Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, 6th April, 1938.
Sir,- I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Thursday, the 7th April, at 5.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
F. L. C. Pereira,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. LACROIX



PRESS REPORTS OP STATEMENTS MADE BEFORE THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE OF THE QUEBEC LEGISLATURE

Mr. EDOUARD LACROIX (Beauce) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege, and since it is a matter of great personal concern, I have written down

what I intend to say. Yesterday, before, the public accounts committee, at Quebec, my integrity was called in question by the prime minister of my province, as reported by several Canadian newspapers.
Taking for granted that the report published in La Presse of April 5th page 25, is an accurate statement of what occurred in the public accounts committee, which report was moreover substantially corroborated by all other Quebec newspapers, I notice the following words:
Hon. Mr. Duplessis:	Do you know Mr. Edouard Lacroix, the federal member for Beauce?
Mr. Gagnon:	xes sir.
Hon. Mr. Duplessis:	He is a lumber merchant ?
Mr. Gagnon:	Yes sir.
Hon. Mr. Duplessis: Tell the committee what you know about Mr. Lacroix's dealings.
Mr. Gagnon: Under a statute of 1910, it was forbidden to export to the United States any lumber coming from crown lands. Well, in 1924-25, Mr. Lacroix cut down several thousand feet of lumber which he shipped to the United States.
Hon. Mr. Duplessis: Where was that timber cut?
Mr. Gagnon:	On crown lands in Daaquam
township.
In reply to this first charge, I wish to state that contrary to what the prime minister of Quebec endeavoured to bring out according to -what I have quoted, never, -absolutely never has a single cord of wood from Daaquam township been exported to the United States either by myself or by any of my companies. So much with regard to that first malicious or politically sadistic falsehood.
Then the same individual further tried to show through a man in his pay that I had cut trees of a smaller size than that provided in the statute, in that same Daaquam township, and therefore that I owed $117,991 in fines to the provincial government. Well, Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a receipt from the government of the province of Quebec, showing that all the fines that I have incurred during the whole course of my life through regular development of our forests, and over which I had no personal or absolute control, amounted not to SI 17,991, as erroneously and maliciously stated by Mr. Duplessis, but actually to only $5,000.
Not only can I say and prove to the people that the offences to which I have referred were the only ones committed, but I have also before me all the proper receipts from the provincial government showing conclusively that I owe nothing, and moreover that I always paid regularly each year and in proper

Privilege-Mr. Lacroix
time the amounts which I was bound to pay under the law. And these amounts are not those which Mr. Duplessis also tried viciously to establish; I have paid $121,910.90 in excess of that, namely $244,601.98.
Mr. Speaker, if I am wearying the house with these personal details, it is not so much for me as for the sake of my wife and children of whom I may well be proud, unlike Mr. Duplessis, and to whom I shall leave the well known reputation of an honest business man, who always paid fair salaries to his employees, thus giving my family an example of Christian charity, of honesty and of morality which I would be loath to compare with that of the prime minister of the province of Quebec, whatever he may say.
In fact, if the prime minister had been prompted by that spirit of justice which must always be based on Christian charity, he would not have singled out the member for Beauce in connection with the logging operations in Daaquam township; he would have also referred to previous and later companies-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order order!
Mr.	SPEAKER:	The	hon.	member	for
Beauce-


Édouard Lacroix: -whose policy has been similar to mine, unless his purpose was to show once more his gratitude to the powerful companies for which he has so much sympathy.


Mr. WALSH:: Mr. Speaker-
Mr,	SPEAKER:	The	hon.	member	for
Mount Royal has the floor.


William Allen Walsh: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I hardly think that on a question of privilege the hon. gentleman is in order in discussing a matter which has been and is being dealt with in the legislature of one of the provinces. I understand that the rules of this house allow a member to defend himself against an attack that has been made upon him publicly in relation to the discharge of his duties as a member of the house, but I do not think that the attack he complains of has been made on the hon. member as a member of this house. I raise that point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Edward Foster: Does any other hon.
member wish to speak to the point of order?


Mr. BENNETT:: Mr. Speaker, it is quite apparent, I think, without going into the authorities at all, that it is competent for any hon. member who has been attacked in his capacity as a member of this house to rise in his place on a question of privilege and make
such explanation or statement as he may think desirable to negative the inferences to be drawn from any public statement attacking his honour or his fitness as a member of the house. But to rise in his place and discuss his relations with the provincial government with respect to lumber transactions and licences for the cutting of timber is to deal with purely a provincial matter, and if we are to listen for a quarter of an hour on a question of privilege to a statement that has to do with purely a provincial matter, where are we going to land? That is the question at issue.
I cannot but think that the hon. member will realize that he is dealing with something that might properly be dealt with in the legislature at Quebec, something having to do with his capacity as a business man, not as a member of this chamber, and the discharge of his obligations in connection with a matter affecting timber licences and timber rights in that province, over which we have no control. If every transaction that affects the question of a man's relations to provincial governments or to contractual obligations with respect to timber or sales of lumber in the United States is to become the subject matter of discussion in this chamber on a question of privilege, certainly, Mr. Speaker, this house is going to be in rather a difficult position.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, when a committee sitting in Manitoba had found something against a member of this house, the late Hon. Mr. Rogers, I well remember that he rose in his place in this house and answered the charges that had been made against him, not as a member of the House of Commons but as a public man in the province of Manitoba.
As far as my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Lacroix) is concerned, I listened to what he was saying. He was grossly attacked yesterday, not as a member of the House of Commons but as a man, and he takes the opportunity to defend himself and his honour in the only tribunal of which he is a member, namely, the House of Commons.
My right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) may be right in saying that the hon. member should defend himself in the legislature or committee of the legislature of Quebec, but if my right hon. friend knew how proceedings are being conducted there, he would know that men are attacked and are not given the right to say even one word in their defence or in explanation of the charges made against them.
I merely want to add that all of the colleagues of the member for Beauce ought to support him in his endeavour to vindicate his honour as a man.
Privilege-Mr. Lacroix


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have one observation to make with reference to what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has just said. I prefaced my observations by the remark that any statement made outside of this house that reflects upon the honour or fitness of a member to sit in this chamber as a representative of the people, he is within his rights in denying as a matter of privilege. He has the right to deny any insult directed against him outside of this chamber touching his capacity as a member; indeed his duty is to deal with it promptly in this chamber, but not to make an elaborate speech dealing with his relation as a business man and merchant and lumber man with the government of the province of Quebec or any other province. The distinction is clear. It is mentioned in the books with great particularity.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has made an appeal for our sympathy-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ernest Lapointe: No
sympathy at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was an appeal for sympathy, and I say that our sympathy may very well be warranted. But I suggest that we cannot play fast and loose with the rules of the house, and if the hon. member were living in some other part than in Quebec and belonged to some other party than the party in power, I do not think an appeal of this kind would be permitted. Hence it seems to me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I say that is my
opinion, and I do not withdraw. For that reason some of us who belong to minority groups might very well hope that there would be an extension of sympathy and every privilege possible afforded for any member who has been maligned to vindicate his honour. At the same time we must insist that the rules be kept; if they are not rigidly adhered to, it should be distinctly understood that the rule is for this particular purpose set aside, or such a matter might be quoted in future as a precedent. Citation 161 is very clear.
Libels on members have also been constantly punished:	but to constitute a breach of
privilege they must concern the character or conduct of members in that capacity-[DOT]
That is, in their capacity as members.
[DOT]-and the libel must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the house.
[Mr. E. Lapointe.}
If I understand aright, the matters concerned have not arisen in connection with the transaction of the business of this house: hence I do not see that in accordance with the rule this matter can be raised as one of privilege. If it is put on a sympathy basis I will vote in favour of it, but not as coming within the rules governing the privileges of the house.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: When my
hon. friend who has just spoken makes the inference that his Honour the Speaker is according to the hon. member for Beauce a special privilege because he comes from the province of Quebec-


James Shaver Woodsworth: He did not say
that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and that he would not be accorded the same right if he came from another province-and that is what he said-he is reflecting upon his Honour the Speaker.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not say that Mr. Speaker, nor do I imply it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
that I understood the hon. member to go further than that, and to indicate-[DOT]


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He says "no"
before I have made my statement. What I understood him to say was that if the hon. member had not belonged to the majority party in the house he would not have been granted the privilege which he is being granted now-which also is a reflection on his Honour the Speaker and upon the house itself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I
did not reflect in any degree whatever upon your Honour. At the moment when I offered my remarks we were discussing a point of order. I consider that the Speaker is justified in listening as he has listened until such time as a point of order is raised; that is very frequently the procedure in this house; but once the point of order is raised, and the ground of that objection stated, then I think we are perfectly justified in basing our statements on the point of order itself. That is what I tried to do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will pass on to the next move my hon. friend made, which was to quote from citation 161 set forth in the rules of the house. That citation had reference to the question of punishment for libel. I do not believe that that was a pertinent

Privilege-Mr. Lacroix
citation. If my hon. friend had quoted citation 157 instead of 161 he would have seen that the rules of the house are to the effect that interference with or reflections upon members have been resented as indignities to the house itself. When the hon. member who has raised the question of privilege has been reflected upon as one who is unworthy to sit in any house, surely that is an indignity to the House of Commons itself. In my opinion he should be allowed the fullest latitude to make clear his position with respect to all the circumstances that have occasioned the reflections which have been made.
May I add this, that the premier of Quebec stands in a very exceptional and very privileged position, and when, from his privileged and high position as premier of his province, he makes a charge against an hon. member of this house which cannot be replied to in the house in which it is made, surely that hon. member should be granted the fullest latitude to defend his honour and to make clear his position in relation to the situation referred to.


Walter Edward Foster: With respect to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh), and referred to by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) I hold that it is not well taken. Standing order No. 16 states clearly:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
I have listened to the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix) and his explanation, and I think the facts he has stated justify him in rising in this house and stating his point of privilege. I would ask him to be as brief as possible, but he has a right to explain his point of privilege.


Édouard Lacroix: If the prime minister of Quebec had really been prompted by that spirit of justice which must always be based on Christian charity, he would not have singled out the member for Beauce in connection with logging operations in Daaquam township, but would also have referred to previous and later companies whose policy has been similar to mine, unless his purpose was to show once more his gratitude to those powerful companies for which he has so much sympathy.
I may add that the Taschereau government never granted favours either to myself or to my companies, because I never requested any. Besides, I do believe that, under certain circumstances of which every one is aware, 51952-131
if I had been granted favours, they would have been made public.
The Hon. Mr. Duplessis endeavoured to show that I have shipped 40,000 logs from the Lac Portage district to the state of Maine, and this as long ago as 1924.
Here is my answer: never, absolutely never did I purchase from the Quebec government any timber in the Lac Portage district, and in order to show still further that Mr. Duplessis' statement was untrue, I have here, Mr. Speaker, the Contracts whereby I purchased 227,484-29 cords of wood at a cost of $828,922.02 from the company which enjoys Mr. Duplessis' friendship, that is John Breakey Limited. Under this contract, I was permitted by these same people, who are friends of Mr. Duplessis, to build a sluice, and to use the water of lake Portage for driving my logs into the state of Maine. Those same people, friends of Mr. Duplessis, had the government's authorization to sell me that timber. Such authorization was granted to them through another of Mr. Duplessis' friends, Mr. Thomas Maher, a forestry engineer and a former organizer for the Conservative party in the province of Quebec. And from the receipt which I found on Mr. Breakey's file at the time he transferred the title to me, I noticed that the other friend of Mr. Duplessis had received $10,000 from the Breakey Company for having secured that favour.
It will thus be seen, Mr. Speaker, that even under the former government, whose actions are now being scrutinized, the people who were receiving or requesting favours were not always those to whom Mr. Duplessis is referring, but rather people who were consorting with Mr. Duplessis.
Finally, Mr. Duplessis endeavoured to show that I had been desirous of securing an appointment as Minister of Lands and Forests, in Quebec. I am unafraid of any comparison between my ambitions and those of Mr. Duplessis but I am loath to discuss the subject. However, for the information of Mr. Duplessis, and in order to gratify wishes which are those of an inquisitor and a sadistic politician, I may tell him that in this respect he was again mistaken, because I might have been a minister, if such had been my wish, for the good reason that I was offered a portfolio.
Mr. Speaker, I may say in conclusion that I do protest, because my case is similar to that of a number of other Canadians from my own province, and because Mr. Duplessis, in order to hold his sway, is resorting in our province to the tactics used by a Stalin in Russia. Stalin kills, Duplessis debases.

Standing Committees



STANDING COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski) presented the first report of the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved-
That the name of Mr. Marshall be substituted for that of Mr. Elliott (Kindersley) on the special committee appointed to inquire into the Civil Service Act and amendment.
That the name of Sir Eugene Fiset be substituted for that of Mr. Deslauriers on the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
That the name of Mr. Deslauriers be substituted for that of Sir Eugene Fiset on the select standing committee on marine and fisheries.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Louise Anderson Lindsay-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Kathleen Helen Frances Penfold Findlay.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Mary Esther Wahl Watt-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Eva Grace Barlow Sunbury.-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw).
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Irene Marjorie Wiseman Litwin.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Lorraine Olive Lafontaine Caron Pilot.-Mr. Emmerson.

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

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Have any steps been taken by the government to carry out the recommendations of the special committee on housing in 1935 in their final report?
2.	Will any federal slum clearance program as set out in this report he considered or brought down this session not only for the cities, but for the country?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes. The Dominion Housing Act and the Home Improvement Loans Guarantee Act, 1937, have been passed and extensive operations have been carried on under each of these acts.
2.	This question relates to a matter of policy and it is not usual for the government to make statements on matters of policy in giving replies to questions.


FARM IMPLEMENTS INQUIRY
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: 1.	What was the total cost of the inquiry into the high prices of farm implements from March 2, 1936, to the present?
2.	What were the names and addresses of persons hired in this regard, and what did they receive in the form of: (a) salaries; (b) living expenses; (c) travelling expenses?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	S23,567.20.
2.
Name
Walter J. MacDonald, Winnipeg, Man	
R. T. Graham, Swift Current, Sask	
T. R. Russell, Wmipeg, Man	
J. F. Tooley, Winnipeg, Man	
C. H. Mitchell, Toronto, Ont	
W. C. MacDonell, Winnipeg, Man	
C. M. McKergow, Montreal, Que	
E.	S. Low, Winnipeg, Man	 -
I.	Hurley, Ottawa, Ont	
Miss Ruther Turner, Ottawa, Ont	
Kathleen MacDonald, Ottawa, Ont	
C. A. Brethour, Ottawa, Ont	
V. Fisher, Ottawa, Ont	
T. W. O'Neill, Ottawa, Ont	
F.	J. Tibbs, Winnipeg, Man	
Salary	Living expenses	Travelling expenses	Total$6,950 00	SI.330 00	$820 47	$9,100 476,950 00	1.600 00	206 68	8,756 68155 00	155 00200 00	129 05	107 15	436 2050 00	28 30	78 30600 00	274 00	109 85	983 8550 00	17 00	67 00300 00	60 00	102 65	462 65229 05	229 05310 00	310 0057 75	57 7539 00	39 0064 50	64 50712 50	....	712 501.475 00	395 95	243 30	2,114 25

823,567 20

Questions


MONTREAL POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What is the statutory salary of visitors to employees of the Montreal post office who are sick or absent from duty?
2.	How long have they occupied these positions?
3.	What are their names and addresses?
4.	How are they classified by the civil service commission?
5.	What salaries do they receive per annum and per month?
6.	Have they other positions in addition to being employed by the Montreal post office?


Mr. EULER:: 1,	2, 3, 4 and 5. There is no special class of sick leave investigator. The work at present is being performed by the following employees who are classified as postal clerks:
(a)	J. E. Blais, 1779 Church St., Verdun; salar3' $1,620 per annum; engaged as sick leave investigator since January, 1929.
(b)	J. G. Eugene Brosseau, 4378 Bordeaux St.; salary $1,740 per annum; engaged as sick leave investigator since 17th March, 1926.
(c)	Eugene Nantel, 915 Davaar St., Outre-mont; salary $1,740 per annum; engaged as sick leave investigator since 11th November, 1927.
6. (a) J. E. R. Blais is a medical doctor. Recent inquiries indicate that he practises his profession outside of his post office duties.
(b)	J. P. E. Brosseau. Departmental information is that he has no other occupation.
(c)	Eugene Nantel sells annuities in his spare time on a commission basis.


Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What is the statutory salary of automobile drivers employed by the Montreal post office?
2.	How many drivers are attached to the Montreal post office to drive the officials?
3.	What are their names and addresses?
4.	For what length of time have they occupied these positions?
5.	What is their classification by the civil service commission?
6.	What salary does each one receive?


William Daum Euler: At the present time there is one employee engaged in driving an automobile at Montreal post office, namely:-
Emile Quintin, returned soldier, disability case, 2214 Visitation street, Montreal, who is classified as a postal clerk with salary at the rate of $1,740 per annum. He has been engaged in these duties since 1928.


Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Is Doctor Paul Emile Meloche, dentist, 8502 St. Denis street, Montreal, an employee of the Post Office Department at Montreal?
ol352-131 i
2.	If so, what is his yearly salary?
3.	What is his classification with the civil service commission?
4.	When was he appointed?
5.	Is he practising his profession as a dentist?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Joseph Paul Ernest Meloche, a dentist residing at the address given, is an employee of t'he Montreal post office.
2.	$1,440 a year.
3.	Postal clerk.
4.	Part time employee-12th November, 1929; Full time employee-26th May, 1930.
5.	Department has no definite information at present as to whether he is practising his profession and if so to what extent. He is registered as a dentist and has a sign on his door.


Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Is Mr. Rene St. Onge, 4537 Fabre street, Montreal, an employee at the Montreal post office, and also employed as teacher at St. Pierre Claver school? If so, did he pass the civil service examinations?
2.	What is his classification with the civil service commission ?
3.	Who recommended and authorized his employment, while P.O.S. circular No. 8 was still in force?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Postal clerk.
3.	Mr. St. Onge was employed in February, 1929, when his name was reached on the civil service commission's eligible list. His employment commenced prior to the issue of circular P.O.S. No. 8 in January, 1931. Subsequently, in 1933, he obtained employment as a teacher but the department had no information regarding this until recently.


Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Is Mr. Pierre Leon Vezina, of 1466 Aylwin, Montreal, a clerk in the post office at $1,740 per annum, the same individual as Pierre Leon Vezina who is employed as professor by the Catholic Schools Commission of Montreal, district east?
2.	What is his classification by the civil service commission ?
3.	Who has recommended and authorized his employment when circular P.O.S. No. 8 was still in force?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Recent inquiries indicate he is the same person.
2.	Postal clerk.
3.	Mr. Vezina has been employed since the 21st June, 1919. Circular P.O.S. No. 8 was issued on the 5th January, 1931. In 1932, Mr. Vezina was advised that he would have to choose between the two positions. He stated
Questions

that his contract with the school commission had expired and that he, therefore, wished to retain his post office position. He was retained in the service on that understanding. He evidently entered into a further contract with the school commission without reporting his action to the department.


ROUGH BARK CREEK AND MID ALE DAMS
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: 1.	What was the total cost of putting in: (a) the dam at Rough Bark creek, near Good-water, Saskatchewan; (b) the dam at Souris river, south of Midale, Saskatchewan?
2.	Has the Minister of Agriculture received any report from the engineers on the recent destruction of these dams due to flood?
3.	If so, what reasons were given for the failure of the said dams to hold the bodies of water for which they were intended?
4.	Does the government plan to replace these dams at an early date?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	(a) $9,314.93; Ob) $14,615.98.
2.	There has been no destruction of Rough Bark creek dam. A 30-foot section of the Midale dam went out. Report was made by the engineers verbally and confirming written report is on its way.
3.	Earth dams constructed from very dry soil need careful filling so the clay may settle permanently. The sudden severe thaw with rain caused a 17-foot rise in water at the Midale dam in such short time that the dry powdery clay core leaked and a section washed out. Unless clay filled dams are puddled during construction this risk during first filling always exists. No water was available for puddling even though the increased expense might have appeared justifiable.
4.	The dam will be repaired at once.


IRISH HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Mr. AHEARN:: Is the bureau of statistics preparing an accurate estimate of the amount of money that has left Canada for Ireland in payment for tickets on the Irish hospital sweepstakes for the last five years?


William Daum Euler: The bureau has hitherto found it impossible to obtain information on this subject.


GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	What are the names of the parties employed at Ottawa to solicit government annuities under the Labour department?
2.	When was each appointed to this position?
3.	What amount of commission was earned by each in the last fiscal year?
[Mr. Euler.J


Mr. ROGERS:: J. W. Bush-date of appointment, October 18, 1933; commissions earned during fiscal year 1936-37, $511.68.
Jas. R. Day-date of appointment, February 27, 1934; commissions earned during fiscal year 1936-37, $4,018.22.
C. Roy Hall-date of appointment, October 9, 1933; commissions earned during fiscal year 1936-37, $4,543.17.
G.	Harold Quinn-date of appointment, March 20, 1928; commissions earned during fiscal year 1936-37; $3,463.35.
Note: Annuities representatives are required to meet out of commissions cost of office assistance, transportation and other expenses incidental to the securing of applications for annuities.


THATCHER AND CORONATION WHEATS
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	How many reports have been received as to the milling and mixing qualities of shipments of Thatcher and Coronation wheats to England last fall?
2.	When is final report expected?
3.	How many reports have been favourable so far?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	One preliminary progress report.
2.	Final report expected this week.
3.	The preliminary report was favourable to Thatcher wheat but unfavourable to Coronation wheat.


BUTTER IMPORTATIONS
Mr. SENN:: What quantity of butter has entered Canada during each month from July, 1937, to date, from: (a) Australia; (b) New Zealand?


William Daum Euler: Imports from- New
Months	Australia Zealand
1937	Lb.	Lb.
July	
August		...
September		...
October	
November		...
December	
January	
140.000	...February	
168.000	767.200
Questions


ALBERTA OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. HAYHURST:: 1.	How many people are receiving old age pensions in the province of Alberta?
2.	How much is paid in old age pensions annually in Alberta?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	As at December 31, 1937-9,755.
2.	On account of adjustments between provinces, it is not possible to ascertain accurately, from the records of the dominion government, the total amount paid during any particular period to residents of the province of Alberta.
The dominion's contribution to the province of Alberta during the calendar year 1937 amounted to $1,531,343.11, which constituted approximately 75 per cent of the total amount paid out in old age pensions by the province of Alberta.


DOMINION-BRITISH COLUMBIA YOUTH TRAINING COURSES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'NEILL:
What opportunities have been offered to youth under the dominion-provincial youth training program in British Columbia?
Norman McLeod Rogers: Courses under the Dominion-British Columbia youth training agreement during the past fiscal year included numerous classes and activities of a widely varying character. Five main projects were operated, as follows:
1.	Forestry training.
2.	Placer mining.
3.	Urban occupational training (for both men and women).
4.	Physical training (for both men and women).
5.	Rural training (for both men and women).
Forestry training courses proved attractive and successful and it was notable that very few trainees dropped out during operation. The placer mining project was of value chiefly in upbuilding morale and physique of trainees.
In connection with urban occupational training a partial list of activities provided for follows:	For men:	Wood-working, cabinet making, motor mechanics, practical electricity, plastering, cement working, camp cookery, Diesel engineering. For women: Household work, dressmaking, garment making, ladies tailoring, laundering, cookery, shorthand and typewriting, retail selling.
Rural classes for both men and women: Chick sexing, farm management and accounting, poultry husbandry, dairy-farming, beekeeping.
Physical training classes were outstanding. More than 3,000 unemployed men and women had been given physical education up to the end of last year. Dominion cooperation enabled the province to extend the benefits of its physical training program.


SASKATCHEWAN TECHNICAL EDUCATION
Mr. FLEMING:: How much money was contributed to Saskatchewan for vocational education in the year 1937-38?


Norman McLeod Rogers: During the fiscal year 1937-38 the sum of $34,055.90 was contributed to the province of Saskatchewan by the federal government under the terms of the Technical Education Act, 1919, as amended.


FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT- STATISTICS
Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	How many applications were received by the official receiver under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in 1937-38 in the Wynyard judicial district?
2.	How many applications were received by the official receiver under the said act in 1937-38 in the Humboldt judicial district?
3.	How many cases were settled by the official receiver in the Wynyard judicial district during the said year?
4.	How many cases were settled by the official receiver in the Humboldt judicial district during the same year?
5.	What was the total debt reduction in the
Wynyard judicial district under the said act in the year 1937-38?	,
6.	What was the total debt reduction in the Humboldt judicial district under the said act in the same year?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	79.
2.	233.
3.	34.
4.	53.
5.	$86,201.
6.	$401,594.


PUNTLEDGE RIVER FISH LADDER
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	When was the first fish ladder built on the Puntledge river, and at what cost?
2.	On what successive dates was it washed out and later rebuilt, and what was the cost on each occasion?
3.	On what date was it last washed out?
4.	What steps have been taken towards replacing it?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1. In 1922 in impounding dam. Cost not available as fish ladder was built and installed; by owner of dam.
Questions

2.	January, 1927, replaced April, 1927; November, 1934; replaced July, 1935. Replacement cost not available for reason given in answer to No. 1.
3.	December, 1937.
4.	None. Need for requiring replacements under consideration.


CANNED HERRING PRODUCTION AND EXPORTS
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	How many tons of herring were canned in Canada in each of the years from 1931 to 1937 inclusive?
2.	How many tons of canned herrings were exported in each of the said years?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Production of Canned Herrings and Canned Sardines
Canned Canned Calendar	Herring	Sardines
Year	Tons Tons
1931	
69	2,5321932	
606	1,4151933	
699	2,2581934	
1,101	3,6011935	
933	4,2314936	
2,244	4,923
1937 figures not yet available
2.	Herrings,	Sardines,
Calendar	sea, (little fish
Years	Canned in oil)
Tons Tons
1931	
-	1,6791932	
-	1,2171933	
148	1,4861934	
698	2,4281935	
770	2,7061936	
658	2,7051937	
1,085	3,932


CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD
Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	In what year did the Canadian farm loan board begin making loans to farmers?
2.	In which of the provinces has loaning been carried on since the inception of the board's operations in the year 1929?
3.	In which of the provinces is the board actively engaged in loaning at present?
4.	How many loans have been granted to farmers in each province to date?
5.	What is the amount loaned to farmers in each province to date?
6.	What is the total amount loaned to farmers in all provinces to date?
7.	How much money has been advanced to farmers by way of loan for the current fiscal year 1937-38 to date?
8.	What was the total amount of arrears as at the end of the last fiscal year, March 31, 1937?

9.	Of the total amount of arrears as at March 31, 1937, how much was in arrears at that date for a longer period than six months?
10.	How much money was collected by the board on account of instalments due and in arrears in the fiscal year 1936-37?
11.	How much money has been collected by the board on account of instalments due and in arrears in the fiscal year 1937-38 to date?


Mr. DUNNING:: The following information is furnished by the Canadian Farm Loan Board:
1.	1929.
2.	British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia.
3.	British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
4.	5 and 6. Loans granted and loans disbursed by provinces and total loans disbursed to farmers from inception of operations in 1929 to February 28, 1938:
	Loans granted		Loans
Province	No.	Amount	disbursedB.C	833	$ 1,906,500	$ 1.876.330Alta	4,146	6,976,400	6,857,950Sask	4,218	6,036,175	5.759.786Man	2,739	4,200,140	4,094,114Ont	2,229	3,196,650	2,900,448Que	7,177	10.262.275	9,881,964N.B	852	1,021,250	1,000,561N.S	797	1,041.950	1,013,800P.E.I	522	594,450	562.56923,513	$35,235,790	$33,947,522The above	includes	6,542 seconc	mortgage
loans granted for amounts aggregating $3,741,100.
7. Loans disbursed April 1, 1937, to February 28, 1938, amount to $4,923,425.
8 and 9. Amount of arrears as at March 31, 1937, was:	Principal, $523,373.50; interest,
$545,407.78; total, $1,068,781.28, of which $595,233.80 was in arrears for over six months.
10.	Amount collected on instalments for year ended March 31, 1937, was $1202,269.
11.	Amount collected on instalments April 1, 1937, to February 28, 1938, was $1,901,006.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MAYBANK:: 1. Does the government of Canada pay any money to any municipality in Canada (other than the city of Ottawa) in respect of properties owned by the Dominion of Canada either as

Privy Council Appeals
taxes or as a grant in lieu of paying taxes, either for general taxes or for local improvements, or for police and fire protection, or arising from any similar reason?
2. If any such moneys are paid, to what municipalities and in what amounts?


BRITISH COLUMBIA LUMBER
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many feet of British Columbia lumber was exported to Japan for the last year of record or in 1937?
2.	What was the export price?
3.	Were any protests made alleging a waste of Canada's natural resources owing to low prices?
4.	At what price per thousand feet was similar British Columbia lumber, shipped via Panama canal, delivered in Toronto?
5.	Have any protests against such competition been received from Hew Ontario mills?
6.	Will any regulatory measures be adopted by the Department of National Resources to check such disposal of Canada's natural resources ?


Mr. RINFRET:: Return tabled.


CIVIL SERVANTS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	What is the total number of permanent and temporary civil servants in the province of British Columbia, showing each department separately?
2.	What is the total amount of money paid
to:	(a) permanent employees; (b) temporary
employees, showing each department separately?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. COLDWELL:: For a copy of the dispatch, by the direction of His Majesty the King, from the Lord Chamberlain to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada dated December 22, 1930, relating to the flag now flown by His Excellency the Governor General.



PRIVY COUNCIL APPEALS


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the order for second reading of Bill No. 19, an act respecting appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council be taken into consideration after routine proceedings on Friday next, the 8th instant, and that this order have precedence over all other business on that day.
He said: If the house will permit me I should like to amend the motion by dropping the concluding words

. . . and that this order have precedence over all other business on that day.
At the time I handed the notice to the clerk I assumed that as we were adjourning for the Easter vacation on Friday night it would in all probability be the wish of hon. members to have this particular bill occupy most of the time for discussion on Friday, and to have this known in advance. However, at the time I thought that greater progress would have been made with certain private and other bills in the interval. I see that on Tuesday night last the bill in respect to the Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company in particular was again talked out. As the opportunities to discuss these measures are few we ought not I think to take away an opportunity on Friday night of this week. I might say in regard to the Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Bill that the government is wholly favourable to the enactment of the measure, and I think all hon. members on this side are in sympathy with it. At any rate if the motion in its present form were to stand I am afraid the impression might be created that it has been framed with a view of precluding discussion on Friday night of the measure I have mentioned. So I should like to have the motion amended in that particular.
In regard to the motion itself may I say that the government feels that the bill in the name of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) in respect of appeals to the privy council deals with a question of great interest, particularly at this time when constitutional questions are much to the fore. We believe it would be in every way in the public interest to have the measure fully discussed on at least one day during the session. Some little time ago the government gave the hon. member to understand that if he would not press his bill at the time, an opportunity would be given later for him to bring it before the house. I hope therefore that hon. members will see their way to adopt the motion.
Motion as amended agreed to.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: In view of the importance to Canada, and in particular to my own province of British Columbia, of the defence measures which are being taken to protect the Canadian coast, I should like to direct the attention of the
2080	COMMONS.
National Defence-Halifax and Vancouver
Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) to an editorial appearing in the Halifax Daily Star of April 5. I believe this paper is the evening edition of the Halifax Chronicle. The title of the editorial is
What Goes on Behind the Scenes.
And it reads as follows:


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has a right to read it.


Howard Charles Green: The editorial reads:
During recent weeks there has been much ado in military circles around Halifax. Giant guns have been uprooted from their emplacements along the harbour mouth, munitions have been moved to and fro about the waterfront.
Most of the activities have been conducted under cover of night and everything done with the utmost secrecy-barring what gets told to every Tom, Dick and Hai'ry around the military canteens.
First, the guns were torn from their positions, put on flat cars and started off for Vancouver-
Mr. SPEAKER. Order. The hon. member should state his question. What is he reading from?


Howard Charles Green: I intend to ask the minister for a statement in regard to this editorial, and I think in fairness to him I should read it so that he may know exactly what it says.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: On a point of order,
may I suggest that this question refers to a question on the same subject asked in this house yesterday and replied to by the responsible minister. I think the rule is clear that outside comments on proceedings in this house cannot be read. I shall be very glad indeed to answer a general question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister is entirely
in error. This is not a comment on what was said by the minister yesterday. This relates to the general question; it is a specific statement which- 1 think this house should hear and have answered. It states something with respect to the movement of guns from Hailfax to Vancouver and from Vancouver to Halifax, and an opportunity should be afforded to the government to answer categorically.


Walter Edward Foster: A question can be asked
based on the facts stated in the editorial, but I do not think the editorial can be read.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is the only way
the hon. member can put the question properly. This is not a question of reading a telegram. We have discussed that before, and the sense of this house has been entirely
[Mr. Green.1
against that limitation. I endeavoured to have that limitation imposed, but the Prime Minister was of the opinion that it was an improper limitation to impose and it was not imposed. If the reading of the editorial is the only way in which the question can properly be put-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But it is not
in this case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is in this case, unfortunately. The Prime Minister has not quite followed the terms of the editorial. It contains specific allegations; it is not conjecture. It states that guns have been removed from their emplacements, put on cars and started for Vancouver, and, e converso, that they have been taken up from their foundations in Vancouver and started towards Halifax.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The question is now stated by my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It deals also with the reasons. The only way the question can properly be put is by reading the statement. The Prime Minister in the course of debate frequently refers to what has been stated in the newspapers. I endeavoured to impose a limitation on that, both when I was in the government and when I was in opposition, but now by tacit agreement everyone refers to newspapers and reads from them. That happens right along. The editorial to which reference is made cannot be summarized so as to do other than leave a wrong impression. Therefore I suggested to my friend, and I think it is sound advice, that the only way he could be fair to the government as well as the country was to read the editorial so as to afford opportunity to the minister to make it perfectly clear that it is without foundation. I think the hon. member was good enough to give a copy of the editorial to the minister so that he might prepare himself to answer the question. The only reason the hon. member is reading it is that there is no other method by which he can properly ask this question. The question he proposes to ask, as he informed me, is merely: Will the minister make a statement as to the accuracy of that editorial?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If that question is put I shall be most happy to answer it, and I am only too anxious to make a complete statement. But I think the general rule is clear that it is out of order to read an editorial which reflects on a matter discussed here yesterday and in regard to which a reply was given by the responsible minister.
APRIL 6, 1938	[DOT]	2081
National Defence-Halifax and Vancouver


Richard Bedford Bennett: This was not discussed yesterday.


Howard Charles Green: The reply yesterday dealt only with the situation in Halifax; there was no mention of Vancouver or the Pacific. This editorial concerns the constituency of the minister as well as my own, and I think in fairness the editorial should be read to the house and an explanation given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member cannot ask his question without reading the statements.


Walter Edward Foster: I think the hon. member should give a summary of the article and then put his question.


Howard Charles Green: That is difficult to do. I can summarize it more quickly by reading the rest of the editorial, dealing only in regard to the situation in Vancouver:
First the guns were torn from their positions, put on flat cars and started off for Vancouver to protect British Columbia and Ian Mackenzie's constituents against the yellow peril. Then somebody changed their mind, according to the reports, and the guns came trundling back again;
On top of all that, somebody began to rip out guns from emplacements at Vancouver and start them off for Halifax. Then that was stopped.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I still suggest that this is highly improper.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely an editorial which names an hon. member of this house is one that should not be read, particularly when it is so written as to appear to be reflecting upon the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There used to be great
glory taken in reading editorials reflecting on me by name. It has suddenly become a new law to be applied only when the present government is concerned. If the Prime Minister wants me to give references it can easily be done if I am given time to turn them up. Editorials from newspapers all over Canada were read-


Charles Avery Dunning: Not on questions on the orders of the day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any difference
between orders of the day and any other time?


Charles Avery Dunning: Surely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I fail to understand what it is, when it is a question of pressing public
importance. The question that is being asked is as to the accuracy of a statement. The reference to the minister can be left out. I am familiar with the rules; I have looked them up to-day, but now what governs is a settled practice in this house, not these rules at all. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) need not shake his head. It has been settled in this house, over my protests both in opposition and as prime minister. The practice has grown up. I think it is not a sound one, but I have agreed to it and accepted it. I accepted it when I was in office and I accept it now. I have endeavoured to be very careful, in view of the ruling given by the Speaker the other day that you should not read telegrams but should say what is the purport of them, but it would be grossly unfair to do other than read that editorial. I have read it. So far as the reference to the minister is concerned, that can be very properly left out. I have always taken that view, but unfortunately I used to be the victim of that sort of thing, as perhaps some hon. members will recall. I make no complaint about that but, Mr. Speaker, in three minutes the hon. member could have read the rest of the editorial, and the question could have been answered. He could not summarize it because then it would be said that he was unfair in endeavouring to do so.


Howard Charles Green: There is only one more
paragraph I wish to read:
Everything was done in feverish haste, almost as if the entire imperial Japanese navy had already been sighted in Juan de Fuca straits and heading for Victoria.
I would ask the minister for a statement as to the accuracy of that report and also as to whether or not we have legislation in Canada to protect military secrets, such as the official secrets act in Great Britain. If not, such legislation would seem very necessary at the present time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think my hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Green) knows as well as I do that this statement to which he refers-
On top of all that, somebody began to rip out guns from emplacements at Vancouver and start them off for Halifax. Then that was stopped.
-is the most ridiculous nonsense in the world, because there has not been an emplacement in Vancouver in all the years he has been living there. In the second place, of course, the reference to the entire Japanese navy being headed for Victoria is absolutely fantastic and incorrect. This is the most abso-
2082	COMMONS
National Defence-Halifax and Vancouver
lute nonsense. Any minister dealing with a very difficult problem concerning the reallocation of armaments upon a scientific principle should have the cooperation of this house and of the press as well. If spurious articles such as this are repeated it may be necessary to resort to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act in order that the public may be protected in regard to these matters. Some very reputable journals refused yesterday to publish this dispatch-


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not a dispatch.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is an editorial which was written, I think, though I am not sure, before I gave my reply yesterday afternoon. In any case the assumptions made are absolutely incorrect. What has happened is this, that there has been a reallocation of armaments, as I said yesterday; guns were removed that were unallocated and in reserve in Halifax. Some are being removed to other points in Nova Scotia. Everything is being done according to a very scientific plan, and it was not in the public interest at any time to disclose or discuss the exact details or the exact calibres of the armaments that have been transferred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to assure the minister that those of us who sit to the left of the Speaker in opposition have always desired to give him every possible assistance in this matter. Last session I think we perhaps gave him more assistance than he received from some of his own friends. We regard it as gravely as he does that these things should be published in the form in which they are. When the hon. member for Vancouver South spoke to me about it he asked if he should go to the minister. I am sure my hon. friend would at once acquit the hon. member of any desire to embarrass either the minister or anybody else.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, I did not suggest that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Vancouver South (Mr. Green) asked me if he should go to the minister, and he went to the minister for the purpose of showing just what was being said.
May I add one word more, Mr. Speaker, with your consent. The statement that appeared in the press in the early part of this year, just about the time the house met, must have been obtained from some official source, with regard to the calibre of our guns. I submitted to the minister then that he

should order a departmental inquiry, and that whoever was responsible should not be in the service of Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With regard to that last point, if I may answer it now, that inquiry was held, and it was absolutely impossible to trace to any definite source the leakage in that case. But the investigation was held, through the district officer in command in British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A public investigation
would get it very quickly.


Mr. NEILL:: May I suggest that the passage of my two bills Nos. 11 and 38 would go far to allay the fears entertained in British Columbia alluded to by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green).


Mr. CHURCH:: In view of the emergency which has arisen, may I ask if the minister is going to recall for active service his wonderful fleet from the pleasure jaunt it is taking down to the West Indies?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: I should like to remind the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) that about four or five weeks ago I brought to his attention a matter concerning people leaving the dried out area and settling on the lower mainland of British Columbia. I furnished the minister with the full information on March 8th. The reeves' association and those connected with the municipalities are very anxious to have a definite statement from the minister in regard to this matter, and I wonder if he is prepared to make an announcement.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): It was necessary to communicate with the provincial governments in this connection. The administration of relief in the drought areas is under the provincial government, and as soon as I get the information I shall be very glad to convey it to my hon. friend.



LONG BRANCH RIFLE RANGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). I have

Relief and Agricultural Distress
been advised that the work of dismantling certain buildings on the Long Branch rifle range in the county of Peel is being proceeded with. Will the minister give immediate consideration to the employment of some forty unemployed ex-service men on relief in that district, who are ready and able to do this type of work?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I find that only S500 remains unexpended with reference to the dismantling work to which my hon. friend has referred, which is now in progress. Instructions have been given already to employ unemployed ex-service men so far as possible.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 5, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution-Mr. Rogers

Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance towards the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress, and for such payments out of moneys appropriated by parliament as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of the proposed legislation.
Mr. A. A. BROWN (Hamilton East):: Mr. Chairman, the sole purpose of my few and rather brief remarks is to direct the attention of the government to the increase in relief and unemployment that is taking place in this country and that has taken place during the last few months. Naturally I should like to find out what the government is going to do in order to deal with this condition. Last Monday afternoon and evening I listened carefully, and I may say hopefully, to the long address of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) introducing the resolution providing for grants in order to alleviate agricultural and economic distress. I say I listened hopefully, because .1 expected that the minister was going to suggest some scheme or plan to cope with our present unemployment problem, which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said was Canada's most urgent national problem'. However, I was greatly disappointed. The minister reviewed briefly the report of the national employment commission and dealt rather vaguely with the potential value oft the tourist trade. He finished up by eulogizing the trade policies of the government, which he claimed had brought prosperity to this country.
The minister did not seem to be aware that during the past few months the industries of this country have been slowing down because of the importations of foreign manufactured
goods which have been flooding our market. Hamilton, being a large industrial centre, has suffered more keenly than many other centres. It has felt the effects of the recession to a considerable extent and the increased burden of relief is becoming so great that the government no longer can evade the responsibility of assuming the maintenance of our unemployed. In December, 1937, there were 2,607 heads of families on relief in Hamilton. In January, 1938, the number had increased to 2,982. In that month there were 9,120 dependants and 684 individuals on relief, a total of 12,863 persons. In February the number of heads of families on relief had increased to 3,247; the dependants had increased to 10,050 and the individuals to 740, making a grand total of 14,037. I have not the exact figures for March, but I am informed that there is a considerable increase.
There are also hundreds and hundreds of men who are working two, three and four days per week. These men are merely existing, and unless conditions improve, in a short time they too will be on relief. There are also many men possessing abundant health and ability who are unable to obtain employment because of their age. Men of thirty-eight, forty-two and forty-five years of age find it exceedingly difficult to secure employment. Their condition is as bad as, if not worse than, that of the western farmer, who at least can hope for a crop some time in the future.
Foreign manufactured goods are being sold in this country at ridiculously low prices, prices with which our Canadian manufacturers cannot possibly compete. I was advised last week in Hamilton that shoes are being imported from a foreign country at a cost of eighty cents per pair. It would cost our manufacturers at least $2.50 to produce a similar pair of shoes. Dresses are being sold at $1.25; our Canadian manufacturers would have to charge $6 or $8 for a similar product. I could give innumerable examples of subsidized foreign goods and goods made with cheap labour being dumped on our home markets. This decreases the market of the Canadian manufacturer and adds to our unemployment. I attribute these conditions to the government's trade policies which have not adequately protected the home market in order that our Canadian manufacturers might obtain a fair share.
I have one other observation to make. It has been the policy of governments in depression times in the past to attempt to stimulate the construction industry by spend-
20S4

Relief and Agricultural Distress
ing millions of dollars on public works, many of which were not actually needed. While these methods have met with some success, I do not think they are practicable to-day. This government has attempted to stimulate the construction industry by making available cheap and easy money, but it has met with only partial success. The reason for its failure is the fact that the bulk of our construction work is carried on in the municipalities. Because of debt charges and the increasing cost of social services, particularly unemployment relief, our municipalities are compelled to impose such heavy taxes on real property that it is no longer desirable or profitable to build, buy or even hold such property. As in the case of the automobile, it is not the initial cost but the upkeep that is so heavy. I urge strongly that the government assume the burden of maintaining our unemployed, making sure that the benefits of this policy are conferred on the property owner. If this were done I believe much good would result, not only to the municipalities but also to the government.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) will readily admit that when he introduced his motion on Monday last hon. members gave him an attentive hearing. The people of this country were looking forward with a good deal of eagerness to what the minister would have to say. As a member of this house I awaited the minister's statement in the hope that he would divulge the plans of the government to meet the pressing problem of unemployment and relief. We expected him not only to tell us something about the relief problem, but to go fully into the policy that the government had in mind to meet the situation that now confronts us.
My own eager anticipation of that occasion was manifested by the simple fact of my taking a few sheets of note paper out of my desk and placing them before me, with the idea of jotting down from time to time anything of interest and importance. Like many other hon. members, within the next few days I shall be going back to my constituency. In my constituency, as in those of many other hon. members, there are many men and women who are in want, who are unemployed or on the verge of being unemployed. I was anxious to take back to my constituents and to others whom I would meet in other parts of the dominion some ray of hope, something in the way of a policy which the government had to meet the existing situation. So, Mr. Chairman, I placed these few sheets of paper before me, and I waited for half an hour in the hope that I 
could jot something down, but there was nothing to record. The hour went by and I still had nothing to write down. Two hours went by, and the sheets in front of me were still blank. Three hours went by, and still they were blank. Just after the third hour had gone by the minister sat down, and I was still looking at those sheets of paper in front of me and wondering what I could tell the people of the city of Winnipeg.
The minister did say something that was of interest and possibly of importance so far as the administration of relief is concerned. But relief is only part of the problem of unemployment, and I was not so anxious to hear the minister deal with relief as I was to hear him deal with the fundamental question of the unemployed in this dominion; and on that question the minister had very little to say, I will say this, however, that the few remarks he did make on that question did not give the unemployed very much hope for the immediate future.
The minister dealt, for instance, with the drought situation. He said that the conditions in the industrial centres in western Canada were reflecting agricultural conditions in that part of the country. There may be a certain amount of truth in that, but I do not think the minister, who is such a close student of economics, would agree or that he would teach a body of students of economics that the unemployment and the poverty existing in western Canada are due to the fact that western Canada has had poor crops for the last two or three years. If he would, then, speaking in an economic sense, what would the minister have to say as to the unemployment situation that developed between the years 1929 and 1933, when similar conditions prevailed in our industrial centres in the "west, not because we had a drought in the west but because we had too much of everything at that time.
So the position is that we have poverty when we have too much of everything; and, if we happen to have a lack of moisture in western Canada, then we blame unemployment and poverty on the lack of moisture.
I do wish that the minister when he deals with this problem as it affects the people of western Canada in particular would go a little deeper into the fundamental aspects of the question instead of dealing with it in a more or less superficial way.
The minister had two suggestions to make, two items, shall I say, which may be regarded as constituting the policy of the government in coping with the situation. One was the tourist traffic, and the other the Canada-United States trade agreement looking towards an expansion of our trade with the

Relief and Agricultural Distress
country to the south of us. In regard to foreign trade, if the minister and the government are going to take credit for the improved economic conditions that existed in this country during the past two years up until last fall, whose is the responsibility for the conditions that have prevailed since? If the Canada-United States trade agreement was responsible for the improvement in trade up until a few months ago, what is responsible for the recession that has set in during . the past few months? I am one of those who voted for the Canada-United States trade agreement. I am in favour of liberating trade wherever we possibly can; I am in favour of reducing tariffs wherever we possibly can, but side by side with that statement I say that in the reduction of tariffs there is not to be found the solution for the economic conditions that prevail in the Dominion of Canada. And may I say to my friends to my right, in exactly the same way, that in increasing tariffs there is not to be found any solution for our economic conditions. because if an increase in tariffs would have brought about a solution of our problems they would have been solved immediately after the year 1930-31.
May I say a word in regard to the importance of the unemployment situation? Its importance is not to be measured merely by the numbers who are unemployed at the present time, or by the numbers who are working short time. Its importance must be measured also by the uncertainty which prevails amongst hundreds of thousands of men who are to-day engaged in industry but do not know how long their jobs are going to last. It is that very uncertainty that is one of the worst features of the whole of our unemployment problem. For these men unemployed or partially employed, to tramp the streets to look for that elusive job which they know in fact does not exist is one of the hardest tasks which men and women have to face. The average worker who is employed to-day is not very far removed from poverty. Two or three weeks' or a month's unemployment puts him in the poverty line, where soon he will be compelled, generally against his own wishes, to become the recipient of public or private charity.
I should like the minister to have given us a more realistic viewpoint of the existing economic conditions in this dominion. He told us of the expansion of trade during the past two years. I. think we will all admit there has been improvement in that respect, and we were all in a way pleased to note the expansion of industry, but I should like to have had a concrete view, if possible, of the
extent to which that expansion was due to preparations for war either in this dominion or in other parts of the world.
May I point out that the industries of this country are to a certain extent dependent upon what is taking place in other parts of the world, and not so much upon tariffs?
The minister spoke of the tourist traffic and hoped for its expansion. With improved economic conditions in the United States we have had an expansion of tourist traffic. The better the economic conditions in the United States were, the more tourists came to Canada. But if there is a recession in industry in the United States, you will find a decrease in the tourist traffic in Canada from the United States, which sends us more tourists than any other nation in the world. Anything the government might do to increase the tourist traffic would be of little value unless you have improved economic conditions in other parts of the world. Whilst I am on that aspect of the question, may I add further that we in this country are the beneficiaries to a very large extent of the expenditure of many hundreds of millions of dollars by the Roosevelt administration in an attempt to bring about better economic conditions in the United States. Money spent in the United States in some measure finds its way here through the purchase of our lumber, for instance, to improve the housing conditions in the United States, and through an increased purchase of our paper and other supplies. But a recession in industry in the United States was followed at once by a falling off in the demand from the United States for our lumber and our paper and other products. Of course, the government of this country, no matter what its political complexion may be, could take no credit for the vast spending that has been done in the United States under the Roosevelt administration.
I wish to make a few remarks in connection with the national employment commission, which has just about passed out of existence. That commission was ushered into existence with a great flourish of trumpets, but hardly a word was said when it passed out. For years we were told what it was going to do; great expectations were held out to the people as to what would happen when this commission was appointed. As far back as 1933, speaking in this chamber, the present Prime Minister, outlining the policy of the Liberal party, said:
The Liberal party believes unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem. It would deal with the present emergency conditions through a representative national commission, which would cooperate with the
Relief and Agricultural Distress

provinces and municipalities in the administration of unemployment relief and in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed.
Is there any hon. member who would say that, such a commission having been appointed, its work is now finished? Why was the commission put out of existence? I am beginning to wonder whether it was ever wanted by the Department of Labour, because if it really was wanted and became an integral part of activities directed to providing employment, it would after having been in existence about eighteen months perform its most useful functions. But after an existence of about a year and a half it is put out of business by a stroke of a pen.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I take it that my hon. friend has read the final report of the commission, which of itself indicates that its advisory functions have been fulfilled. That as a matter of fact is the actual truth.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But it was appointed to discharge administrative functions as well.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No administrative functions were conferred on the commission, as I indicated in this chamber a day or two ago.


Mr. STEVENS:: The hon. minister is
scarcely correct.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I quote from the official report:
It is important that it be borne in mind that while provision was made in the National Employment Commission Act of 1936 for the commission to assume administrative and supervisory functions if the minister so decided-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Quite.


Abraham Albert Heaps: *-its functions have been practically advisory-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: -
[DOT]-with the exception only of the promotion campaign in connection with the home improvement plan.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is quite true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it was abolished by order in council.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The fact is that they were never asked to be a part of an administrative body. That is admitted in their own report. They were not even asked to become a supervisory body, but just a consultative body, to tell the government that certain things were desirable; that they may do only certain things, but when it comes to the question of performing real tasks their services are no longer required.

Now, to go back to speeches made in this house in the year 1936, let me quote what the present Prime Minister stated on that very question:
The people of Canada will never know the cost of relief until there is some agency to bring together in one report the expenditures of all the agencies involved, government and private alike, nor will there be any substantial lessening in the amounts until they know the manner in which all the different agencies are supervising their expenditures and carrying out the works for which the expenditures are being made. That is one of the main purposes of this commission, and I venture to say that no agency other than a body such as we suggest can possibly carry it out.
Speaking on the same occasion, the Prime Minister made several references along the same line. I quote this one:
If a matter affecting municipal, provincial and dominion funds is to be dealt with satisfactorily, it is essential that the party who deals with it be above all, but not part of, any one of these particular entities. That is why we need a commission of this kind to assist in the distribution of outlays and in the supervision of expenditures.
I shall quote one other statement of the Prime Minister on the same day:
It is not to take responsibility away from any department of the government. The work to be done will be carried out under the several government departments, but there will be one body which shall have the power to supervise all the work and to see that it is properly correlated in affording the employment anticipated ; also to advise the government with respect to what may be desirable courses to pursue. Not only that, the commission will have power to take a similar birdseye view with respect to what is being done to provide employment and relief in each and all of the provinces, what is being done in the municipalities, and what is and may be done by private industry.	-
None of these functions has been performed by this commission. I do not know why. Probably the minister knows better than any other hon. member. My own viewpoint is that he decided that the commission was an unnecessary adjunct of the Department of Labour, and possibly his department may be able to perform the functions that were being performed by the commission. But my main point is that for a period of two to three years the people of this country were led to believe that, with the appointment of a commission to deal with unemployment, we would have a body that would do something worth while to cope fundamentally with that problem, and no sooner had it been appointed and the members had, so to speak, warmed their seats, than they were told that their services were no longer required.

Relief and Agricultural Distress
I come to some of the recommendations of the commission-which were unanimous- and the attitude of the minister thereto.
The first was the need for early action to provide low-rental housing. If I understood the implications of the speech that the Minister of Labour made in this chamber on Monday last, we are not going to have very much low rental housing at this session of parliament-


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Or any other.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would not go quite so far as the hon. member for Lethbridge. The Minister of Labour told us the other day that the present housing act is now providing more houses than it formerly did. When the minister imparted that information to the house I was inclined to believe he was telling us that there is not much use to hope for the introduction of a housing bill this year to provide a scheme of low cost rental housing; nor are we to have that much-heralded scheme of slum clearance.
I need hardly say that in the last election and prior thereto the people of this country were given definite promises that during this parliament the government would undertake large schemes of low rental housing and schemes of slum clearances. I believe they were told that over the radio just on the eve of the election. I should like to know why those promises were made and nothing done to fulfil them. I am aware that hon. members who sit opposite may ask what I would suggest should be done under the circumstances.


Mr. WOOD:: We have been thinking that. What would the hon. member do?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will tell hon. members. First let me say that "credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct interest to the average citizen." I would advocate "the immediate establishment of a properly constituted national central bank to perform the functions of rediscount, and the control of currency issue, considered in terms of public need." That is one thing I would do. There are not many "hear, hears." I notice, just now.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would recognize further that "the problem of distribution has become more important than that of production," and I would say that "personality is more sacred than property." I would devote myself to "finding ways and means of effecting a fair and just distribution of wealth with increasing
regard to human needs, to the furtherance of social justice, and to the promotion of the common good."


George Ernest Wood: Does the hon. member think that he could go to someone who had money to lend and get credit on his personality?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Let me finish the statement:
I believe the country would welcome, above all else, a comprehensive scheme of urban and rural improvements. Such a scheme would appropriately include the clearance of slum areas, housing programs, the painting and repair of buildings and fences, both in the cities and the country; and, of scenic development, which would serve to make of Canada a country second to none for tourists, and to afford to the people as a whole fuller opportunities of recreation and the enjoyment of natural beauty.
I am asked from what I was quoting. I was just quoting from speeches made by the Prime Minister in 1935.
I come now to the other recommendations of the commission, the second being the creation of a national tourist committee. I do not think the unemployed will get very much consolation from that. The others deal more or less with agricultural rehabilitation and other methods of dealing with the question of relief. As I said before, relief is only a part of the problem of unemployment and I would rather have it done away with entirely. What I should like to see is provision whereby the people of the country might earn their own livelihood. Instead of devoting four-fifths of his speech to details of administration with regard to relief, however important that may be from the administrative standpoint, I think it would have been better had the minister given us some idea of the government's program for dealing with the existing situation. Since the minister made his speech it has been announced that the government is going to spend large sums of money for the purpose of providing employment. I have no objection to expenditures for this purpose, but I believe the minister will agree with me that no form of capital expenditure can be a cure for the problem of unemployment. In my humble opinion the piling up of a debt burden will only aggravate an already serious situation. If we are to tackle this important problem of unemployment we must deal with it in a more fundamental way than by merely expending large sums of public money which only add to the national debt burden.
So far we have had no indication of the government's policy apart from the expanding of foreign trade. We find that to-day there is a contraction in our foreign markets and we
20S8
Relief and Agricultural Distress

begin to realize at once how little we can depend on those markets as a means of enabling us to cope with our internal problems.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend, I know, is keenly interested in this question. He says that what we should look for is employment and I agree with him absolutely. He has considered the possibilities of increasing employment, but he does not believe that there is any hope in an expansion of trade, nor does he believe that it is a wise policy to make capital expenditures for the purpose of providing employment. I agree with him that expenditures of that kind, if they are to be justified, must lead ultimately to an increase in national income. That is their essential justification. But I do not think that he has thrown any light on the situation. He has said that you cannot provide sufficient employment through expanding trade. He has said that you cannot provide employment usefully by means of large capital expenditures. He has also said that we ought not to continue relief. What does he suggest?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I did not say that we ought not to do those things; I said that they are not a solution.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What is the solution, then?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I say that capital expenditures are not a solution for the unemployment problem.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Nor is expansion of trade, according to the hon. gentleman.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The granting of relief is not a solution. The mere fact of obtaining wider markets for our products is not in my opinion a solution, and I think that is evident: throughout this period of seven or eight years we have been faced with acute unemployment. What can we do? I am in favour of a comprehensive housing scheme, a scheme of clearing away slums, to provide employment and at the same time give to the people of the country proper housing accommodation; and I believe in doing this through the^ public treasury without adding to the national debt. That is the difference between the hon. gentleman and myself. I do not believe that the government are prepared to do that. I would also provide for public works along the same line. In 1934 the previous government provided approximately $34,000,000 for public works through the creation of additional currency and nothing serious happened.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think my hon. friend is incorrect as to the amount.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I understand that S35,000,000 was printed and a part of it was used for a public works program. The money was printed as part of the government's policy and no harm came to the country. I suggest that we could enter upon a comprehensive housing scheme, with all our natural resources, without having to borrow from private interests. Personally I cannot see anything wrong about a principle of that kind, but the government will not accept it.
I would go a little further. The moment we suggest that the needs of our people should be satisfied first, before we look to the export of commodities, we are told that we are economic nationalists. What I am trying to do is to bring about economic sanity in the affairs of the country. The minister told us on Monday that from certain parts of Canada we were exporting to other parts of the world, halibut, salmon and apples. What consolation is it to the million people on relief to-day to tell them that we are sending out of Canada the foodstuffs that they should be given the first opportunity of consuming? Under a proper system of planned economy it would be possible to distribute those commodities among our own people. Our own Canadian people who in their general capacity have helped to produce that wealth should have the first claim upon it. That is where we differ from the government. They would rather export these goods to people in other parts of the world than see our own people consume them. I would prefer to see our own Canadian people given the first opportunity to acquire the goods produced in the dominion.
I wish now to deal with one or two other questions touched upon by the Minister of Labour in relation to matters contained in the report. We w'ere led to believe, prior to the election, that we might have a scheme of unemployment insurance in Canada, and amongst those who believe they would become beneficiaries of such a scheme there are many who think that all the unemployed would automatically come within its purview. The commission, I believe, has correctly pointed out that the experience of other countries shows that no unemployment insurance system can carry the full burden of unemployment. Provision must be made for those who cannot qualify for unemployment insurance, and for workers who exhaust their benefits under such a plan through prolonged idleness. I am becoming more and more convinced as time goes on, especially with the recurring periods of unemployment coming in much shorter cycles than twenty or thirty

Relief and Agricultural Distress
years ago, that any unemployment insurance scheme introduced under existing economic conditions can reach no more than an extremely small proportion of unemployed men. Those whom an unemployment insurance * scheme is likely to include are those in more or less permanent employment, the ones least likely to need the benefits. Consequently the hope that vast numbers of workers may have had of benefiting by an unemployment insurance scheme are not as great as it may have been in years gone by.
I remember when an unemployment insurance scheme was first introduced in the British house, about thirty years ago. At that time the government and those engaged in the statistical survey of unemployment could measure the amount of unemployment with reasonable accuracy. They could say that it would vary in a given period of years from five to ten per cent. But to-day the variation is ever so much greater. I think
160.000	was the number given by the minister the other day.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Of unemployed employables on relief.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But the total number unemployed is probably much greater. How much greater we do not know, but we may have a reasonable idea.


Norman McLeod Rogers: You can have an estimate
by the bureau of statistics.


Abraham Albert Heaps: You can have a reasonable
estimate. But you cannot say now what the number of unemployed is going to be within one or two years. To-day it may be
150.000	and two years from now it may be 750,000, as it was in 1933. In fact from the time the interim report was made public until to-day, when the final report of the commission is before us-in just those few months-there has been a vast change in the economic situation in this country. If such a change can take place in a few months, what is likely to happen in two or three years? The cycles recur more frequently and their magnitude is greater than in the past. Instead of a variation of five to ten per cent it may be as high as thirty per cent, and no unemployment insurance scheme that the government can introduce could ever take care of such numbers of unemployed as we have had in years gone by.
One thing I did hope the commission might recommend was something in the way of relief for our municipalities. But they have not touched that feature at all. In fact they suggest that we proceed on almost the same lines as before in dealing with this problem.
And evidently that is about the policy which the government itself is adopting. I should like, however, to quote a few words spoken by the Minister of Labour in this house on March 30, 1936, because they are quite applicable to what we are discussing now. He said, as reported on page 1569 of Hansard:
The problem of prolonged unemployment in this and other countries is a challenge to the political intelligence of our generation.
With that statement I am in full accord. Then he went on to say:
As individuals we must guard ourselves against the complacent acceptance of conditions as we find them to-day. As members of parliament and as a government the placid acceptance of present conditions would be little better than a voluntary declaration of political bankruptcy.
But it seems to me that the government is now accepting conditions as they are. I could quote a number of other statements which the Minister of Labour made on that occasion. I have no doubt that when he spoke in this chamber on March 30, 1936, he did so with a sense of the onerous responsibilities devolving upon him and with the intention of doing all that was best under the circumstances, no doubt he thought he would be able to put into effect policies which would bring about the improved conditions which I am sure he desired then, and desires now. He said significantly that if he could not do that it was a challenge to our intelligence and an indication of political bankruptcy.
I wish now to deal briefly with the aspect of the question to which I referred to a moment ago, that of the burden of unemployment relief on the municipalities. We are bound to admit that the municipalities are not responsible for the condition of unemployment in Canada to-day. It is most unfair on the part of the national government and this house that the greater part of the burden arising from this condition should fall upon our municipal authorities. I do not know whether the minister was so sure in his own mind about the statement he made the other day as to the burden upon our municipalities. He said that in certain municipalities the standard of relief was such that it competed with the labour market in that area, the implication being that the standard of relief in those areas was too high. In fairness to the municipalities which may be implicated, and in order that they may refute the statement if they can, I should like the minister to say which municipalities were giving too high a scale of relief. I am wondering whether the minister had in mind the city of Winnipeg. I have heard it said that Winnipeg is



Relief and Agricultural Distress
giving the unemployed too much. I had sent to me recently a statement of the scale of relief which the municipal authorities of Winnipeg are giving to the recipients of public relief; here it is. A family of two persons, husband and wife, for unemployment relief food allowance and other sundries in the home, such as soap, etc., receives for a month the equivalent of S12.76. Three dollars a week for two persons to live on in Winnipeg! Is there any hon. member here who will say that is too high? Yet we are told that in some municipalities the standard of relief is too 'high. So the scale goes on until the highest is reached-$41.64 per month for food for a family of two grown-ups and six dependent children, in other words a little less than $10 a week for food for eight persons! I do not think a little over $1125 per week per person in a family of eight could by the greatest stretch of the imagination be said to be too much. I think in fairness to the municipalities he had in mind the minister should state which cities were giving too much by way of relief, and give them an opportunity to state their side of the question.
There is also the question of the financial burden on the municipalities. In 1929 the city of Winnipeg spent $25,914 in the way of unemployment relief, and I think in a comparative sense the figures I am giving would be applicable to almost any large industrial area in Canada. The year 1929 was during the period which we commonly term the highest peak of prosperity in this country, although I must admit that it was only a onesided prosperity. In 1937, however, for its share of unemployment relief the city of Winnipeg had to spend the sum of $1,530,015. That is the extent to which it had grown. Over a period of seven years, from 1931 to 1937 inclusive, the city of Winnipeg had to spend approximately $10,000,000 in the way of public relief. How can any municipality stand such heavy expenditures? Winnipeg cannot. In 1929 and 1930 Winnipeg was one of the best financed cities in Canada. It had a sinking fund equal to the best to be found anywhere on the north American continent; but to-day, as the result of capital expenditures involved in connection with unemployment relief over a period of more than seven years, the banks refuse to grant the city further credit. That S10,000,000 means that out of revenue the city of Winnipeg must make an annual expenditure of $550,000 for interest charges.
I think in considering this whole question of relief the government ought to come to the aid of our municipalities and relieve them of

this burden, in order that they may fulfil the functions they ought to fulfil as municipal bodies. Under present circumstances it is almost impossible for Winnipeg, together with a great many other cities in the west and probably in the east as well, to carry on. They find themselves on the verge of bankruptcy, due to this load of unemployment relief for which they are in no way responsible. I would plead with the minister that the government make additional grants in aid to the provinces so that this aid may be passed on to the municipalities, thereby recognizing the responsibility of the federal government for the unemployment situation in Canada. That it is recognized as a federal responsibility is shown by the fact that to-day we are told that the government will expend large sums of money for public works.
When these expenditures are being considered by the government I believe they should be made in municipalities where they are most needed. I do not care whether the municipalities are in the east or the west; I should like to see the government give most where the need is greatest.


Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: I have carefully considered the speech delivered on Monday by the Minister of Labour, and at least one part of it impressed me profoundly. I refer to page 1983 of Hansard, where the minister says:
Without question it-
That is, unemployment relief.
-is the most vital problem which confronts all governments at this time, regardless of the measures that may be adopted to deal with it. I should like to suggest to the committee that in its wider aspects it involves our whole theory of government and it raises issues, as I have had occasion to mention before, which lie at the very root of our system of federal public finance.
I should like to congratulate the minister upon expressing that point of view, for indeed what he has said is no idle truism. Further, I should like to congratulate him upon his lucid speech, but as I read it I was reminded of the language of Winston Churchill, who, in speaking of another, said in essence that his own native lucidity of expression was a great handicap to him when he had so little to say.
The speech of the minister deals with a problem that goes to the very depths of our national life and is, as the minister himself states, without question the most vital and pressing of all the problems with which we have to deal. The minister spoke for a space of three hours, during which he purported to cover the whole broad problem. He dealt

Relief and Agricultural Distress
with many different points, but perhaps if he should ask himself what the man on relief feels to-day as a result of what the minister said in his three hour speech, he might well ponder upon the reply. Does the man on relief to-day feel encouraged as a result of the minister's speech? There are in this dominion at this very moment hundreds of thousands who are dependent upon the payment of relief and who look to the bounty of the government for mere sustenance. They are as well looking to the government to take some action to improve the lot in which they find themselves to-day due to no fault of their own. Is there any member of this committee who feels for a moment that those on relief to-day, those who are employable but unemployed or those who are employed for part time, can take encouragement out of anything that has been said by the minister? What hope is held out to these men and women?
I have under my hand the "final" report dated January 26, 1938, of the national employment commission. Within the covers of this report there is much to which all hon. rpembers may subscribe. Unquestionably the commission has done its job honestly and well within the limits of its ability, but what is to be the fate of its final report? What is to be done with these recommendations? The house has witnessed during the last session or two what has happened to many reports. There have been interim reports of this commission, and what treatment have they received? I shall return to that in a few moments, but now we are told by the minister that the findings of the commission are to be held pending the report of the Rowell commission. One commission reports to another. It sounds very much like a double play in a baseball game, "Rogers to Purvis to Rowell." Here we have one commission set up to accomplish a definite purpose and to make recommendations to the government. Those recommendations are made, and now we are told that we must wait. The commission was fully conscious of its own position in this matter, for if we turn to page 8 of their report we find this language, referring to the work done by the employment commission:
The extensive work done during the last twelve months will undoubtedly be of considerable value to the new commission.
This is an expression of opinion from the national employment commission, in its own report, referring to the new commission which is to follow it. After all, we in Canada today find ourselves faced with the well known
31952-132*
Liberal policy of another year and another country, a "wait and see" policy strangely reminiscent to those who read history of the policies adopted by Lord Asquith by which he paved the way for the disintegration of the British Liberal policy. Wait and see! Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we have to admit that the government has great "weight" of numbers, but it seems to be completely at "sea" in this matter.
What great work has been done; what great accomplishment has been achieved by the government in connection with the matter before us at the present time? I shall not take up the time of the committee in attempting to cover the ground covered by the minister in his speech on Monday, or to review all that he said. I shall deal with only one or two phases of it.
It was with some degree of satisfaction that the minister reported what had been done under the farm improvement, employment and settlement plan. The minister realizes, as does the national employment commission, that this plan was not set up by this government, not even recommended by the national employment commission, but constituted by the former government. The present government has to its credit, let. it be said, the fact that it adopted the principle of that plan.


Mr. MARTIN:: Look at the difference in the results.


Denton Massey: I have noted them. The plan tinder the former government was and still is a great success, but do not forget the origin and point from which it started, and give credit where credit is due. Fifty thousand men have been placed under the scheme and the minister is to be congratulated upon having accepted it. Surely the government and the national employment commission should not assume any credit for this plan. I think this answers the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). It is certain, however, that in connection with this plan the minister has not been able to break down the resistance of the largest province in the dominion. During a discussion on this matter in 1937, I asked a question of the minister, which is reported on page 2827 of Hansard of that year, as follows:
Mr. Massey: A few moments ago the minister stated that Ontario had objected to participating in this scheme. In view of the ^le Past year I am wondering it the Ontario government had changed their minds and if they would now like to come into the scheme.
Mr. Rogers:	I am unable to answer that
question at this time.
Relief and Agricultural Distress


Norman McLeod Rogers: In rural courses. If the hon. member will go back to the statement he will see that it covers courses given in rural areas. The hon. member has not dealt with the courses given in the larger centres of population.


Denton Massey: I was simply taking the minister's statement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I just state that in order to avoid any misunderstanding.


Denton Massey: I read the whole answer from Hansard, and I shall read it again if necessary.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The bulk of the work has been in the cities.


Denton Massey: I understand that. I stated distinctly that they were rural courses. So far 10,000 young people in the rural areas have taken advantage of the opportunities offered
under this plan. The hon. member for Essex East seems to be nervous. Has he a question to ask?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was not nervous, but I would direct attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman's observation has reference to the entire situation and not to the rural areas. In the light of that I do not think his observation was altogether fair or adequate.


Denton Massey: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: It is clearer than it was.


Denton Massey: Let us look at the figures in regard to the youth of Canada without respect to rural or urban centres. This year in the Dominion of Canada there will reach the age of sixteen some 210,000 young men and young wonlen. Of this number 70,000 will not finish or will not have finished elementary school; 105,000 of them will go to some high school; 42,000 of them will proceed to matriculation; 21,000 will go to university; and 6,000 will graduate from university. Thus,
168,000	of our young people who will reach the age of sixteen this year, will not matriculate.
I wish to make an assumption, and in it I wish to get the concurrence of the minister. Would he consider it a safe assumption to state that two-thirds of those who leave school prior to matriculation leave for the natural reason that they feel it is desirable or necessary for them to become at least a part breadwinner in the family and, as it were, pull their weight in the family boat.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend is putting that as a question, he will understand that I have no basis, and he has no basis, for doing other than making the assumption.


Denton Massey: Is it a reasonable assumption?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have no further information than my hon. friend has.


Denton Massey: Possibly the minister will grant for the purpose of discussion that it is not too far beside the mark.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is the hon. members statement.
Relief and Agricultural Distress


Paul Joseph James Martin: Marriage may be a minor stimulus.


Denton Massey: The hon. member is in a better position to know than any other member of this chamber.
Let us say for the sake of argument that two-thirds of those who do not matriculate do not do so for financial reasons. I take that figure resulting from my own experience with young people. Then I assume that
100,000	of these 210,000 young people who reach the age of sixteen this year leave school prior to matriculation because they have not the necessary funds to carry them to that point. The government grant is Sl.000,000, and thus, according to the assumption I have made, there are 100.000 young people who, we may assume, might desire to take advantage of that grant at the age of sixteen. In other words, if they have not the necessary funds to carry on their educational training and their learnership courses-that is a new word-they are definitely in a position to take advantage of this youth training, and of the opportunity provided under the $1,000,000 grant. This would mean that there would be available to each one of these young people the sum of $10, not a sum in cash but facilities provided that can be purchased with the sum of .$10, and this is for only one age group, no consideration at all being given to those between the ages of seventeen and thirty, who are also eligible under this grant.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The sum was duplicated
by the province, my hon. friend will understand.


Denton Massey: I understand that fully,
but I am speaking of federal responsibility, over which the minister has direct control. Apparently he has not so much control over the province. How about other young people who need assistance? The national expenditure for the whole of Canada in 1930-31 amounted to $4,750,000,000. Of this amount 3-5 per cent, or S165,250.000, was spent for our educational institutions, our schools and universities. On the same basis as that which I have just stated, that is, if we were to spend 3'5 per cent only of our national income for the purpose of training youth-and by national income I mean income for which this government is responsible-we would spend 3-5 per cent of $450,000,000, or $15,750,000, for the training of our youth. And yet we grant only one-sixteenth of that amount.
Hon. members will recall what was commenced under the Technical Education Act of 1919. Here a sum of money was granted

to the various provinces, a grant in aid for the purpose of stimulating-I believe that is the correct word-technical education. The results have been most, satisfactory as far as they have gone. In 1921, as a direct result of these government grants, technical education received a rare stimulus, so that ten years later we find that 121,000 young people were enrolled in our technical schools. Here it seems to me is categorical proof of the efficiency of direct grants in aid to the provinces for the purpose of education. At that time the bugaboo of interference with the provinces, of the usurpation of provincial rights by the federal government, was overcome without any difficulty whatsoever. The provinces accepted these grants and put them to a useful purpose, and they were glad to get them, with the result that technical education in this country received a stimulus which has been a great blessing to those who took advantage of it.
Let us compare the present situation with the past. Here we are to-day facing a national situation created by what has been called the depression, and which to-day is referred to as the recession, when tens of thousands of our young people are failing to get not only technical education but education of all sorts beyond a certain point. Surely the situation is far worse than it was in 1919-1920 immediately after the war. Surely the minister realizes himself that what was done then was a success, and that what can be done now could also be a success. But here we are*granting only $1,000,000, and I protested in this chamber last session with all the vehemence of which I was capable against the small amount of this grant. The principle of it is sound. I am not criticizing any one of the courses set up as far as they go, but I do complain of the extent of the grant. When we were dealing with an emergency in the two western provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, we poured out of the treasury of this dominion, $22,390,000 under governor general's warrants because there was an emergency. I am not minimizing for a moment the desirability of sending that money to Saskatchewan and Alberta where it will be put to the most useful of purposes, the maintenance of life and of those things which maintain life. Here is an emergency situation; we sent $22,390,000 to the two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan because we have to do so. That $22,390,000 is to cure nothing except an immediate situation; it is to cure no cancprous ill but is merely to meet an emergen; y. It is man's answer to an act of God.

Relief and Agricultural Distress
It seems to me that here is an example of what we are doing in so many different ways in this dominion. We are temporizing with the results of situations which we have failed to face. We are not getting down to and dealing with fundamental causes. If we were to spend such an amount as we have sent out to Alberta and Saskatchewan, because we had to do so, on education and leamership courses or apprenticeships-call it what you want- no one can estimate what the results would be in this dominion for the possible returns are immeasurable.
Some of us have had an opportunity of visiting Sweden and Denmark in recent years, and one realizes that their young men and young women who have shown ability to assimilate education are provided with an opportunity to develop themselves into useful productive citizens by having made available to them to the fullest possible extent the country's educational system. The hon. member for Essex East last session introduced most ably a resolution in regard to scholarships. What has happened? We have our 81,000,000, but how far does it go? We must realize that when we spend $1,000,000 on youth reestablishment in this country, we are spending only one-fifth of one per cent of our national income and devoting only that relatively petty and puny amount to youth reestablishment. What shortsightedness is here!
Within the report there is much with which I agree. But on page 12 I read this paragraph :
In view of its importance, the commission has, in recent months, discussed this problem with all provincial governments, and has also taken active steps to educate public opinion as to the necessity for action so as to provide the appropriate background for practical achievement.
With all respect for the commission, that is the remark of an adolescent. "To educate public opinion," in connection with that with which we are dealing! Surely it is obvious on every hand that public opinion is stirred almost to the breaking point, because the government are taking no direct, forward steps to deal with this question with which they perforce must deal. They are temporizing with the situation and not dealing with its fundamental cause. Educate public opinion!' I should think the government would hope that public opinion would not be stirred up any further than it is at the present moment. "Wait and see."
Let us return to the minister's remarks of last Monday. As reported at page 1995 of Hansard, he said:
For that reason I want to say frankly to the committee that we as a government did not feel it was desirable, at this stage at any rate, that we should by dominion legislation seek to invade the field of apprenticeship. There have been cases before-and they have been brought to the attention of the house-where the dominion government has by a grant in aid induced provinces-at least they have occasionally told us afterwards that they were induced -more or less, the assumption has been, against their will, into new directions of expenditure. I need only mention agricultural instruction and technical education. Once we have gone into those fields the tendency has always been to make what was designed as a temporary expenditure into a permanent expenditure, and in this way to bring about as it were a transfer of provincial obligations to the dominion by a back-door route, and that has not been a satisfactory method of dealing with the situation.
And then later:
Particularly at the present time, I do not think it is advisable that the dominion government should assume what might be regarded as legislative jurisdiction. . . .
Those are the minister's comments with regard to apprenticeship. Does he really feel that an effort to reintroduce the apprenticeship system into the Dominion of Canada means that we are invading the provinces by the back door? Having the high regard I have for the minister, and the high respect I have for his native intelligence, I cannot but feel that he knows in his own heart that it would not be a back-door practice. It might appear such to some if they wished to misconstrue it, but the minister knows and I know that it is not a back-door method to do what was done in 1919 under the Technical Education Act. The minister knows full well that if it had not been for that act and the putting of it into practice as was done, technical education in this dominion would not be one-half as far along the way as it is.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The whole question is that apprenticeship is and always has been a matter of provincial jurisdiction. That is the position at the present time.


Denton Massey: So is education, as far as that goes, but we invaded the technical education field because we felt it was absolutely necessary to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Only through grants in aid.


Denton Massey: The hon. member for Essex East told us that in this chamber.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Only through the agency of grants in aid.


Denton Massey: The hon. member follows me to-day much better than he usually does. He has my congratulations.
Relief and Agricultural Distress


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: I wonder if the hon. member for Greenwood would tell us what he thinks of the advisability and desirability of industry setting up an apprenticeship system as an economic measure, not as a government aided scheme at all, but for its own sake, for the sake of the community, and as some return for the great favours that have been shown to industry in this country by the public and by governments.


Denton Massey: If industry were to return to the present government the "great favours'' shown to it by that government, there would be no apprenticeship system at all. On the other hand, I appreciate the purport of the question asked by the hon. member for Melfort, and if he had not spoiled it by a political reference I would have answered it quite readily.


Mr. SPENCE:: He cannot help it.


Malcolm McLean: It is an economic reference. In all sincerity I say that economically speaking this country has granted great privileges and great favours to organized city industry. My question is a sincere one, asked in order to get information from the hon. member, who has given much study to this question, as to the possibility of developing the apprenticeship system along economic lines.


Denton Massey: I think it can be done, and perforce must be done. Of course it is being done, but not to the extent that it was done at one time or to which it might be carried on by industry itself. But there are some industries which, as a result of their own economic experience, find it extraordinarily difficult to set up and maintain an apprenticeship system, because they are not able themselves to absorb those whom they apprentice, and are therefore paying their own money for the apprenticeship of young men and young women who are going into other industries; and they cannot afford that experience.
I am now dealing with a particular case. The hon. member for Melfort asks a general question. I am coming, if he will bide his time just a second, to the recommendations, which I regard as excellent, of the national employment commission in this matter. But what I wanted to ask the minister was: We have in this report, I think it is on page 40, the .following:
The commission has recommended that the following provisions should be observed in the establishment of apprenticeship and learnership plans.
There follow sixteen points, which I shall read if the hon. member would like me to do so:

1.	Clear distinction as between "apprenticeship" and "learnership" plans.
2.	Definition of age and sex eligibility.
3.	Qualifications for selection.
4.	Fixed period for apprenticeship courses.
5.	For apprenticeship only, a written indenture between apprentice, his parent or guardian and employer.
6.	Compulsory government registration and supervision of all approved apprenticeship and learnership plans.
7.	Maintenance of craft standards by definite schedules and standards of training-with periodic tests and granting of official diplomas.
8.	Fixed period for class instruction of all apprentices and obligatory attendance thereat.
9.	In the case of apprenticeship definite ratio of apprentices to journeymen.
10.	Progressive wage scale to provide apprentice with regular income.
11.	Plans to interlock with provincial vocational education.
12.	Establishment of advisory committees under provincial supervision for each trade, where feasible, to work out methods most suitable for the application of plans in designated areas or for particular industries.
13.	Appointment of vocational officers to cooperate with technical and secondary schools.
14.	Employer and employee organizations to be given every facility to become familiar with the work of technical schools and with the employment service; permission to be granted by industries to senior students and teachers. to visit and become acquainted with factory operations as far as may be practical.
15.	Revision of school curricula from time to time to bring same into harmony with the practical requirements of industry.
16.	Provision to be made in minimum wage laws for exemption of accredited apprentices where their wages are regulated by approved apprenticeship schemes.
That is the report on apprenticeship, by the national employment commission. The hon. member for Melfort can see that there are many different points connected with this matter. I fully admit that it is a complicated problem. But the question I want to ask the minister is: Have any attempts been made to make agreements with industry in regard to apprenticeship? What steps have been taken in cooperation with industry to reestablish what has been done in this regard? The minister in his speech did not make any reference to these matters, and I wondered, as I read the recommendations of the national employment commission-


Norman McLeod Rogers: What we have done, as my hon. friend is aware, is to enter into agreements with the provinces, and those agreements have contained schedules covering various training projects that involved occupational training which, in turn, involved cooperation with industry. But the administration of them has been with the provincial

Reliej and Agricultural Distress
governments concerned, even as the whole question of apprenticeship has been under the provincial governments, and I do not think anything could emphasize that more strongly than the various references in the report itself as contained on pages 40 and 41.


Denton Massey: Yes. I have read it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: A desirable thing is, it is suggested in the report, to link it up with technical and vocational training, which is provincial, and so on.


Denton Massey: The question I had in mind was this. Perhaps there are two steps in the approach to the problem. First, there is the question of determining that provinces are willing to accept a grant in aid for such a reform; then, is the industry willing to cooperate with a provincial or any government as far as an apprenticeship system is concerned? Have any steps been taken to ascertain the latter rather than the former point?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I should say, both. But our contact as a federal government has been with the provinces. The provinces, in turn, have dealt with industry within provincial borders. There has been in some cases excellent cooperation on the part of industry. In other cases-I do not think I should make any invidious comparisons at this time-the cooperation has not been all that could have been desired.


Denton Massey: The minister referred to the matter in these words:
I do not think it is advisable that the dominion parliament should assume what might be regarded as legislative jurisdiction over apprenticeship.
Does he regard these courses already set up as involving legislative jurisdiction?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No.


Denton Massey: Then we are comparing incomparables; the two are different. I could find in the minister's speech, or in the report no reference to the fact that industry had been consulted to see whether they were willing or not to cooperate in any governmental plan.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The provincial authorities, in carrying out the terms of the agreement, have been in consultation with industry.


Denton Massey: But there is no mention of agreement or otherwise here. The minister refers to no such agreement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Agreements have been made between the Department of Labour and similar departments in all the provinces covering the training projects.


Denton Massey: Let me repeat what the minister said:
I do not think it is advisable that the domitdon parliament should assume what might be regarded as legislative jurisdiction over apprenticeship.
Who wants legislative jurisdiction?


Norman McLeod Rogers: A question was put to me by a member of the house, or there was criticism on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Denton Massey: Let me read the context:
Mr. Woodsworth: But surely if it is possible to do that in what are termed learnership courses, it would be possible to do it in the case of apprenticeship.
Mr. Rogers:	I shall not quarrel with my
hon. friend over the use of terms. But I shall say this, that, particularly at th* present time, I do not think it is advisable. . . .
My whole point is that it is not a question of legislative jurisdiction, but a question of cooperation, a question of working with industry-not working for industry, but working with industry. I repeat, I cannot find in the minister's speech nor can I find in the employment commission's report any reference that leads us to believe that industry has been consulted to see whether or not it is prepared to cooperate with any government, provincial or federal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the minister has pointed out, the administration of this problem is in the hands of the provinces, and while some of the provinces have not cooperated to the extent we should like, some have. In Ontario, in my hon. friend's own city as well as in Windsor, men have been appointed and at this moment are making a canvass of industry in the community to ascertain the extent to which industry is prepared to cooperate with the government in this problem.


Denton Massey: In regard to apprenticeship?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Denton Massey: Well, since we are not clairvoyant, the minister will admit that we could not know it if it were not in his remarks.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I did not catch the remark.


Denton Massey: I find no reference in the minister's speech to anything of the sort now mentioned by the hon. member for Essex East. I did not know that the matter was going forward in that capacity. All I know is that the premier of Ontario is reported to have referred to the minister's speech as a "headline and a headache."


Norman McLeod Rogers: That has reference to some other matter.
Relief and Agricultural Distress


Denton Massey: It is hard to say to what matter the premier of Ontario refers at any time. The hon. member for Essex East will, however, agree with me in this. We were told in the election of 1935 that there would be great harmony between the federal government and each of at least eight of the nine provinces, were a Liberal government elected. There was even a love-feast in Toronto prior to the election. But now harmony is conspicuous by its absence, which seems to be highly regrettable. It is extremely unfortunate that as we rise in our places here to make a few remarks in regard to such a matter, we have to conjecture whether there will be harmony or not. The minister himself admits that the whole matter hinges on such harmony. It was successful in previous years because the provinces cooperated. I have here a list of what was spent in those years. But to-day youth is handicapped because two Liberal prime ministers cannot get along.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Who said that?


Denton Massey: I say it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought so.


Denton Massey: I do not think the Prime Minister will contradict that statement.
May I now refer as briefly as possible to the question of housing. At page 1990 of Hansard the minister is reported in regard to housing; he had a few remarks to make on the subject. Later on, after the dinner recess, at page 2000, he made a further reference. In the course of his speech, which fills no less than twenty-six pages of Hansard, he devoted only half a page to the important question of national housing. Why was so little said upon this subject? Because so little has been done. Let us look for a moment at the home improvement plan. The minister reports proudly that under the plan, which was itself under the aegis of the national employment commission, the sum of $15,000,000 has been spent in a year-splendid, as far as it goes. But I challenge the statement that the home improvement plan is some sort of serendipity, so that as a result of it some S60.000.000 or S70.000.000 have been spent in the building industry, that this sum has been spent as a result of the home improvement plan.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member for Davenport reminded me of that.


Denton Massey: I cannot challenge so eminent an authority as either the minister or the hon. member for Davenport. I am, however, stating my own humble views, and I say that in my opinion the home improvement plan is not a serendipity. The minister as-

sumes that eighty-five per cent of what was spent under the home improvement plan was spent for labour, and that a $60,000,000 or $70,000,000 impetus was given to the building industry as a result of this plan, basing his figures on what was done in the United States. Well, let us see what has been done there compared with what we have achieved in Canada. The cities in the United States have done considerable work in slum clearance and home improvement. The housing division of the PWA has completed fifty-one projects, having expended $130 million. The minister probably knows of the Williamsburg homes in New York and other places. The housing division employed 102.000 men last year, and enabling acts were passed by various states without undue difficulty. Under the new United States housing act of 1937, twenty per cent of the cost of construction will be met by local and state government and twenty-five per cent by the federal government. And that was followed by the announcement on January 12, 193S, that S146.645.000 had been set aside for the use of forty cities-some $18,000,000 in New York, S4,900,000 in Buffalo, and so on. What have we done in Canada to stimulate building? Have we before us at this moment any low cost housing scheme? Has any such housing scheme been put forward to reduce unemployment? Definitely, yes. But the only direct action taken so far was taken under the Dominion Housing Act of 1935 before hon. gentlemen opposite came into office.
Let us turn for a moment to the final report of the national employment commission. At page 9 there appears this:
However, the revival of activity in house construction has not kept pace with the revival in other lines. Despite the shortage of housing in most parts of the country, people show little disposition to invest money in this field. There are several reasons for this attitude.
The commission goes on to list five reasons which it regards as adequate to explain the apathy of people in regard to the scheme. The commission feels very strongly on the subject, however, for at page 36 we find this language:
To direct expenditures on public works it is all-important that there should be added measures for stimulating private expenditures, of which successful examples are to be found in the Dominion Housing Act and the home improvement plan.
There are inherent difficulties in subsidizing employment in private industry, but the expenditure of public funds to promote private expenditures in providing more suitable housing for the country is desirable. In the field of slum clearance and the development of low

Reliej and Agricultural Distress
rental housing for those whose earning capacity does not enable them to live under conditions which are conducive to their own health and employability, or indeed to the public health, direct subsidizing of private and local initiative, whether by cash subsidy or by loan at less than commercial rates of interest, is desirable. This is only so, however, if adequate care is taken to ensure, first, that there is a supply of unemployed labour of the type required and, secondly, that the benefits of subsidization will go to the low income groups whose position it is desired to benefit.
Now, it is interesting to know on the basis of that thesis that the national employment commission were not derelict in their duty. They did submit a plan; it will be found on page 101 of their report, appendix E, "low rental housing plan." I shall not take the time of hon. members to read that plan, but it is worthy of being read with a great deal of care. There is much to warrant the exercise of critical judgment; there is much to commend this plan to our consideration. But when we turn to page 11 of the appendices we find this statement:
The plan recommended by the commission was put before the minister some time after the opening of the parliamentary session of 1937, and it is understood action thereon has been held over.
A plan was submitted. They even went so far as to submit a draft bill. The plan was submitted towards the beginning of the session of 1937. Here we are now in the middle or towards the end of the session of 1938, and we are still waiting to see. Why? Why has this plan not been brought forward? The minister gave his reason the other day, as reported on page 2000 of Hansard:
The national employment commission made proposals to the government last year with respect to low cost housing. These proposals were later given the form of a draft bill which reached the government at a time when it was not feasible to give it the necessary consideration before the prorogation of that short session of parliament.
Is that a reason? Does parliament have to be sitting before the government can consider these matters? Did we arrive here last January and find a draft bill ready to submit to this house for consideration? Is it necessary for the house to be sitting before emergency matters such as this can be given consideration by the government? And where is the legislation at even this late date? There is no legislation. We are waiting to see. Surely the minister will admit that his reason for delay is a lamentably weak reason for not having introduced a housing scheme. Surely the house does not have to be in
session before the matter can receive the active consideration of the minister. We did not arrive here and find any plan ready for us. The employment commission reports, and we " wait and see," while another commission reports. Meanwhile what are we doing about slum clearance? What are we doing about low cost housing? What have we done about the report submitted a year ago? What are we doing in regard to farm housing? What are we doing about the dilapidated homes in the rural areas? Soon it will be too late to do anything. As I said at the beginning, we are temporizing with results rather than dealing with causes. We are failing to tackle directly any specific problem. We pay out millions of dollars for relief and flirt flippantly with the causes that make it necessary.
We are faced with many difficult problems which the minister touched upon or brushed in his three hour speech; I have mentioned only two to-day, youth rehabilitation and housing. Much could be said of a positive nature in this regard but I have already taken a good deal of time, and I shall reserve what I have to say of a constructive nature to a later occasion. Meantime we are to " wait and see " and mark time. We must " wait " for another commission to report, and " see " what they report. Meantime what of the employable unemployed? What about those employed part time? What about untrained youth? What about dwellers in slums and dilapidated farm houses? Are they to remain neglected? Is a vast percentage of our youth to remain untrained? Must we expect those who live in farm houses that have long outlived their usefulness to continue to live under such unspeakable conditions? Will slums not be cleared? How long is the government to continue this policy of " wait and see "? There is an emergency facing this dominion which calls for something more than a three hour speech, an emergency which goes to the very quick centre of our national life; for it affects the homes of the country and those who live in them. The government, by neglecting the training of our youth deprives them not only of the opportunity to earn, but to leam how to earn. We are compelling many of those who live in our cities and on our farms to live under horrible conditions while we " wait and see."
In the name of humanity, let us away with this policy of " wait and see."
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Pelagic Sealing
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 7, 1938