesterday, I think we should have had before us, if it were possible, some idea of these appropriations, so that we might link appropriations and authority together and thus understand something of the picture.
It is not seemly that we should find the press and the populace engaging in guessing contests as to whether or not the government proposes to expend thirty or forty millions in a given way, when we know that until the appropriation is brought in they cannot spend a single sou. The minister at the present time has no authority to make payments of any kind because the appropriation of 1938 lapsed on March 31, and a new appropriation has not been made. Until such time as it is made, he has no financial authority to make payments, and so far as this bill is concerned it confers upon him only the right to do something with money when it is voted. But until such time as it is, this legislation is a dead letter and serves no useful purpose at all. It is therefore, I submit, important that we should have our appropriation measure before us at the earliest possible moment. I think it would have served to expedite the passage of this measure.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I should like to refer briefly to a number of points raised by the leader of the opposition, both before and after six o'clock. He made a number of statements before six o'clock, some of which I suggest that he himself will not regard with great satisfaction when he reads the report of what he said. The leader of the opposition spoke in somewhat contemptuous terms of what he described as the "academic mind."
I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that it is perhaps some vindication of the academic mind that since coming to this house I have never indulged in the kind of vicious partisan attacks of which he has been guilty on more than one occasion during the present session. I also say to him, and he will confirm it, that not since coming to this house have I ever raised the unemployment question in a manner which would emphasize its political aspects.
He has also, referred on more than one occasion to what he described as the scandal of patronage in the constituency of Kingston. I am going to speak of this matter moderately but in very definite terms. Two types of employment have been offered in the constituency of Kingston. On the one hand there have been temporary vacancies in the ordinary departmental services operating within that constituency. As a minister of the crown I have left the management of my constituency pretty largely in the hands of my local executive. In that respect I

believe I have not departed from a practice which has been followed in other years. I am not hypocritical enough to suggest that with respect to these temporary appointments, not under the control of the civil service commission, the executive have not nominated, and I in certain cases have not recommended, supporters of the present administration. The other type of work afforded in the constituency of Kingston has been under joint works programs with the provinces, to which my right hon. friend referred the other day. One type of work has been the restoration of Fort Henry in the neighbouring constituency of Frontenac-Addington. That work is done under agreement with the provincial government and in conjunction with that government, the dominion government contributing fifty per cent of the cost of that work. In the agreement there is a provision that in the employment so afforded there shall be no discrimination because of race, religion or political affiliation. I stated the other day, and I repeat now, that as far as that type of work is concerned I have given explicit instructions that this provision shall be observed and carried out. If it has not been carried out, I wish it to be distinctly understood that any departure from it has not been with my connivance, approval or consent. My right hon. friend has not hesitated from time to time to make these indefinite and reckless charges, regardless of the effect they may have upon the reputation of individual members of this,house. I hope he will accept what I have said as a statement of my position in relation to the employment afforded in the constituency of Kingston. I assure him that whenever I have had any complaint of any kind I have seen that such complaint was properly investigated, and I shall do so as long as I hold my present position as Minister of Labour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the sale of the equipment of camp 42?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have no present knowledge of the sale of camp 42.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of the horses and equipment?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As far as I am aware that was done through the Department of National Defence. I have no present knowledge of how the disposal operations were carried out. As far as the huts are concerned, I do recall that a number of organizations engaged in welfare work both in Kingston and in neighbouring constituencies applied for those huts, and they were given to those various organizations at a nominal price. I am speaking now from memory, because, as I say, these

Relief and Agricultural Distress
operations were conducted through the Department of National Defence which had charge of the camp.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had reference not to the huts, but to the equipment in the storehouse.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have told my right hon. friend that as far as I am aware that particular operation was conducted by the Department of National Defence. I suggest it is high time, in the interest of this house and our institutions of government, that these vague and indefinite charges cease to be made. I have no hesitation whatever in making that statement, because it is well known to hon. members that this is not the first time the leader of the opposition, upon the basis, I assume, of certain information which has come to his hands-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of returns made to
orders of this house.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -has made these charges without sufficient grounds. I am sorry to have had to raise this point. I fully understand ^ that one should not overemphasize anything of a personal nature in a debate of this kind. I have no desire to do so, but the committee will confirm me when I say that I was not responsible for raising this question. It was raised on two occasions by the leader of the opposition. I repeat that if there has been any departure from the clause in the agreements regarding employment on relief works, it has not been done with my connivance or approval or consent.
I wish to touch very briefly on some other points raised by the leader of the opposition. He referred before six o'clock to the matter of expansion of trade as being of little importance in relation to any permanent solution of unemployment, as I understood him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what he said.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If I misunderstood the
right hon. gentleman I am sure he will correct me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said. The hon. gentleman knows what I said.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps the leader of the opposition will state what he did say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; the hon. gentleman has undertaken to state what I said.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well the leader of the
opposition stated definitely that expansion of trade was not a serious contribution to the improvement of unemployment conditions in this country. He went on to take some credit
to himself for the trade agreements concluded with Great Britain and other British dominions. I do not for a moment withhold from him a measure of credit for what he did in that direction. But he cannot have it both ways. If it was an advantage to expand trade with Great Britain and the dominions and thereby increase employment in this country, surely it is equally an advantage to expand trade in other directions and increase employment in this country. And that has been the policy of this administration from the beginning. Perhaps my right hon. friend will recall that there were other measures taken by him, which he suggested might again be applied in this dominion, which did not have the effect of expanding trade, but which he sought to apply as a remedy for unemployment; I refer to the emergency tariff of 1930. That emergency session was called ostensibly for the purpose of dealing with unemployment-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And to save this country from bankruptcy, as was known to everyone.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The more my right hon.
friend saved the country, the worse it became. There is nothing in our experience to suggest that to go back to the remedies which were tried and found wanting in 1930 is a course which we should follow at the present time.
As to the further points raised by the leader of the opposition, which were also raised by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) this afternoon, I would point out once more that the decision to bring in this bill in advance of the supplementary estimates was by no means one made with a view of depriving this committee of adequate information. But it was decided that, instead of having three sets of estimates this year, as we did last year, the special supplementary estimates and the'final supplementaries should be combined. That entailed a certain delay in the submission of the supplementary estimates. But my right hon. friend will surely agree that in its present form, even without the information with respect to parliamentary appropriations, the bill is precisely on all fours with the bills which he introduced year after year when he was in office. Even at the close of the session in those years parliament did not have the information which we propose to bring down in the supplementary estimates. Under the bills which he introduced there was no restriction whatsoever on the amount which might be expended or the direction in which those expenditures might be applied. So I suggest that there is nothing which should in any way delay the passage of the bill now before the committee. When the supplementary estimates are presented there will be full

Relief and Agricultural Distress
opportunity for criticism of them. This bill simply gives us the authority to deal with such moneys as are appropriated by parliament for the purposes set out in the supplementary estimates.


Mr. TREMBLAY (Translation):: Mr.Chairman, may I offer a few observations on the question which the house has had under consideration for the past few days. Honourable members have voiced criticisms and protests against the manner in which the moneys voted by this house have been expended in the various provinces. I may be permitted to take a few minutes to state what is being done in this regard in the province to which I have the honour to belong.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) stated from his place in this chamber that he would not allow the money voted by the House of Commons to his department for unemployment relief to be used for political purposes. I shall quote to the minister and to the house, without adding any comments of my own, cases where, in the province of Quebec, sums voted for unemployment relief have clearly been used for purely political purposes.
Last summer, I took the trouble to visit several parishes in my constituency, in order to ascertain whether the amounts granted to Quebec province were really being used for the purposes for which they had been voted. I should like to draw the attention of the house and particularly of the Minister of Labour to the manner in which the money voted by parliament was used in the parish of St. Benjamin. This parish received relief grants to which the dominion government contributed and I investigated among others, the case of a recipient of relief who had a wife and six children, several of which were old enough to help their father. One of the sons was 25 years of age; another, 23; another, 21 and another 17, all employed in lumber camps and earning wages sufficient to enable them to support themselves and to help their father. They were all living with their father in the same house. I could give the name of this man whose three eldest sons earned $780 during six months and who received at the same time unemployment relief during six months, from November to April. This man was the sole owner of his farm which, was clear of debt and equipped with rolling stock fully paid for. He had a horse, nine cows and other farm animals. His crop had consisted of 300 bushels of oats, 3,000 bales of hay, 100 bushels of potatoes and 400 pounds of maple sugar. He was therefore able to maintain his
IMr. Rogers.]
family. Moreover, he had three sons living with him who turned over to him the wages they earned in the lumber camps. In spite of that, he received unemployment relief. And I take upon myself the responsibility of stating that he received this relief solely because he was regarded by the inspector appointed by the government of the province of Quebec to supervise the distribution of unemployment relief in the parish in question as a friend of the party which is at present administering the affairs of Quebec province.
Here is a well-to-do farmer with an income sufficient to maintain his family, with three sons helping him and bringing him their wages, who receives relief allowances during six months, while another man, living in distressful circumstances, cannot obtain any relief. In the same parish, Mr. Chairman, a man with a wife and nine children, the eldest of whom is 16, has been refused relief. The provincial government inspector reported to the authorities charged with the administration of the funds voted by this parliament to Quebec province for the care of the indigent that this man has no need of unemployment relief. But see the difference! This man has only six cows-I am giving you the result of an investigation I made myself, I therefore know whereof I speak-he had harvested only 90 bushels of oats-you will recall that the other man had had a few hundred bushels-2,000 bales of hay and 50 bushels of potatoes, and he was living in a hut measuring 16 feet by 17. This family was undoubtedly in dire need. The local inspector saw all these things with his own eyes. He told me personally that he was acquainted with the situation of this farmer.
He even admitted, Mr. Chairman, that the man had a right to relief, and, after having denied him relief allowances during two months, he gave him a recommendation to that effect. However, when I went there in May, he had received nothing yet. He had a larger number of dependents than the other man, and he was destitute; and, yet, relief was denied him. Useless to say that he was not known as a supporter of the present government of the province. And that is the only reason,-no other can be seen,-why he was denied relief allowances, while such allowances were given during six months to the man who had no need of them.
I do not want to trespass on the time of the committee, but, as the minister has been good enough yesterday to ask all members to bring to his attention instances of political favouritism I was anxious to mention those few cases,

Relief and Agricultural Distress
but I may add others at a later time. I will acquaint him with what I have noticed myself in my constituency.
Mr. Chairman, as I was saying a moment ago, we hear complaints from other provinces. It would appear that in those provinces, provincial governments insist that their friends be put in charge of the administration of moneys and favours provided for the relief of the unemployed. As far as Quebec is concerned, I think no representative from that province in this chamber would contradict the following facts: For instance, the federal government contributes substantial amounts for the Trans-Canada highway project and for the construction of the Berthier-Trois Rivieres highway. I do not want to shock those on your left, Mr. Chairman, who have been objecting to political patronage in other provinces, but I want to acquaint them with the fact that for the reconstruction of that part of the Trans-Canada highway no tenders were invited. Instead, the provincial government just asked four of his staunch friends to quote prices and one of them got the contract.
It is a matter of common knowledge that a friend of the provincial government-I might ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Francceur) to confirm this, for the gentleman to whom I refer used to live in his constituency, and is now employed by the provincial government-has been entrusted with a. contract on a cost plus basis, the cost of which is partly borne by the federal government. In Carlesbourg and Beauport was not Mr. Frangois Nolin given work to do without tenders being called for, and at cost plus 10 per cent? The contractor stood no risk of losing anything.
Construction work on the Maniwaki-Senne-terre highway has been allotted to Mr. Hector Moore, without tenders being called for. Again, it is a matter of common knowledge that Mr. Moore lives in Maniwaki and that he is the brother-in-law of Mr. Auger, the member for the constituency of Gatineau in the Quebec legislative assembly. Patronage has been their sole concern. I am sorry to note that they would like to continue this same system, and I object to the further payment of moneys which, undoubtedly, are being used merely for political and patronage purposes
I could mention other instances. I need not refer to Mr. Hermann Barrette's gravel pit, for that is known all over the province of Quebec. Here we see one of Mr. Barrette's organizers buying for $400 something which is afterwards sold for $4,000 to the government, for use in connection with work
upon public roads to the building or repairing of which the federal government contributes an important share.
If I may be permitted, I also wish to bring to the attention of the minister, the persecution suffered by needy unemployed; a few instances of which I mentioned a moment ago, a persecution arising solely from political partisanry, and, as I say, no honourable member of this house will deny it, whatever party he may support. Things have come to such a pass that one is wondering whether he should continue to give his approval to the estimates whereby the minister wants us to put money at the disposal of the Quebec provincial government for so-called relief work. The minister has generously given his adhesion to the scheme of the Committee on the employment of Youth in the Province of Quebec. Again, I wish to bring to his attention this well established fact, that in all constituencies of the province of Quebec, not a single one, I think, of those who have been recommended by government supporters in this house to the provincial employment commission which was supposed to help these young people, has received the consideration he deserved, and it is also well known that in all constituencies those who were favoured had been recommended by local organizers or by candidates who were defeated at the last provincial election, or else by members who are on friendly terms with the Quebec provincial government. If any hon. member of this house can show me a single case where a young man he recommended was favoured by the provincial authorities, I will gladly admit that there is no political partisanship in the administration of the funds voted by the house for the youth of our province.
It was my privilege to take part in several by-elections since the present government came into power; in Bonaventure-the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) as well as several other hon. members who were there, could also tell you that voters in these various counties -were told in plain terms that if they voted for the candidate of the Ottawa government their names would be struck ofi the relief lists. I will point out to the minister specific cases that will prove definitely to him that such things happened in Bonaventure and Lotbiniere as well as in other counties.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to keep the house any longer on those questions, but I wish to point out that without a closer supervision of the funds voted by this house for

Relief and Agricultural Distress
relief in Quebec, the present government of that province will be left free to employ systematic persecution against certain groups of people on relief who are not sympathetic to that government.
Mr. Chairman, since we claim to have responsible government, since we from the province of Quebec are proud to think that our forefathers fought for responsible government, I ask the minister who is presently responsible for the administration of public funds if we can retain any longer the present system and) still claim to have responsible government.


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to speak to one particular case, and no more. This afternoon the hon. member for St. Henry (Mr. Bonnier) took exception to certain remarks which had been made by the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) with respect to works which had been promised during the by-election in St. Henry. A tunnel was promised under the Lachine canal at Cote St. Paul, which is the ward that gave an absolute majority to the hon. member for St. Henry out of the four wards in his constituency. The hon. member for St. Henry inferred that as the hon. member for Mount Royal was opposed to these projects, the other hon. members on this side who represented constituencies on the island of Montreal were also opposed. As far as I understood the remarks of the hon. member for Mount Royal, he said that the tunnel in Cote St. Paul, the abolition of a number of level crossings and the completion of the terminal station in Montreal, would involve millions of dollars. Those were election promises, and the inference has been that we are opposed to any projects for the alleviation of unemployment. That is a dangerous thing to have on Hansard as we are not opposed to any works provided they can be accomplished. However, we are opposed to promises and mathematical impossibilities.
The hon. member for St. Henry is not in his seat this evening. I want to say that he is a neighbour of mine and one of the most respected citizens of Montreal. He is an alderman for the ward that gave him the majority which has permitted him to sit in this house. The three other wards in his constituency voted against him. I am for the tunnel; the hon. member for Mount Royal is for the tunnel, as is the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. White). We are for the building of the terminal and the abolition of level crossings. The inference to be drawn from the remarks

in French this afternoon by the hon. member for St. Henry is that the members from the island of Montreal who sit on this side are against these projects. We are not against them; we are for them.
Two ministers of the crown-I do not know to what extent they are responsible-have sponsored a project near my constituency and I would be silly if I said I was against it. The hon. member for St. Henry must not forget that if Dame Rumour is correct, only 840,000,000 is to be provided for the construction of public works to relieve unemployment. If the promises made by the two ministers of the crown on a memorable occasion are fulfilled, there will be nothing left for the rest of Canada. My constituency is a bulwark for the constituency of the hon. member for St. Henry, at least for that ward in his constituency which gave him the necessary majority to be a member of this house. His remarks this afternoon were not correct as the other members from the island of Montreal are sympathetic with him. The hon. member has said that if these projects are not completed, the other four members from the island of Montreal should be blamed. I want it to be on Hansard that we are for his projects just as soon as they leave the field of imagination.
The Minister of Labour who is sponsoring this bill knows that the city of Verdun has done the best it could to carry out the provisions of the agreement under which certain works were constructed. We have acted according to specifications, or according to Hoyle, so to speak. Verdun is situated on the beautiful St. Lawrence river opposite the Lachine rapids, in the most picturesque spot on the island of Montreal. For twenty-two years the international highway to New York, via the lake St. Louis bridge and Malone, has been threatened with floods. During that time the city of Verdun has paid out $555,000 from its budget to protect this highway by increasing the height of the dyke. The dyke at this place is made of clay, whereas at other places, not so vulnerable, it is made of concrete. The employment commission has laid great stress upon the importance of the tourist traffic. WTe have been doing all we can to bring in tourists. They love to come to Verdun, the same as the Minister of Labour. When he came there he was received like a prince, and I believe he was satisfied with the work that had been done for the small amount of money which was provided, fifty-fifty, provincially and federally. With due respect to the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Tremblay) I give the minister all credit for what was done.

Relief and Agricultural Distress
Nevertheless, since 1906 we have had floods in Verdun. We have spent $550,000, though it was a federal proposition, due to the harbour works, the docks, and the Victoria bridge. In the thawing season ice banked up against the bridge, creating a reservoir by which the level of the water in the early spring was increased. We have endured this flooding. We have never asked for any compensation. Perhaps I should not say that we did not ask; we bothered the life out of the Minister of Public Works between 1930 and 1935, as the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), who is now in his seat, will recollect. He went so far as to send engineers into our municipality to find out whether we were right or wrong. The reports are in the archives or the vaults of the Department of Public Works to the effect that Verdun needed a protection wall, for the protection of its population, for the protection of the city of Montreal, which was at the same level, and for the protection of Cote St. Paul, which gave a majority to the hon. member for St. Henry. We have protected them by our own finances. Now the hon. member for St. Henry comes along this afternoon and takes exception to certain words uttered by my colleague the hon. member for Mount Royal, who is not opposed to these works, but who, like the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. St. Pere), who is in his seat now, will not say where the wharves and the harbour are situate or where the cause of the danger and the threat against our city is located. They cannot say that we have opposed any of their projects; we have never done so, although the hon. member for St. Henry this afternoon indicated that we had.
I shall conclude my remarks by asking if, after all these sacrifices on the part of the city of Verdun, which has doubled its population in the last twenty years, which has a record in Canada-if I can be contradicted I shall be pleased to hear the facts-of having enlisted during the great war the largest number of men in proportion to population, which has made great sacrifices, and which can still balance its budget, our people should be punished because they have managed their affairs in a patriotic way. 'Let it be understood, Mr. Chairman, that we do not regret our sacrifices; but we say this, that the industrial centres must be taken care of, and ours is an industrial centre. We have done our best. We have controlled our population. Our population is made up fifty per cent of English from the other side of the ocean, good people, and fifty per cent French, also good people. They have been patriotic and should receive consideration. In the industrial centres, according to my experience, unemployment is worse than anywhere else. I hear of such projects as roads to be opened up from the Peace river. I hear of various reforestation schemes. But why throw our money in the bush? Why throw our money into rivers? Why expend our resources on places where the rivers can be used only with canoes to search for lost aviators? Why not take care of a population which, coming from the old country, has grown up with us, has benefited Canada and is willing to stay with us? If, as is rumoured, a sum amounting to $40,000,000 is to be spent, for heaven's sake let us spend it in places where sacrifices have been made for the upkeep of our civilization and the maintenance of our rights. I observe that the hon. member for St. Henry is on my side now.


Mr. MICHAUD:: The hon. member is for the tunnel?


Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: It is better to spend less money in a number of places, to distribute it in a thrifty way so as to satisfy everybody, than to put the whole $40,000,000 in one place to build tunnels, even if the election was a tough one to win.


Mr. MALLETTE:: Inasmuch as I am one of the members for the island of Montreal, I was glad to hear our friend the hon. member for Verdun support us in our demand for a tunnel at Cote St. Paul. That makes it about unanimous, because he said that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George favoured it, the hon. member for Mount Royal was for it; but he said, I believe, nothing about the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, he did.


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: I take it for granted that the hon. member for Verdun would not make such a statement if he were not sure of his ground. He is a friend of mine, and I have known him for some time; he does not take a chance but says what he knows to be the facts, and it is gratifying to us to know that he is supporting us in our request. During the St. Henry by-election I was one who helped our hon. friend the present member. My contribution was not very large, but it was given heartily because I believed that his cause was a good one. The hon. member for Verdun, so far as I know, did not come out at the time to oppose these expenditures, so I have no doubt about his sincerity, and I am sure that the people of Montreal, especially the Liberals, will be very glad to hear the statement which has been made to-night.
As regards the objection voiced by the hon. member for Mount Royal, inasmuch as the hon. member is not in his seat at the
Relief and Agricultural Distress

moment I shall read from the Hansard report of the debate of February 8 last. On page 276 the hon. member for Mount Royal is reported as saying:
Is there anything of political significance in the increase in the amount of money required by the present government as shown by the estimates? Do they contemplate an election? Do they contemplate fulfilling some of the rash promises they made in Victoria, St. Henry, and other parts of the country? I would ask the hon. member for St. Henry to go through the estimates carefully. If he does so he will not find in them any reference to a tunnel under the Laehine canal; he will not find any reference to the removal of railway tracks from his division of St. Henry; he will not find any reference to an appropriation to be used to fill the hole on Dorchester street; nor will he find anything that will lead him to believe that the present government is going to build a bridge from the lower St. Henry division to the section of Notre Dame de Grace.
Knowing what took place during the election, is it to be wondered at that the hon. member for St. Henry took objection to this statement, no matter in how friendly a spirit it was made? I for one, notwithstanding my friendship for the hon. member for Mount Royal, have no hesitation in supporting the hon. member for St. Henry in his contention.
It was not my intention to speak on this particular occasion, but there is one item besides my answer to my friend the hon. member for Verdun which I think should come up. If I understood this afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps), he advocated having unemployment insurance whether the provinces agreed to it or not. As I understood his remarks-he is within hearing distance and can correct me if I am wrong-I think he said the government should take about the same position as was taken with reference to the Old Age Pensions Act, namely, pass an act and then let the provinces which are interested apply it. That may have looked wise at the time; but I feel that it should not be contemplated now, because I am convinced that it would lead to trouble. If this or any other government were to pass an unemployment insurance act against the will of one or more of the provinces, and proceeded to apply it to all the provinces which were in favour of it, leaving outside those provinces which were not in favour of it, I am afraid that those provinces which were left outside would make claims upon the government for compensation. I am sure that past governments were lucky to avoid situations of that sort under the Old Age Pensions Act, and I have no doubt that if the present government were to go ahead and put into effect an unemployment insurance act and carry it out in the

manner I have explained, there would be trouble. The hon. member for Winnipeg North suggested that a referendum be taken. There is merit in that suggestion, but I am afraid that it would land us in a good deal of trouble. Just as you find that provinces are unwilling to come under a general act, it might be found that certain sections of a province, or certain provinces, might express unwillingness through the referendum, and then what would the government do?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the hon. gentleman
think that one province should hold up the rest of Canada in regard to necessary social legislation?


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: I do not think that on principle any province should oppose the rest, but if one province acted as I fear it might act, it would be entitled to compensation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Apart from the question of
compensation, does the hon. gentleman think that one province should hold up the rest of Canada in regard to necessary social legislation?


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: It seems hard, but if
you passed such a law you would be inviting trouble.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Inviting trouble from the
majority or the minority?


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: I am speaking not of
majorities or minorities but of provinces.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am speaking of the majority of the provinces. Does the hon. gentleman think it is fair that one of the provinces, I do not care which, if it did not wish to come under a general scheme, should prevent the rest of Canada from taking advantage of it? Is that what he means when he speaks of inviting trouble?


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: If such an act were
passed, notwithstanding its legality or otherwise, and some provinces did not wish to have it applied to them, they should be entitled to compensation


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would they be satisfied if
the rest of Canada wanted the legislation?


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: An hon. member says
that I am not the minister. The hon. member for Winnipeg North addressed me not as a minister but as a colleague and I am answering him as a colleague. I say that if such a law were passed and one of the provinces opposed it, that province would claim compensation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What does the hon. member mean by compensation?

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: If it were done on the basis of population; then the province claiming compensation might make its claim on the basis of population.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is a question not of principle but of money?


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: It is a question of
principle which involves money.
The leader of the opposition made reference to certain political dismissals. I know the right hon. gentleman is busy and he may not be able to listen to me. I should like to know whether a number of the letters to which he referred did not have to do with dismissals in Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those were questions
of employment.


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: Those fellows who
were dismissed were looking for employment. This afternoon the leader of the opposition referred, not unkindly, to the adulation which was showered upon the Minister of Labour in this debate, and which I am glad to say, did not come only from our partisans or satellites, as the hon. member for Mount Royal called us. The right hon. gentleman also said that in the days when he was in office there was no such kindness shown to those who were' then on the treasury benches. Perhaps there was not, and I am sorry. I can assure him that if my electors had seen fit to elect me five or six years earlier, I would have been one of the kind ones. But the fact was that there was then no reason for adulation because in the country everyone thought there was only one man in the government, and that was the Prime Minister, so that there was no need for compliments.
May I say that the electors of Jacques-Cartier are thankful to the government and to the Minister of Labour for what was carried out in the way of unemployment relief work in our constituency. We have been greatly benefited in Lachine and in other parts of the constituency. It may please my friends to my immediate left to know that in the matter of unemployment relief expenditures in my constituency I had no difficulty with the provincial administration. My secret was simple. I told my supporters, men of good will like myself, to go ahead and meet other organizations, not to look for trouble or to make trouble but to arrange things in the interests of the people of the constituency. That was the suggestion which I made to them and which they followed, and there was no trouble.' In that part of the constituency which lies in Montreal I did not have such good luck; but I hope that
with the experience gained in the last few months in Montreal, when the next works are carried out the results will be better.
The provincial government is at last going to build a highway for which I have been fighting so long in the house and outside. The construction of highways is a purely provincial matter, and I suppose I shall be told that it is not a concern of the federal government. May I point out that the construction of a road through the western part of the island of Montreal in which the constituency of Jacques-Cartier lies, will necessitate the abolition of several railway crossings. I hope that when they are abolished the government will act generously towards the electors of the constituency, who, I am sure, will be grateful.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to make but a very few observations in reply to what was stated by the Minister of Labour. In no sense did I wish to depreciate his academic training or his high record of scholarship; but where much is given, much is expected, and when he came to this house it was expected that at least his concern for democracy would be in keeping with one of his attainments. One of the curses of democracy to-day is political patronage in the manner in which it is administered in Canada at this very hour. If I made the observation that the conduct of the department indicated that the academic mind had brought nothing better to bear upon it than the untrained and unskilled mind, I but stated what is at this time the view of very many people in the country. The minister has said that he cannot personally be responsible for what takes place all over the country. I agree with what he says in that regard and on several occasions have so stated. But I would expect that when the Prime Minister of this country made the declaration he did the other evening, and when the Minister of Labour declared that he has followed those provisions of the agreements which provided that there should be no discrimination, some little effort would be made to see that this was done.
The minister selected a very bad illustration indeed. The Fort Henry work was done under contract, and the contract was let by the provincial government. It is all very well for the minister to say that he asked the provincial government that there should be no discrimination. But the contractor, the Frid Construction Company if I remember aright, had as one of its officers, according to the letterhead I have, the president of the Kingston Liberal association. And in answers to questions put upon the order paper, not

Relief and Agricultural Distress
one, two or three, but many of them, we have it indicated that men were given employment on the recommendation of that very man. Those were men who had no more claim upon employment than others unemployed. They were not selected by their names being taken out of a hat; they were not called; but this man sends a letter and on the strength of it we are told by the return filed in this house-not veiled insinuations of the leader of the opposition-that these men went down to Trenton and other places and were given their positions on the recommendation of that man.


Norman McLeod Rogers: At Trenton, does my right hon. friend say?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think Trenton was one of the places.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But this was not relief work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, then there is a distinction between the two?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Certainly there is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister made it clear that there should not be discrimination, but we will leave it that they were not all on relief work. Fort Henry was a relief undertaking in part at any rate. But the statement of the minister is wholly beside the question. What does it boot that he should say to the government of Ontario; "There must be no discrimination"? The contractor who got the job has no such condition imposed on him. His job is to do the work, and he responded, as the return made in this house indicates, to the political necessities of the situation. The same thing is true in other parts of this country. Yesterday I mentioned Long Branch, and I might mention Banff. I might go all across the continent to Victoria. I might mention work in the provinces by the sea; there is the same sort of thing there. That is what is destroying confidence.
If the minister will look at the cost of administration, he will find that, according to the return, during the last fiscal year the cost of administration went up to S225,000, excluding the $17,000,000 disbursed by the agriculture department. That percentage is nearly twice, and sometimes much more than that, the percentage expended by the preceding administration. How is that accounted for? Why is it so? Would you not think something would have been learned with respect to it? This is not the time or place to take that up at length, as it will be taken up. But if we turn to the report made, it will be found

that the cost of administration is stated in the table in the report of the dominion unemployment relief commissioner, and it shows that on a total expenditure of $17,000,000 under the 1930 net the cost of administration was $43,000; the next year, with $42,000,000 expended, the cost of administration was $85,000; the next year the cost was $67,000 on a total of $26,000,000 in round figures; the next year, $87,000 on an expenditure of $41,000,000, or about two per cent. The next year on an expenditure of $40,500,000 the administration cost was $88,800. For 1935, on an expenditure of $49,500,000, the administration cost was $140,000. The next year, 1936, administration cost $179,000 for an expenditure of $47,000,000; and this last year, despite all the talk of economy, and all that has been said as to the desirability of exercising the utmost care with respect to our expenditures, $225,000 was spent for the administration of $27,000,000; or between eight and ten per cent, compared with two per cent in days gone by. Why is that? The answer is obvious. All one has to do is to read the reports in every part of this country, not one part only. The minister says, " I assure you I had nothing to do with regard to these particular matters." " Even in Kingston," he says, " I left it to someone else." I quite agree that he cannot be expected to deal with all these matters, but there are broad questions of policy for which he must answer. There are broad questions of administration for which he must be held responsible. That is one of them: The expenditure of $225,000 for administration cost on an expenditure of $27,000,000, relatively four times as much as spent by the preceding government for the administration of expenditures under their control. To talk about blank cheques and appropriation control having regard to a cost of from eight to ten per cent on the one hand and between two and three per cent on the other-well that is the position.
I asked the minister about camp No. 42 at Barriefield. It is not a question of an insinuation; there were statements in the public press and from the public platform as to what was realized for Bain wagons, horses and other articles which were in that storehouse which was burned. The minister says they have had the return to an inquiry with respect to that affair, about which I hope we shall learn something further presently. Those are facts, not my statements; they are in the returns brought down in answer to inquiries. Remember, we are few in number, scattered ail over the vast area of this county. We have been endeavouring to ascertain some facts. It has been a slow process to get at

Relief and Agricultural Distress
them. But the facts disclose, first, increased cost of administration, nearly four times as much as the former government expended on administration. Second, did members of this administration tell the people of Canada in 1935, when asking for their support, that they would not have a commission to deal with the matter but were going to deal with it in the same way as that which they had condemned? We remember the kind of speeches made by Mr. Peter Heenan in this house and others of that type, their condemnation of the government of that time for expending moneys, the charges made of political administration, and the holy attitude taken by the opposition of that day: Let us have power, we will see to it that this is conducted in a manner which will reflect credit upon our fairness, our impartiality, our desire to serve the body politic. That is what happened.
I think I hear the present Prime Minister, standing in this very place in the house, pointing out how sad it was that in this great country there was political administration of relief moneys; how desirable it was that we should have a great commission to coordinate and cooperate the work so that the provinces, the dominion and the municipalities might work together. One was almost moved to tears, hearing the pathetic tones in which the right hon. gentleman referred to what was taking place. Suppose he had gone out and told the electors of Kingston and other places that they had no intention of doing that; that all they intended was to appoint a commission to make some investigations, and then not adopt the commission's reports. Who will say that the report of the national employment commission is the final word they had to say about it? That is what we want to know. This commission that was to administer has not administered; the commission that was to deal with these matters has not dealt with them. There has been no change in administration, except to impose an administration four times more costly than we had before. That is what we have.
Then the minister referred, to expansion of trade and tried to assume or make it appear that I and other members on this side of the house were opposed to trade expansion. The trade agreement negotiated with the United States of America came into being because of proposals which had been made under the previous government and because every step that the law required in the United States had been taken before the present government came into office. The hearings before the tariff commission; the complaints; the opportunity for representatives of industry in the United States to present their case; all
this had been done before hon. gentlemen opposite ever saw office or heard of it. Why, sir, when the minister says we are opposed to the expansion of trade, only the other day we heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), with a couple of trade agreements, say, "Well, this is no change from the practice that exists to-day or from the practice that existed before we came into office. It is the same thing; only we have signed an agreement with them now, or the British consul did it for us down in some remote section of the world." The same thing may be said with respect to other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, for example. It is true that the government varied the agreements they found when we left office, giving those two countries greater opportunities to sell their products here without any corresponding advantage to this country in those markets. It is true that there has been discussed the question of a new trade agreement with the United States which involves the motherland as well. But when the hon. gentleman says that this opposition has been opposed to the expansion of trade, he must know that the facts are entirely at variance with that statement.
I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, what we are opposed to. We are opposed to trade that renders it so easy for other countries to place their products in this land that they dispossess Canadian workmen from their jobs. That is what we are opposed to. We have lived long enough to see the Minister of Labour, who prepared a statement that has been thrust before the Rowell commission in every province in which it has sat, with the^ possible exception of Ontario-I do not know whether it has reached there or not- stand in his place and say, "Oh, do not do away with tariffs after all." And these compensating advantages, to which reference has been made, I suppose are nothing more or less than the statement made by the present leader of the opposition in the Walker theatre in Winnipeg in 1930 with respect to compensating adjustment; not compensating advantages but compensating adjustments.
Those are the facts. Trade? Of course, but trade on fair terms; trade that will not hand the Canadian market over to the stranger, to dispossess the Canadian workman of his job; trade, sir, that will do more, that will expand within our own markets, so as to provide additional employment for our own people. You may call it economic nationalism or anything you please; but there will be no solution of your unemployment problem in the cities and towns of Canada until, by

Reliej and Agricultural Distress
industrial expansion, every Canadian is afforded the opportunity to find a job in his own country. Let there be no doubt about that; whether it be an agricultural implement factory or a textile factory matters not.
When the minister talks about trade expansion, let him keep in mind one thing further. The conditions under which the emergency tariff of 1930 was passed were conditions the like of which this country had never before seen. What is more, it was the direct result of what had been done by the preceding government, following 1929, when the United States, as, the figures show, had entirely shut us out of their markets and left us the dumping place for their surplus products. We did put on an emergency tariff, and we saved this country from absolute insolvency and bankruptcy. What is more, the strongest testimony in that regard has been given not by Conservatives but by Liberals themselves, dispassionate, disinterested patriots who have looked about and seen the conditions, and who have realized that the steps which were taken, difficult though they were, had to be taken because of then existing conditions.
In connection with the sales tax we had the budget speech of the Minister of Finance a few short months before the election of 1930, cutting the sales tax in two in the face of a deficit amounting to millions of dollars, and imposing upon his successors the necessity of taking the steps they did take with respect to revenues. These are the facts with respect to that, and the sales tax has now risen to eight per cent, a figure never before reached and maintained in this country. I repeat, sir, that when the minister says those on this side of the house are opposed to the expansion of trade, he knows that is at least at variance with the record. Whatever else he may know, he can find from reading the records that his statement is at variance with the facts. What is more, the upward trend had begun long before this government took office. All one has to do is read the reports of the banks and financial institutions of the country; the upward movement had commenced and, what is more, the reduction in tariff imposts had also commenced. I sometimes wonder that any hon. member sitting on the other side of the house would have the hardihood to talk about tariffs in view of what followed after we imposed an exise tax of one per cent. That was condemned. We raised it to three per cent. I wonder if there is anybody in this chamber who read the debates or heard what was said who has forgotten the condemnation of that excise tax by the present Prime Minister. And it is
[Mr Bennett.]
still there at three per cent. We took it off Great Britain and empire products before we left office, in accordance with our promise that just as soon as economic conditions permitted we would make reductions. But that excise tax is still three per cent, sir, and the sales tax is eight per cent, two per cent higher than the highest it was under the late administration. The corporation tax is fifteen per cent. I think the income tax on individals has not been changed, but there are the facts.
I repeat that the expansion of trade is important; but the kind of trade that creates unemployment, that deprives Canadians of a limited market of only eleven million people, that makes us the dumping ground for the products of countries which deny us the opportunity of selling our goods in their markets, will not restore prosperity to this country.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: Is there trade of that kind?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It exists to-day in connection with some commodities in this country. I suggest that the hon. gentleman take the trouble just to read the trade and commerce reports for the last few months. If he will read the reports for January, February and March, he will have no difficulty in the world in finding out exactly what I mean.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the minister makes a clear distinction between relief and non-relief works. I have not in this house raised the question of appointments to casual vacancies, which right governments have exercised from time immemorial. I have made no complaint about that, and I have said in this house that I had no complaint to make in that regard.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was why I made that distinction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; that was with respect to what one might call the casual vacancies in the public service. For instance, I do not object to the Minister of Labour, if he finds it necessary to appoint a stenographer, to take some one who is friendly to his party. He has never heard me raise such a complaint But when it comes down to the question of public moneys that are to be utilized for the purpose of keeping people from being in the bread line and on relief, then I think it is clearly the duty of the government to see to it that men are not prejudiced by reason of their political belief.
If I say it has been done, I merely state what is known to me personally to be the

Relief and Agricultural Distress
case in my own community. I can speak only with respect to personal knowledge concerning some few communities. For instance, in Victoria a man came to see me. It is true he may have been telling an untruth, but my investigation indicated that it was the truth. I certainly did know in Calgary how the Banff national park was operated, a matter we shall discuss when the estimates are taken up in committee of supply. I certainly know how other western communities have been treated. I have a large volume of correspondence about the matter which at the proper time will be made available. Whether or not I have been misinformed is another question altogether. But the statements have been made, and that at least I believed them to be warranted I believe goes without saying. I do not for a moment suggest that the minister can personally oversee all these matters, but I do say that a strong minister can see that it does not happen. All you have to do is to have it clearly understood by your officials that they will suffer the penalty of disobedience if they fail to carry out your orders.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is it fair to ask my right hon. friend if that did not happen under his administration? Would he be prepared to say that camps 42 and 37 in Frontenac-Addington were conducted along the lines he has suggested?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a fair and proper question. I say to the minister at once that I believe there was an effort on the part of some people to use political means with respect to those matters. I know that at Calgary, where they were carrying on an undertaking in connection with the Currie barracks, I received a letter the other day from a man who is now no longer there, giving his experience as to the way in which men were taken on. The names were put in a hat and drawn out, regardless of what their political faith may have been, under the direction of the mayor. He said that when last spring he went up to try to get employment, it was no longer possible to get it unless you had a letter from a man called Hyde, who was my opponent in the recent election, or from Joe Shaw, who ran in Calgary East. He said, " I object to that. And, what is more, I have a solemn declaration I took with respect to some of these matters, because I felt they might be questioned."
What is true there is true with respect to some other sections of the country, because I have made inquiries in the same way. The minister is quite right when he says that in all parties at all times there are those who
will endeavour to do the very thing about which I complain. But the Prime Minister the other day declared his opposition to that. Frankly, I believe that if one takes sufficient time and makes it clearly understood to his officials what he intends to be the result of disobedience, he can accomplish his purpose. I say that to the minister.
I certainly do not expect the minister to run around and look at every John Smith and Peter Jones who may be employed, in order to ascertain whether or not he had a card or did not have a card, or whether he did or did not belong to this or that association. I believe the minister will credit me with not expecting him to do that. But I do say only one thing, something to which I had reference this afternoon-and I still stick to it-that it is one of the dangers which threatens this very democracy about which, in the language of one of our former members in another place, we talk a good deal about but which we are only bringing nearer to its own end by giving our approval to conditions such as these.
If you have a large part of the population who feel, as many of them do, that this is an unfair exercise of power, you create a condition which has an extremely injurious effect upon your institution. We are living in times which are very much different from the buoyant days of long ago. When I first came to this House of Commons in 1911, conditions were entirely different. I remained in it until 1917. when I was not again a candidate. I recall distinctly the circumstances under which, when war came, there had to be an entire change. It was no longer a question of war effort being limited to just one class of people. An effort made in that direction certainly brought about most difficult and dangerous consequences.
We are now fighting a greater war in one sense than we have ever been engaged in. It is a war against unemployment; it is a war against poverty; it is a war against conditions the like of which, despite our richness as a new country, we have never known before. I could not help thinking, as I am sure the minister must have been thinking this afternoon and this evening, of the promise made in Montreal by a minister of the crown when he said he spoke for the government, and when he gave a promise which is the exact negation of the present policy of the government. He said that the government would deal with the municipalities, if need be, despite what might be done by provincial and other organizations. That cannot but be injurious to the body politic. The question of promised public works projects stood in the same position.

Relief and Agricultural Distress
I suppose no hon. member has a wider academic knowledge of the historic side and setting of this situation than has the Minister of Labour. From what I know of his attainments I believe that is so. He must know that even with our limited knowledge, we know we are living under conditions which are tremendously different from any we have ever had before. The other day I was reading of what happened in this country in 1875. In that year there was a bread riot in Montreal. Alexander Mackenzie wrote a letter trying to still the agitation which existed regarding public works and matters of that kind, and saying that an engineer was looking into the situation. This happened, although a few months before Lord Dufferin had told the Canada Club in London that conditions were excellent. That was the condition in 1875. It was not anything approximating present conditions.
If I might be pardoned for saying so to the minister, I am greatly concerned about present conditions in this country. I am concerned because of the disharmony among the provinces. One finds it manifested in the briefs that have been presented to a commission which never should have existed, which has brought out differences on a scale never before known-a scale not expected- and never before manifested. We have here to-day a great and rich province making complaints about its contribution to the exchequer-and seriously, mark you. This is not as though it was some kind of spasmodic expression of opinion in a newspaper. It is a solemn and serious declaration by the first minister of the province, and by his responsible officials, in the greatest and most populous of our provinces. We have manifestations of disharmony and disunion in public statements in the other provinces.
It was that sort of thing which the present Prime Minister, when leader of the opposition, pointed out he desired to meet by appointing a commission for the purpose of dealing with this vast question of unemployment and relief. I was opposed to it because I felt we could not get a federal commission which would deal with it adequately. I believed we might be able to bring about through the provinces and the dominion a condition which would ensure some measure of harmony. Despite all that may be said, during a period of four or five years we brought the provinces together here year after year. The first suggestion of direct relief in Canada came from a representative of one of the two largest provinces. That is strange, but it is the fact. They felt that conditions were such that it had to be done and thev nressed

that it should be done. We said that we could not undertake this ourselves and we made them grants in aid. That was not the first or second year, as the minister will remember from the records. I realize, and I have never failed to realize; the late government realized that this was a very serious matter; that we were embarking on something which we believed would not last long. We said it was only a palliative. We believed that the upward trend would overtake the conditions which existed and we acted accordingly.
The minister knows that the improvement went up and up and up, and to-day there is a recession which was brought about in this country largely through what one might call the sympathetic feeling that has pervaded the whole world by reason of conditions which came into existence in the great country to the south. World trade, export trade, has diminished by hundreds of millions, according to the League of Nations. That is a great deal of money. That condition has been brought about through what one might call the impelling force of fear upon the minds of men who otherwise had vision and confidence and grasp and grip and the ability to deal with problems. The reaction in this country was later in setting in. We did not get the full force of it, and I am not sure that we have yet felt the full force of it. But we began to get it in the latter part of last year. It might be said that we began to feel its increasing weight somewhere about October. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) knows how it was reflected in the volume of exports and unfortunately in an increase with respect to some of our imports.
Look at the condition with respect to the cattle industry. We have been driven to sending our cattle across the Atlantic ocean to utilize a market which we have made just a market of convenience. We issued a warning that if this market were used' only as a market of convenience, you could not expect to have the facilities to send your cattle there when you needed them just because it was convenient. They cannot be sent into the United States. With the quota against us exhausted, we are trying to find a place across the ocean to which to send our cattle.
We might mention other matters. In my opinion that state of affairs necessitated a /ery bold course being taken at once by the government. Something is needed to restore the confidence of the people, to lift them out of the thought that they have to go through a depression just because our neighbours to

Questions
the south of us have to; that this 11,000,000 of people must necessarily suffer as 125.000,000 or 130,000,000 of people are suffering. I expected some action, but it has not been taken as yet.


Mr. KIRK:: Blast ourselves into the markets.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was Disraeli who once made some observations about the volcanoes that might be found on the coasts of America; that they belched forth just occasionally, and that was all they were capable of doing.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is an old chestnut.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As he pointed out, that condition was not entirely free from danger to those who were in the immediate vicinity. I pointed out that we did expect and we do expect and that this country expects some action. It is not good enough to say that we have repeated here what we did last year. I have, looked at the preamble and I shall discuss it at the proper time. There has been a little difference in the preamble each year. The mosaic has been differently shaped; the words have been cast about in much the same way as was done in the agreement of 1937 as compared with that of 1932. It was the same in the end, but the pieces were placed a little differently. The preamble to this bill is in that position.
May I say to the hon. gentleman I think he will find that something more heroic is demanded; not heroics, something more heroic. Something^ more striking is needed, something that will do a real job to restore a measure of confidence in the minds of the people, that will induce Canadians to rely more upon themselves, that will make them understand that the government is an instrumentality and not in itself an end, that the government which is here is here to help, that it is here not for the purpose of affording, shall I say, a living for all the population, but rather to assist the population in getting a living. I think it will be found that you must embark upon bold policies that are at variance with those which the bill now under consideration expresses, and this section in particular, contemplates.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Agreements with provinces and others.
Mr. PERLEY:: The section under which the government are given the power to use a 01952-161
blank cheque has been passed, so I think it would be well for them to sleep on the matter and digest the statement they have just listened to, made by the right hon. leader of the opposition.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 4, 1938