Mr. P. A. SEGUIN (L'Assomption-Mont-calm) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
lay on the table of the. house a petition on behalf of tabaoco growers-signed by a few hundred persons-of the parish of St. Marie-Salome, Montcalm county, strongly protesting against the proposal of levying an excise tax of 20 cents per pound on the sale of leaf tobacco.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 16, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.

Questions

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANSION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17 respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Mr. MANION:: I find I have not a copy
of the bill before me, but I think I can give an explanation. This bill is to provide for the appointment of auditors, according to the act of last year.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. VALLANCE:: What amounts were paid to Mr. R. R. Manville, or to the Manville Hardware Company, Limited, both of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, in connection with the furnishing of supplies, material, equipment or otherwise, out of unemployment relief funds, or the supplying of any such material to camps in Prince Albert national park?


Mr. MURPHY:: 


John Vallance: What amounts were paid to Mr. G. Braden of Rosthern, Saskatchewan, out of unemployment relief funds, by way of wmges, salary or otherwise, in connection wdth unemployment relief work in Prince Albert national park, from the inception of the camps to date?


Charles Murphy: None.


HOUSE OF COMMONS, PENSIONS PAID TO MEMBERS
Mr. COTNAM:: 1.	Do any members of the House of Commons receive, or has any member of the House of Commons received a pension for war service?
2.	If so, who are such members and what is the amount of the pension each has received or is receiving?
3.	On what dates were such pensions
granted?	.
4.	By what body was each of such pensions granted?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Yes.

Mr. W. G. Ernst:
From	13-6-19	to	30-9-19	at	$ 7.50 per monthFrom	29-5-20	to	29-4-23	at	$ 7.50 per monthFrom	30-4-23	to	3-5-24	at	$10.00 per monthFrom	4-5-24	to	9-10-25	at	$13.00 per monthFrom	10-10-25	to	30-9-33	at	$14.00 per month
Continues in effect.
Mr. G. R. Geary:
From	25-3-19	to	22-3-27 at $ 5.25 per	monthFrom	23-3-27	to	24-1-28 at $ 6.50 per	monthFrom	25-1-28	to	31-8-28 at $ 7.25 per	monthFrom	1-9-28	to	10-3-30 at $14.50 per	monthFrom	11-3-30	to	30-9-33 at $16.00 per	month
Pension discontinued at his request.
The Hon. I. A. Mackenzie:
From 25-9-29 to 30-9-29 at $ 8.33 per month From 31-10-29 to 31-1-34 at $ 8.33 per month Continues in effect.
The Hon. R. J. Manion:
From 10-2-18 to 28-2-19 at $16.67 per month From 1-3-19 to 30-6-19 at $ 8.34 per month Pension discontinued at his request.
Mr. C. G. Power:
From 11-1-18 to 12-6-18 at $46.00 per month From 13-6-18 to 13-6-19 at $52.00 per month From 14-6-19 to 31-8-19 at $56.00 per month From 1-9-19 to 31-8-20 at $62.00 per month From 1-9-20 to 9-9-29 at $68.00 per month From 10-9-29 to 31-1-34 at $64.00 per month Continues in effect.
Mr. J. H. Stitt:
From 7-9-20 to 24-9-20 at $11.50 per month From 25-5-21 to 26-2-22 at $11.50 per month From 27-2-22 to 30-9-24 at $13.00 per month From 1-10-24 to 31-5-25 at $32.50 per month From 1-6-25 to 31-1-31 at $19.50 per month Discontinued 31-1-31, at his request.
The Hon. D. M. Sutherland:
From 14-3-19 to 30-4-21 at $19.50 per month From	1-5-21 to 31-3-27 at $26.00 per month
From	1-4-27 to 31-1-34 at $32.50 per month
Continues in effect.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	The Hon. I. A. Mackenzie by the Federal Appeal Board, others by the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, SUPPLIES TO SUNBURY CAMP
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	How many pairs of boots were supplied to the unemployed at the unemployment relief camp at Sunbury, New Brunswick, since the opening of such camp?
2.	Where were such boots manufactured, from whom w-ere they purchased', how much was paid to the seller per pair?
3.	Were tenders called or invited for supplying the boots required for the said camp?
4.	If so, what are the names of persons or firms tendering, and the amount of each tender?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1. Ankle boots-nil; lumbermen's rubber boots-758 pairs.
Supply-Questions

2.	At the Canadian factories of the following firms: Gutta Percha and Rubber Company; Northern Rubber Company; Woodstock Rubber Company.
Prices paid were as follows: Size 5, $1.28 per pair; other sizes, $1.60 per pair.
3.	Yes.
4.	Canadian Goodrich Company, Kitchener, Ont.; Dominion Rubber Company, Ltd., Montreal, Que.; Goodyear Tire and Rubber Goods Company, New Toronto, Ont.; Gutta Percha and Rubber Company, Ottawa, Ont.; Miner Rubber Company, Granby, Que.; Northern Rubber Company, Ltd., Guelph, Ont.; Woodstock Rubber Company, Woodstock, Ont.; Columbus Rubber Company, Montreal, Que.; Independent Rubber Company, Montreal, Que.
Tenders were received from all the above named firms, except the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Goods Company, and all firms quoted the same price as shown in the answer to question No. 2.


MR. JEAN BRUCH ESI
Mr. POULIOT:: Under the terms of his appointment as attache as secretary to the Postmaster General during his trip in Egypt, has Mr. Jean Bruehesi the right to have telephone calls and wireless messages paid by the state?


Mr. DUPRE:: Yes, within the limits of the authority of the order in council appointing him as attache to the Canadian delegation.


RURAL MAIL BOXES
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	How many rural mail boxes were on hand at the end of the fiscal year 1932-33?
2.	How many rural mail boxes are on hand at the present time?
3.	Were tenders asked for when 10,000 mail boxes were purchased?
4.	If so, what tenders were received and what was the amount of each tender?
5.	What is the name of the contractor who was successful?


Mr. DUPRE:: 1.	25,210.
2.	23,670.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Amedee Lesieur, Montreal.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENTAL SECRETARY
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is there a departmental secretary in the Post Office Department?
2.	If so, what is his name?


Mr. DUPRE:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. REID:: 1.	What amounts of gold were exported or left Canada during the twelve months of 1933: (a) in bullion; (b) in coin; (c) any other form?
2.	What amounts of gold were shipped out of Canada during 1933 by the various banks: (a) in bullion; (b) in coin; (c) any other form?
3.	What amounts of gold were shipped out of Canada by the Dominion government, during the above period: (a) in bullion; (b) in coin; (c) any other form?
4.	What amounts of gold were shipped during each month of 1933, showing the respective amounts shipped to the various countries?


ST. JEAN PORT JOLI, QUE., WHARF
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What were the costs of repairs to wharf at St. Jean Port Joli, L'Islet countv, during 1932 and 1933?
2.	Who furnished the lumber and to what amount?
3.	Wrho was the foreman in charge of the work and what amount did he draw in salary?
4.	What amount was paid to labourers and carpenters?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Return tabled
herewith.


ISLE VERTE, QUE., WHARF
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What amount was voted last year for alteration or reconstruction work of the Isle Verte wharf, Temiscouata county, Quebec?
2.	What amount has been spent?
3.	What are the names of the men who were employed on this work and the amount paid to each?
4.	What are the names of those who supplied the materials required?
5.	What amount was paid to each, and for what material?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Return tabled
herewith.


GOVERNMENT TRANSLATORS
Mr. DUPUIS:: 1.	What are the names and salaries, respectively, of the translators in each of the departments of the federal government, also in the Senate and the House of Commons?
2.	Are these translators subject to promotion rules, and are they expected to pass examinations for promotion?

Privilege-Mr. Young
3.	If so, what is the salary for each grade and what is the maximum salary in each of the departments?
4.	In each of the departments, how many technical translators are there, and what is the name and salary of each?
5.	How many translators are allotted for the translation of Hansard; who are they and what is their respective salary?
6.	Are the Hansard translators permanent employees, and if so, are they absorbed in the different departments when parliament is not in session?
7.	What are the hours of work of the Hansard translators?
8.	For the translation of the speeches delivered during a meeting of the House of Commons, do these translators start their work as these speeches are reported and corrected at the central bureau of debates, or do they start the translation only the following day?
9.	When are these speeches, so translated, sent to the printing bureau for the printing of the French edition, non-revised, of the debates?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) (for Mr. Casgrain):: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and documents, in connection with the appointment and dismissal of Air. Jos. C. Levesque, postmaster at Bagotville, and also for a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents relating to an inquiry held' in connection with charges made against said J. C. Levesque, including the proof and evidence of all the witnesses heard at said inquiry together with the decision arrived at by the commissioner who held said inquiry.


Maurice Dupré: I think this order should
stand until the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) is present in the house.
Motion stands.



PETITE RIVIERE AU RENARD WHARF

Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all government pay_ lists in connection with work done by the Public Works department at the wharf, or breakwater of Petite Riviere au Renard, Gaspe county, during the year 1931-32, under superintendent of works, Charles Bernatchez; also for a copy of all pay lists in connection with work done on the wharf of Riviere au Renard, during the winter of 1933, under superintendent of works, Anthime Dufresne.



MR. EDGAR BOUTET

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the order in council appointing Mr. Edgar Boutet as secretary of the executive in the Post Office Department.



SPECIAL SECRETARY TO POSTMASTER GENERAL

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the work prepared by the special secretary to the Postmaster General, changing the printed itinerary sent by the travel agencies for the Canadian delegation to the congress at Cairo.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This order will be struck off the order paper. The motion is out of order. As a matter of personal work between the Postmaster General and his secretary, it does not concern the house.



PRIVILEGE-MR. YOUNG

Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: I wish to speak to a question of privilege. On Thursday last, February 15, at page 602 of Hansard, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodswiorth) is reported as follows:
The hon. member for AVeyburn (Mr. Young) is reported by the Weyburn Review, of November 2, to have stated:
Then he quotes the newspaper:
Referring to the Beauliarnois case, Mr. Young said money had been sent by this corporation to Winnipeg to help the C.C.F.
Then the hon. member made this comment on that quotation:
I hope the hon. member for Weyburn made no such statement, as it is absolutely untrue.
That is not exactly what I said. What I said was that the Progressive party did not get very much money from Beauhamois but that a small amount had been sent to Winnipeg for certain members of the party, and those members are to-day going around the country denouncing other people for doing the same thing they did. If my hon. friend had read a little further in the press report he would have seen that I also said that these gentlemen did not do anything wrong in taking the money.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: As a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I absolutely deny that either of the Labour men from Winnipeg received any money whatever-


Edward James Young: I did not say so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -or the C.C.F. in Winnipeg. It received nothing whatever and the statement now made on the floor of the house is untrue. I ask therefore that the hon. member retract.


Edward James Young: I am afraid the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not hear me correctly. I did not say that the Labour
Public Works Estimates

members for Winnipeg got any money, I said, certain Progressive members now calling themselves the C.C.F.


James Shaver Woodsworth: To the best of my knowledge, there are no Progressive members in Winnipeg. I ask, as president of the C.C.F., that that statement which has been made, and which is untrue, be withdrawn.


Edward James Young: In answer to what my hon. friend has said, I think that all he can do is to speak for himself and the party he leads. If he wants confirmation of my statement I would refer him to page 828 of the evidence taken before the Beauharnois committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for Weyburn has made a sufficient explanation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There are only two members of the C.C.F. in Winnipeg. The statement has been definitely made that members of the C.C.F. received money-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -and I ask that that statement be withdrawn.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) made no statement concerning the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre personally. If he chooses to say that certain political parties did or did not do certain things there is no question of privilege about that. He has a right to make such a statement, whether correct or not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope that ruling will not be altered the slightest in Hansard.



PUBLIC WORKS ESTIMATES

Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: When the estimates for the Department of Public Works were under consideration on the 16th instant, just as we were closing that evening's session, I made certain remarks which are reported in Hansard, at page 686, as follows:
Mr. Veniot:	Before the committee rises I
should like to remind the minister that I submitted a request, by way of a motion, for the production of certain papers in connection with the Shippigan wharf. If that report has been submitted I have had no knowledge of it. I wish the minister would have it ready wdien his estimates come up again.
Mr. Stewart (Leeds): I will inquire and see that it is brought down as soon as possible.
Mr. Veniot: I cannot discuss the matter intelligently unless I have that information.
I remained in the house last night until after ten o'clock. Not feeling very well, I retired earlier than it has been usual for me 
to retire, believing that, the minister not having submitted that report, the estimates for New Brunswick would not be taken up or, if called, would be allowed to stand until the report had been presented to the house. I understand that report has been laid on the table to-day but I have not had an opportunity of discussing the estimates. Owing perhaps to a misunderstanding between the minister and myself, and inasmuch as I was under the impression that the estimates for New Brunswick would not be dealt with until that report had been submitted, I have had no opportunity of discussing the estimates for that province. I now claim the right as a member, when the supplementaries come up, not to be debarred by the rules of the house from discussing the general estimates of the province.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In reply to my hon. friend from Gloucester, I do not ask him to wait until the supplementary estimates come up. I shall be very pleased to give him an opportunity to present his views on any item that may come up in the estimates the next time. I am sorry if there has been a misunderstanding.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the most effective way to ensure protection during periods of unemployment, which unemployment insurance should provide, is to make such legislation national in its scope.
He said:	I do not propose to do more
than just outline this important matter, because I am advised that there are quite a number of members on both sides of the house who wish to debate it. Therefore I will shorten my remarks to give them an opportunity, with their superior eloquence, to press home various points in connection with it. To anyone outside the house it might appear that the wording of this resolution is somewhat weak inasmuch as it makes no specific request or demand on the government to evolve a system of unemployment insurance, but those of us who are in the house know that had the resolution been more specifically worded, there might have been a danger of its being ruled out of order under the rule which prohibits private members from bringing forward any resolution involving any large expenditure of public money.
When this subject of unemployment insurance was first brought up in the house, its sponsors were regarded more or less as fanatics

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Neill
and we were threatened with the terrible consequences that might happen and were pointed to Great Britain where they had that thing which was regarded as so horrible, the dole, which was represented as a sort of mixture of anarchy and nihilism. But times have changed; we have seen money spent even in Canada for the worst form of dole, not by millions but by the hundreds of millions, and without any safeguard for preserving the morale of the recipient, such as they have at least to some extent in Britain where the man knows when he does work, he contributes somewhat to the support of the system by daily payments. Britain, of course, fell into the error of not recognizing that she had a national emergency to deal with and she tried to unload upon what was a quite solvent but limited system of unemployment insurance, almost a national catastrophe which the system was totally unable and never was intended to carry.
The illustration would be something like this: Supposing an insurance company doing a good business in a province and with a strong reserve thoroughly capable of paying all its obligations out of the premiums collected, suddenly decided that in future it would make payments to everybody who died in the province whether they had paid premiums or not. The inevitable result would be almost immediate bankruptcy and that was what took place in Britain, but she has since recognized that and has reorganized her unemployment insurance system, drawing a line of demarcation between the normal ebb and flow of unemployment and what might be called a national condition. The system she now has of unemployment insurance is thoroughly solvent and likely to continue so. It is such a system that we ask. We do not expect or suggest that the government can at the present time produce a scheme that will attempt to cover a national emergency such as we have had in Canada during the last two or three years. I emphasize this because I know that will be an objection raised against the proposal. We shall be told it is now impossible to do anything of the kind because it would mean such an enormous expenditure. I might quote the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) as an illustration. Speaking with his usual airy nonchalance on February 13, of this year, he said:
I say to the hon. gentleman that unemployment insurance could not be proceeded with in any country in the midst of a depression such as we have been passing through; at a time like this it would be impossible to create such a scheme. A time will come without doubt when this subject will have to be considered,
and either insurance or something to take its place instituted in order to look after unemployed people in times such as these.
At the time he made that remark, there immediately occurred to me the illustration which was used by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) a day or two later, of the Irishman who could not repair his roof when it was raining because he would get wet and when the weather was fine, what was the use of repairing the roof, because the wet was not coming in? If anyone would not be galvanized by the experiences we have had during t'he past two or three years into taking steps dealing with unemployment insurance, there would not be much hope or likelihood of his taking any measures when conditions improve, because just like the Irishman he would say: We do not need to do anything just now. But as the hon. member, being a doctor, knows, when a man is taken seriously sick, it is wise and proper for him to call in medical help, but pending the arrival of the medical man, it is also wise and sensible for him to employ methods of first aid of which the medical profession is the first to acknowledge the benefit, and unemployment insurance is an excellent palliative of the ordinary, normal amount of unemployment. When the national catastrophe came along it would certainly ease the strain to no inconsiderable extent if a well organized system of unemployment insurance were in existence capable of taking up to the full the normal unemployment and it would possibly be the basis of an organization that might be very useful in extending its operations.
I 'have not been interested in this subject to any extent prior to the last seven years. Prior to that time I considered that the introduction of the old age pension was of more immediate importance and I did not give this subject very much thought, but since then times have been moving and we have received much more support for the idea than formerly. For one thing, we have experience behind us. In 1919 only one country in the world, Britain, bad any really national unemployment insurance system; now there are nine countries covering some 42,000,000 people and there is no evidence that any of those countries are prepared or anxious to take or are looking towards taking retrograde steps. Some of them have increased the scope and they seem to be satisfied with the system as it exists.
The idea has been endorsed from time to time by many public bodies. I am not going to quote them, but shall instance one or two. I have here a resolution from a Conservative association on Vancouver island; another from
798	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Neill
the city council of Vancouver; another from a large gathering of ex-service men from all parts of British Columbia; another from the Synod of the Toronto Diocese of the Church of England; another from the Canadian Congress Journal.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Will the hon. gentleman
kindly read one of those resolutions?


Alan Webster Neill: This is one:
The Synod of the Toronto Diocese of the Church of England meeting in Toronto during the past month, passed a resolution calling on the Ontario government to take the lead in reopening discussions between the federal and provincial government on the question of contributory unemployment insurance with a view to establishing the same in Canada.
The others were along the same lines. I think most of them suggest a contributory system and the Canadian Congress Journal did the same. While I have not positive proof, I believe the departmental officers of the Minister of Justice some years ago gave their opinion that such a system should be national in its scope to be effective to any profitable extent. In addition I forgot to mention that there was a representation from the Winnipeg and District Labour Unions Unemployment conference. It would appear this is a body that comprises representatives from forty-eight different labour unions and eleven unemployment associations in municipalities adjacent to Winnipeg, so that it covers a very large number of men. We have as the last and perhaps the most important, the endorsa-tion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). On April 29, 1931, the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), as reported on page 1099 of Hansard, introduced a resolution asking for the immediate inauguration of a system of that kind and the Prime Minister spoke very fully on the subject, giving a careful analysis of the situation. He indicated a willingness to allow the resolution of my hon. friend to go through at that time if he would make certain amendments, and these are the amendments he suggested:	he wanted the
word "immediate'' strode out of the resolution, and he wanted the word "contributory" put in to indicate that it would be on a contributory basis. Further, he wanted it dependent on satisfactory arrangements being made with the provinces. On that basis he indicated his willingness to let the resolution go through, although I think it was ultimately talked out without coming to a vote. Also on page 1103 he expressed his view that anything of the kind would need to be federal in its scope. He then gave a pledge, which I want to quote in full. He said:

1 propose, if we are spared as a government and as individuals, that the information we will have before our term of office is ended shall be crystallized into the form of legislative proposals to be submitted to this house.
Further on he said:
-I say to him on behalf of the administration that, at the earliest possible moment consistent with obtaining information that is essential to make any measure of social insurance worth while, we will use that information for the purpose of preparing and submitting to this house a measure embodying the views I have expressed.
Then in the fall session of 1932, on November 22, at page 1453, the subject came up again, and the Prime Minister again reviewed the situation. He recalled the remarks he had made on the occasion to which I referred; he spoke of the difficulty due to provincial jurisdiction, and he said:
But that difficulty is one that can be overcome.
And further:
It has been the purpose of this government to call an interprovincial conference between now and the date of the reassembling of this house, to discuss with the representatives of the provinces of Canada this and other problems.
Then he commented on the fact that the information gathered in the census was not yet available and said that he desired to have that information before taking action. He closed by saying, "this was my statement," and he repeated the statement he had made on the prior occasion. He ended by saying, "I merely rise at this moment to reiterate and restate it." So he was carrying along the same position. That was the fall of 1932.
The next day I took the opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister on his action, and I said thaU-
I receive the intimation with hope and gratitude, tempered with the assumption that the bill will be a workable and equitable one. I also agree with him that it would not be practicable unless it were on the basis of a contributory system.
That hope and gratitude is beginning to wear a little thin; hope deferred maketh the heart sick. However, I still have hope although in a modified degree.
At the next session, in the spring of 1933, on the orders of the day I asked if any statement could be made of the government's policy, and I was told that in a matter of such importance it would have to be put as a formal question. I did so; on the 27th of February I made formal inquiry whether the government was prepared to make any announcement of its policy along the lines of the declaration made on the 29th of April.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Neill
1931, and I was told the answer was, no. This is found at page 2486. A little later, on the 20th of March, 1933, at page 3166 I brought the matter up again and pressed for further information, and recited some of the matters I have already alluded to. The Minister of Labour answered me-at least gave an ostensible answer-he told me, at page 3266:
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni, X take it, would like to know whether a measure of that kind will be brought before the house this session. I can tell him it will not.
He went on to say that the government would not be justified in taking hurried action, and fell back on that grand old stand-by, honoured by repetition ever since we have had parliamentary government, that "the matter is under consideration by the government."
I was not satisfied with that and pressed for further information, but did not get it. A day or two later I brought the matter up again and pressed for some information. I pointed out that they had had this interprovincial conference, in fact, had had two, and I wanted to get some information; I said we were entitled to it, that we were not required to trust to political gossip in the corridors but were entitled to know what the conference had done. I asked, what had taken place? Did some provinces prove belligerent and say: We will not do anything-? If so, we might hesitate in giving them large sums for relief. Or was a reasonable proposal put up, and did eight out of the nine agree? Did just one or two of them hold out? Were they unwilling to subordinate their jurisdiction without any quid pro quo, or was any reasonable scheme suggested? At that stage the chairman found that I was out of order, although there had been ample scope allowed to the minister.
Still later in the debate the Minister of Labour spoke again and said that the matter had been discussed at the conference but that they had agreed not to show their hands, not to tell what each province thought about it. He said the subject was seriously discussed from many angles and the matter was still under the consideration of the government; that being very much the position we started from. I think that was about all the discussion in the house. We got no definite information.
As far as we know, that is the situation. We can only go by what we are told in the house. We hear rumours, but we are not entitled to give them credence. There was no mention of any legislation of this character in the speech from the throne, which as we
all know is supposed to declare and announce the legislative program to be brought down by the government. I think this year it amplified more than is usually the case the subjects to be dealt with, but there was no mention whatever of this, which would be an important piece of legislation, so I think we are justified in concluding that it is not in the mind of the government at the present time to bring it down at this session. If so, what becomes of the pledge given in April, 1931, three years ago?
-that the information we will have before our term of office is ended shall be crystallized into the form of legislative .proposals to be submitted to this house.
There might be a play on words, though I think it would be unworthy of the government; they might say; Our term of office may continue for twenty years, and there is lots of time. But of course in the ordinary acceptation of the words, "term of office" means the existing term, the only one concerning which the Prime Minister was in a position to speak with authority; to-day is ours, to-morrow is not. So when he said "before our term of office is ended" he must in all fairness be considered to have meant the existing term of office. He may enjoy many more terms, but those will be different terms from this term. We are asking to see this legislation crystallized, not into resolutions or expressions of opinion, but into legislative proposals, as the Prime Minister said. Now this is the last session of this term of office.


An hon. MEMBER:: How do you know that?


Alan Webster Neill: 
Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to support every word uttered by the hon. gentleman who introduced this motion. I was struck by his observation that a few years ago this was considered a radical move. I think up to four years ago the English dole was a by-word in this country; the general observation was, "We do not pay our men to be idle; we pay them to work." If your memory goes back, Mr. Speaker, you will remember the commissions that were sent from Great Britain to the United States to analyze what they considered was the solution of the golden age. They thought that they had reached the stage where they could manage men and control machines, but in their practical experience they found that their analyses were not sound. To-day in the United States we hear language almost akin to the pre-insurance age language in Great Britain.
It is quite true that many still consider legislation of this description paternalistic; in fact some go so far as to say that it is even socialistic, but an the practical problems arising out of this depression I think it has been borne out by experience elsewhere that a sound system of unemployment insurance, worked out in conformity with the problems confronting the various countries, is not a palliative but an absolute essential in the life of any industrial nation. We regret very much the oft-repeated observation that this is a palliative. Every legislative action we have ever taken might be termed a palliative, but I believe this to be an essential. If a great many of those people who advocate this form of legislation would forget the word "palliative" and call it an essential and an absolute necessity, the progress in this country would be much greater than it has been in the past. I dhould like to say, also, that in the midst of this depression we have forgotten some of the very real problems which existed in Canada even in the so-called prosperous years of 1928 and 1929, problems of a type which face every country of the world which has adopted a policy of dense agricultural and industrial production. We are apt to forget those things, and in the event of our getting back to days equivalent in normalcy to those of 1928, it will be necessary to have legislation of the description now before us to meet the situations which inevitably arise. I have no patience with those who say that this is 74726-51
not the time to introduce a scheme of this description. In my judgment this is the psychological moment to institute such a scheme, possibly on a comparatively small scale, so that we may build up through the practical experience which we would gain in its operation. I believe that is the best policy which could be pursued.
The men and women engaged in Canadian industry are tired of the promises which have been made that this kind of legislation would be introduced. Every once in a while a statement is made by those who have the power to implement promises to the effect that 'consideration is being given to the introduction of legislation of this description. I remember that in the election campaign of 1930, in which I took part, my opponent had cards printed on which was the statement that he would be in a better position, if elected, to implement his promise of unemployment insurance, than I would be. I believe it is well nigh time the government brought down legislation having for its purpose the establishment of such a scheme.
I am not unmindful of the fact that the scheme has been bandied from one responsible authority to another, and that there is a suggestion that it does not come within the jurisdiction of the British North America Act or the federal government. But we should remember that at the time of the drawing up of the British North America Act, which governs the relationships between the various governments of Canada, insurance of this type was not contemplated. I do not believe the framers of the act ever dreamed that this country would have such extensive industrial development, and that it would be confronted with the unemployment problem with which we are faced to-day.
I have before me a report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations. I find that in the year 1921, in an order in council, No. 2722, it was definitely stated that legislation of the type we are now considering comes within the province of the federal government. Recommendation (b) dealing with unemployment insurance is as follows:
The minister observes that the experience of other countries has demonstrated that a system of unemployment insurance, in order to be effective and successful, must be merely ancillary or complementary to a system of labour exchanges, the whole being adapted to the principal function of finding work for unemployed insured workmen. In this view, unemployment insurance has a pronounced federal aspect, and on the whole, the minister thinks the establishment of a system of unemployment insurance is competent to the


Mr. G. D. STANLEY (East Calgary):: Before I discuss the question before us, may I read the resolution:	.
That, in the opinion of this house, the most effective way to insure protection during periods of unemployment, which unemployment insurance would provide, is to make such legislation national in its scope.
I presume that the point which the resolution seeks to emphasize is that the system of legislation when it is introduced will insist upon its being national. Let me first discuss that phase of the question of unemployment insurance.
The causes of unemployment are not local; generally speaking they cannot be confined to any particular locality. The causes of unemployment are certainly nationwide. As a matter of fact, the unemployment which exists to-day can be said to be international, and history shows us that in the depressions through which we have passed in years gone by the causes of unemployment have very seldom been found to be confined to a single country, let alone a single locality. Hence it is quite easy to realize the difficulty in which we should be placed should individual provinces undertake to introduce varying systems of legislation. It appears therefore that when legislation is introduced in this country it must be legislation controlled entirely by the federal government or, on the other hand, if the provinces are factors, as in fact they are local factors, in connection with an unemployment insurance scheme, the legislation of the various provinces must be uniform in character and must be uniform as to time of introduction. Otherwise, if one province should introduce legislation at one time and the neighbouring province or provinces failed to do so, then the province which we might regard as progressive in outlook and action would be penalized while the neighbouring province, which might be said to be backward in its action, would benefit by reason of the progressive action of the other.	What I
mean is this. For industry and employees of industry to undertake their share of the contributions necessary to the introduction of unemployment insurance would	certainly
mean in the long run some increase in the cost of production. Consequently, the prov-

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Stanley
ince concerned would be at a disadvantage in its competition with the backward one. Not only that, the first province would be an attraction for workmen living in the second, and therefore the difficulties of the first province would be again multiplied and the cost of producing its products in industry further increased. That seems quite obvious; so that we cannot get away from the fact that whatever is done must be done either in a broad national way by the federal parliament or, on the other hand, by the individual provincial parliaments acting with the utmost cooperation and in unison as to both time and character of their legislation.
The matter of the British North America Act has come up. Far be it from me to undertake to discuss that act, but as a citizen and as one who has read at least the ordinary news of the day, I know many difficulties must be faced in regard to the conflicting interests of federal and provincial jurisdictions. It is the easiest thing in the world for a critic to ignore the existence of a constitution, throw it aside and then proceed as if by a mere wave of the hand the constitution had been dealt with, set aside and the legislation placed in a position to go full-steam ahead. Hon. gentlemen know that cannot be done, hence it is that from time to time the federal authorities and the provincial representatives have held conferences dealing with various matters in respect to jurisdiction, amongst them being this very question of unemployment insurance. I do not and I presume other hon. members do not yet know exactly how far those conferences have gone or what conclusions they have reached. I presume many difficulties arose and we arei advised, by rumour at least, that those difficulties have not yet all been cleared away. So that, in our calculations as to what steps should be taken nationally in respect to unemployment insurance, we must take account of the position in which those conferences have placed us. Finding fault with this or that province in its attitude on this or other questions regarding which there is conflicting jurisdiction, will net get us anywhere. We are brought to the point where the representatives of this parliament and those of the provincial legislatures are placed in the position that at least for the time being they must arrive at what is the most advanced point to which the various provincial authorities and the federal government can go. That may not be the ideal, but I hope, when the various acts are introduced, we shall attain as nearly the ideal as possible. For the time
being this is not a problem of going through the British North America Act, but rather one of going around it, of arriving at a point where we may be convinced that the best position, so far as the various parts of Canada are concerned, has been reached. We must not overlook the fact that in Canada there are many industries; that the same industry conducted in one part is perhaps conducted on a different basis from that in another part of the country; that different sections of our people have differing outlooks in regard to the conduct of those industries and consequently, we must assume that in the dominion-provincial conferences the rights of all the people in the various districts of Canada must be considered and that no offence is extended to any. Therefore we are confronted with the situation that cooperation is the first essential in arriving at a safe basis in legislating for unemployment insurance. Personally, I am in favour of such insurance and shall be glad to see the legislation introduced whether in this house or in the provincial legislatures or in all at the earliest feasible date. When that time comes those who have been in conference with the provinces and who have been most closely in touch with what has been proceeding will be best informed as to what steps are the most advisable to take so far as this federal parliament is concerned.
Passing on to the general consideration of unemployment insurance and leaving aside the chief point of the resolution itself, may we consider for a moment in rapid review the historical background leading up to the advisability of introducing an unemployment insurance scheme in this country. Going back exactly 100 years to 1834, to the Poor Laws of the old country and the principles which were included in those laws and following along during all the years, we find a slow, sure but steady progress in conditions of the workmen in the old land and in this new country. Following along from 1834, if one had time to consider the living, working and housing conditions, the matter of child labour, woman labour and so forth, one would have to review wth'at legislation was introduced during the years to improve all those conditions of which I have spoken, and one would be able to show that from 1834 onwards there was a gradual upward step taken on behalf of those who labour in industry. One could go further and show the development of labour unions and what they meant for labour people, the inauguration of collective bargaining, the question of strikes and lock-outs and so forth. All these have to do with the steps that, have
SOO	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Stanley
led up to the point at which we find our country to-day. Then we should consider the legislation that has been introduced by which the state has stepped in and interfered with the laissez-faire system that prevailed in the early days, along the lines of which I have already fully spoken. We have the various factory acts, the Workmen's Compensation acts, the fair wages acts, the minimum wages acts, and so on. Coming right down to more recent days we have the Versailles treaty itself and the advance which was made by the spirit behind the provisions included in that treaty. Then we have the introduction over the years of the unemployment benefits of the brotherhoods and unions and their extension throughout the various labour unions of the old country and our own country. Then the logical step that followed was the demand for national unemployment insurance, already introduced in the old country and included in the activities of some industries in this country on a voluntary basis. So we have come step by step to the point where to-day there is on the part of the general public, both employers and employees, a readiness to demand some system of unemployment insurance.
One hon. gentleman deplored the use of the word "palliative," and perhaps it is not well for me to repeat it. Yet we must remember that when unemployment insurance is introduced those representing labour should be the first to insist that it is a palliative, that it is not an absolute cure for unemployment. I tlhink it is well for our people in general to recognize that this is one step further forward on behalf of labour. What is the ideal towards which all these movements have been progressing? I would say it is that workmen shall be placed, by means of their earnings during their years of work, in a position to be selfsupporting when they have to quit work. Unemployment insurance is one step towards that ideal. It is easily seen that it is a demand upon industry, and is not a light demand. There is no question in my mind that unemployment remains as a problem for industry in our country. As I see it, industry step by step will have to organize and adjust itself to face its responsibility in respect of unemployment, and I am sure that steps will be taken by industry without complaint to contribute to the solution of this great problem.
In general, then, what are the requisites of a good unemployment insurance system? I shall hurry along without going into the matter at length. My first thought is that it should be insurance. Anything that includes the relief problem of our country as part of unemployment insurance legislation will be a

mistake. There must be a clear-cut division between the problem of relief for those who require help, and the problem of those employed in industry who pay their contribution on an insurance basis. Unemployment insurance is the insurance of benefits to be granted to those who come under insurance contracts.
My second thought is that it must be a contributory system. Occasionally I read addresses on unemployment insurance, in fact some addresses given in this house, in which there is a tendency to dodge the question whether one is in favour of the contributory system or the non-contributory system. It must be one or the other; it cannot be both and be a success. As far as I see it, it must be a contributory system whereby employers and employees will each contribute their share.
The next thought that occurs to me is that when it is organized and when classifications are taken under the scheme it must be allembracing and compulsory as far as those engaged in those classifications are concerned. It can readily be seen that if it be left optional on the part of the workman as to whether he shall or shall not be included,, the scheme would secure too many bad risks and not enough good risks; consequently its purpose would be defeated.
The next point is that the scheme should be national; I dealt with that at the beginning of my remarks and shall not enlarge upon it.
Next it should be as nearly universal as possible in regard to the various classifications. No one realizes better than those hon. members who are directly connected with the labour interests of this country that in its initial stages an unemployment insurance scheme cannot take in more than a certain number of classifications. In England there has been a gradual development of the scheme until to-day almost all the various classifications have been included. Canada is a different country; it is widespread; the workmen are not so fixed in their locations; they are more mobile, and consequently many difficulties are presented. Of course I need not enlarge upon those.
Then I would say that the scheme should be one that will take every precaution against encouraging indolence. I have marked here in my notes "anti-indolent" and as far as I can see that is one of the most important points which a government or governments introducing legislation of this kind will have to consider. If a contributory system of unemployment insurance is so lax that it

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Bradette
allows men who are not properly entitled to benefits to receive them, as soon as that starts we begin to tax employment for the relief of those who are not entitled to unemployment benefits, and of course that would spell disaster to the whole project. Further, the organization of a system of labour exchanges is a point of very great importance in the proper administration of the legislation when it is introduced.
Before I conclude I should like to refer to one or two dangers. The first is that to which I have just referred, the danger of taxing employment for the benefit of those who are not entitled to assistance under the insurance scheme. The second danger is one which I am sure has been considered by every hon. member of the house; that is, the insinuation of political influences into the framing of the legislation or into its administration after it has been introduced. When a government, this year, next year, this decade or decades hereafter, begins to offer a dollar for fifty oents, or when one political party comes along and offers twice as much for half the contribution, disaster will follow sooner or later, and that is one of the dangers which must be avoided. Then there is the thought which so often permeates the public mind in the consideration of anything that has to do with the federal treasury, namely that down here in Ottawa in the treasury department there is a bottomless purse, and that all they have to do is dip down in it and pull out an unlimited amount of money and that it cannot play out. One of the dangers in regard to the working of this unemployment insurance is right there, and the persons who are going to suffer by reason of that sentiment becoming too strong are the workmen themselves.
Unemployment insurance is one further step towards the ideal. Unemployment is a problem which cannot be overcome simply by the spending of money. I said it was a problem, and I am satisfied that we as members of this house, and workmen and employers as component parts of industry, as well as the public who make their contribution through the purchase of products, must appreciate the fact that it is a problem, and that its solution cannot be brought about merely by the spending of money, whether it be public money, the money of industry or the money of the workmen, but that the problem will be solved in the long run only by thought, organization and gradual progress towards the ideal.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskam-ing):: Mr. Speaker, as the representative of
a riding in which there are large mining, industrial and agricultural developments, I believe it my duty to say a few words on this resolution. It must be very pleasing indeed to the mover of the resolution (Mr. Neill) to observe the high tenor of the discussion that has taken place this afternoon, and apparently the principle of unemploy1-ment insurance is well accepted not only throughout the country but also by every member of this parliament.
When one first reads the resolution he is inclined to believe that it recognizes the fact that the principle of unemployment insurance has been accepted, but personally I am convinced that the principle with which we are dealing this afternoon is one of primary importance if we wish to have unemployment insurance apply to the whole of Canada. It was well said, in the very fine speech to which we have just listened, that because of the British North America Act we find many anomalies so far as the application of unemployment insurance is concerned. No doubt there are some obstacles in the way which will have to be surmounted if unemployment insurance is made national, but undoubtedly that can be done.
I have in mind more particularly the situation which exists in the section of the country which I have the honour to represent. No doubt the country and the house are aware that we have had strikes of lumbermen in the north, and in some sections of Ontario and Quebec some of the men are still on strike. When I spoke during the debate on the address I mentioned certain anomalies which existed with regard to the federal and provincial departments of labour, and no doubt the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) is aware of those anomalies as well. I have found, as he must have found, that although I was willing and ready to give my services, at times I found myself persona non grata; nobody wanted me, because they thought I had no business there as a federal representative. I suppose the same situation applies in every province to a certain extent. The other day I read with a great deal of interest and joy that Hon. Mr. Finlayson, minister of lands and forests of Ontario, was in Quebec working with Hon. Mr. Mercier of that province in regard to. legislation having to do with the strikes in northern Quebec and northern Ontario last fall, and also certain labour legislation.
It has been said on different occasions during the last few months that we could easily
808	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Bradette
do away with the British North America Act. The thing is not so easy as it looks, but surely in connection with a matter of such national importance, a matter affecting every section of the population whether industrial, professional or labouring, there should be a way by which the heads of the provinces could get together and deal with the matter in a national way. I will go farther and say that if it is impossible to have legislation on a national scale there should be an amendment to the British North America Act, because some of its features should be amended. This is a very important matter, and one which takes in a lot of ground. As I said, the mover of this resolution apparently had in mind, when he brought this discussion before the house, that the principle of unemployment insurance was accepted in every section of Canada. I believe this is true, so far as the people are concerned. However I sympathize to some extent with the government in some of the difficulties it must necessarily face in the inauguration and operation of such legislation, and in connection with placing it on the statute books of the country.
One of the first obstacles the federal authorities will have to meet will be the smoothing out of difficulties which may arise among the nine provinces. As to how well the principle is accepted in every section of the country is illustrated in an article which appeared in Saturday Night of February 3, 1934. One paragraph of the article, which was written by E. J. Soulsby, is as follows:
To the principle of unemployment insurance all parties have long subscribed, though perhaps in some quarters with little enthusiasm. It was recommended to the dominion parliament as long ago as 1919 by a royal commission on industrial relations, and in Ontario by a pi-ovincial commission three years before that. During .all the years since then the subject has presumably been relevant to Canadian polities, since the assumption has always been present that sooner or later some action would be taken to introduce unemployment insurance; yet there has been little preparatory discussion of the matter and as .a result it will be something of a miracle if satisfactory legislation is produced at the first attempt. There is real danger of a defective measure proving so unpopular and vulnerable to reactionary criticism that at the first favourable opportunity it would be amended in quite the wrong direction.
Then the article goes on to deal very fully with this important question. As for a number of years I belonged to a labour union I can agree with the statement made by the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) that the idea of unemployment insurance only a few years ago was thought

to be a radical one. The previous speaker expressed the view that in the near future, perhaps within one decade, we may have unemployment insurance in Canada. I do not dare to be a prophet, but I am familiar with the state of public opinion concerning unemployment insurance. Without trying to prophesy may I say that I am positive that within three or four years at the most we will have unemployment insurance in Canada. As are other hon. members, I am fully aware of the difficulties in connection with the introduction of an unemployment insurance scheme. We know that to-day in Europe, for instance, over 46,000,000 workers are operating under unemployment insurance. Europe has the most highly developed scheme of this description in the world. The same practice has been followed to some extent in Australia, but the principle has not been so readily adopted or accepted on the American continent.
There are several factors existing to-day which, even by labour unions, could not be foreseen a few years ago. Let us, for example, consider the mechanization of industry. When machinery was first used to help man it was accepted simply as a servant, but during the last ten years it has become the master of the civilized world. No one would seek a curtailment of this creative power; nevertheless the fact remains that new machines created by the power of the human mind are taking great numbers of men out of employment, and as time goes on that process is going to be more and more pronounced. I say, therefore, that the one solution to the problem we are facing is to some extent to insure the men engaged in labour and in industry so that they will have some protection at times they are out of employment.
.Some people are afraid to tackle certain problems, including this one, because of the cost. Well, let us consider that factor for a few moments. Apparently the last speaker was of the opinion that the cost would be prohibitive and a burden on industry.


George Douglass Stanley: I made no such statement.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I accept the correction. At the present time we have established a system which may be described as relief, or a system of dole. There is no doubt that the great amount of that expenditure-*
Mr. ST-PERE:	It is not the dole.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is a kind of dole.
Some of the burden is placed on the shoulders of the industries, and some has to fall on

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Bradette
those of the consumers and labourers. Some people are not quite agreed as to whether unemployment insurance should be contributory or non-contributory. So far as I am concerned I believe the insurance should be paid by the three parties directly interested, namely, the industrialists, the working men and the central government. Then, what would be the amount involved? To-day, of a total of about 2,000,000 working men exclusive of the rural population, about thirteen per cent are unemployed. The contributions which they would receive under an unemployment insurance scheme at, say, an average rate of one dollar per day would amount to $92,000,000. Under that scheme $23,000,000 would be contributed by working men, $23,000,000 by industry and $46,000,000 by the federal government. I am of the opinion that because of the high point of mechanization of our industry, and because of the fact that more and more of our working men are being replaced in industry by machinery, there should be a scale established whereby the more highly mechanized an industry may be, the greater contribution it would have to make to the federal treasury under an unemployment insurance scheme. I think in this suggestion I am quite fair. Those who study the labour situation and the industrial life of Canada will readily agree that in some industries there is greater mechanization than there is in others.
I have in mind the great mining industry of northern Ontario. It is true that in our section of the country, for instance, we have no placer gold. Without the highly industrialized mechanization we have at the present time it would be impossible to develop the gold, copper and nickel of northern Ontario. It is true, however, that one can use only a certain amount of machinery in mining operations. Let us consider some other industries where machines have replaced forty or fifty per cent of the men. If I read correctly the reports concerning some industries in Canada it will appear that one machine in some instances has taken the place of 400 men. It must be readily understood by everyone that in considering a system of contributory unemployment insurance the machine will have to be considered as one factor, so that there may be balance, equiliza-tion and equilibrium between industries which are highly mechanized and others in which the machine is not so largely used.
Agriculture is becoming more and more highly mechanized. That statement applies more forcibly to the western provinces than it does to some other sections of Canada.
The western farmer is more of an industrialist than a farmer, in any sense of the word. Everyone will readily agree that it is almost impossible to use machinery during the pioneering stages such as have been experienced in northern Ontario and Quebec, and this also represents a problem that I expect to deal with during the present session.
So far as the matter of contributions is concerned may I say at this time I shall not go into detail because no doubt further opportunities will be given to all hon. members of the House of Commons and to everyone interested in this great problem. I have placed the grand total of a contributory insurance scheme at $92,000,000. It would be necessary to expend from six to eleven per cent of that amount for administrative purposes. In some countries this cost is as low as five per cent while in others it runs as high as twelve, but I believe in Canada ten per cent would be a-fair estimate of what would be needed for administrative purposes. This would make a grand total of $104,000,000, $26,000,000 of which would be contributed by the industries, $26,000,000 by the working classes and $52,000,000 by the central government. During the past three or four years the government has dealt with this unemployment problem in the only manner possible; large sums of money have been expended and I think it will be admitted that a yearly contribution of $104,000,000 would not be such a burden upon industry and the people as a whole. During this session we are to be called upon to vote $50,000,000 for a program of public works to relieve unemployment. I think every hon. member could visualize the benefit of each person in this country at present unemployed receiving an average of one dollar per day. Such a distribution would put millions into operation and give an incentive to business throughout the whole of Canada.
It is not my intention to deal at great length with this all-important question. I believe the hon. member who moved this resolution deserves much credit for bringing it forward and presenting an opportunity for a full discussion of this matter. I think the principle has been accepted by the people of Canada as a whole. We must realize that things that looked radical a few years or a few months ago are the logical things for the present day. We need only to look to the south of us. Who would have dared to prophecy two or three years ago that the administration in the United States would be putting into effect the policies that they are at the present time? No one would have dared to say that such policies could be put into force,
810	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Bradette
and what has happened in the United States is happening in certain sections of this country. The people are becoming seized of this situation and its problems; everyone realizes the problems we have to face, and once we are able to get our legislatures and this House of Commons to deal with national problems in a national way, we will be nearer to a solution of this great question.
The obstacles, constitutional, financial and otherwise, have been put forward quite clearly by the previous speaker. It must be remembered that the primary producers of this country are suffering just as much as if not more than other classes. Any unemployment scheme of a national nature must be considered from this angle also. Those who live in rural districts are suffering just as much as those who reside in industrial centres, and in dealing with the question of unemployment insurance we must consider some means of compensating the farmers for their losses during the last three or four years. Some people say that this problem is absolutely impossible of solution and in my opinion the inauguration of such a national scheme would be impossible unless consideration is given to the agricultural viewpoint. Such a scheme should include the farmers and the habitants of this country. They have suffered and will continue to suffer unless this government puts through legislation of a social order.
I am thankful for the attention which hon. members have given to this all-important matter. We must deal with it at the earliest possible moment. The members of this parliament should have the vision to realize that the people appreciate the situation. They should have the courage to admit that millions of people are suffering and need relief. I am not a sob-sister; I am not inclined to pessimism; I have always practised optimism, but we must face the future and consider this question as true Canadians. It is one of the most important matters with which we have to deal at the present time, and the attempt to arrive at a solution should not be delayed for another decade or two, or even another year or two. We should try to arrive at some solution at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (South Vancouver) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few
words in support of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). Apparently the hon. member had two ideas in mind in proposing this resolution. I believe the first one was to impress upon the government the necessity or need for the setting up of a scheme of unemployment insur-

ance. Although he did not put it in that way in his resolution, I believe that is what he had in mind. The next thing that he had in mind was that such legislation should be national in scope. I do not believe there can be any difference of opinion as to this latter point. I think we are all agreed that the time is ripe or even over-ripe for the bringing into being of some form of unemployment insurance national in scope.
I agree with the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley), who took such pains to point out that unemployment insurance would not prove to be a solution of the unemployment problem, that in the nature of things it could be only a palliative. But palliatives are not to be despised when we are facing a condition of this kind. If there is anything in the resolution to which I could take exception, although I do not take exception to any of it, it would be the phrase, " during periods of unemployment." This would seem to indicate that the mover of the resolution believed that we would have unemployment only at certain periods. As a matter of fact unemployment is inseparable from the system of production which we have. That system cannot be carried on without a certain amount of unemployment. With the increase in the use of automatic machinery which has occurred, unemployment is here to stay just as long as we continue the present system of production. By this I mean that the causes of unempolyment have their roots in the the capitalist system. I do not think it is necessary to go into this very extensively to prove to anyone with an open mind that such is the case. Unemployment, like cancer, is a disease; it is a disease of civilization and of the particular kind of civilization we have -a machine civilization. To prove that, all we need do is to go back to former stages of society and we shall find that unemployment, under the conditions then prevailing, was not the curse that it is to-day but something that was looked forward to, as a time when those concerned could really enjoy life. When the savage was engaged in getting his livelihood, when Nature was kind and brought forth abundantly, he did not feel concerned about the fact that he would not have to work so hard nor so long in order to make a living. He did not fear unemployment. Under chattel slavery, even when the slave was not actually employed by his master, he was at least provided with the necessities of life just as when he worked. Similarly under feudalism, the serf was not concerned greatly with the question of unemployment. It is only under capitalism, when wealth of the

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Maclnnis
community is greatest and the necessity for labour disappears, that those who have no other means of earning a livelihood except by the sale of their labour are confronted with the serious problem of unemployment.
When we discuss this question of unemployment, when it is brought forward in this house, there are two stock arguments advanced as to why an insurance scheme cannot be introduced. The first argument, of course, is as to the difficulties arising because of the British North America Act. Perhaps it is just as well to admit at the outset that there are certain difficulties in this regard, but I do contend that there are no difficulties that cannot be overcome if this government or any other dominion government is prepared to accept the principle and to take whatever steps may be necessary to give effect to it. Let us consider another problem that has been facing the country during the last three or four years. The British North America Act applies only as to jurisdiction between the dominion government and the governments of the provinces. We have had another question under consideration in the last few years and that is the matter of our surplus wheat. That was not a matter between different parts of the dominion but one that concerned various other countries in the world; yet, when the government set its mind to it, it was able to come to an agreement with other countries tending towards the solution of that problem. Surely what we could do with a score of countries we can do when there are only the nine provinces of Canada to be considered. I do not believe therefore that there is any valid excuse or any reason, because of the British North America Act, why w7e cannot put an unemployment insurance scheme into effect.
Again, the point was raised by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) the other day that, while he was in favour of an unemployment insurance policy, this was not the time to bring it into being. Of course, it is never the time to do something that you are opposed to doing. I believe that this is just as good a time to- begin as any other. We have no greater difficulties here than there are in Great Britain; yet, instead of dispensing with their unemployment insurance legislation, they are extending it at the present time. In a news dispatch of two or three months ago it was said that the British government was bringing down legislation to increase the benefits of unemployment insurance and to increase the number of those who would receive those benefits. Those who are receiving the benefits of unemployment insurance there
at present number about two millions, and it is intended to increase that number by approximately another four millions, making six millions altogether. The minimum age for entering the scheme will also be lowered to the school-leaving age of sixteen.
It seems to me that when the people of Great Britain, who have realized fully the benefits of unemployment insurance in these difficult times, will now7 take steps to extend that policy, it is time that this government did something to bring into effect in this country a similar scheme, which could afterwards be extended as conditions might require.
The question arises whether an unemployment insurance scheme should be contributory or non-contributory. I can see difficulties in coming to a conclusion on that point. If we are to have a scheme that will cover those who are at present unemployed, the great mass of the unemployed whom we have at the present time, we cannot have it on a contributory basis. That, however, is no reason why we should not start a scheme on a contributory basis. The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada has gone on record for many years as favouring an unemployment insurance scheme on a contributory basis. I believe that in the proposals they put before the government a few days ago this was one; and while the executive is convinced that it would be quite impossible at the present time to cover the great number of unemployed on a contributory basis, yet it believes that the government could start on that basis a scheme which would take care of those who will be unemployed six months, or a year or two years from now, and that the number of those who would come under the scheme might be increased as time went on. I would direct that to the attention of the government. If they cannot begin on a grand scale they can begin modestly and extend the scheme as experience and circumstances demand.
I, do not wish to take up the time of the house discussing this question, Because I believe the principle is now accepted by nearly everyone, so that all that is necessary is to come to some agreement as to how the legislation can be put into effect, and as to the time at which it should be brought in. Personally, I believe that the time is now, and I believe further that the scheme must be on a national basis to be effective. I favour this, not as a solution for unemployment, because I am convinced that unemployment will remain so long as the present social relationship
812	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Heenan
exists between the producers of wealth and the owners of the means of wealth production. However, we cannot solve that now; but we can and should take steps that will make easier the lives of the unemployed until such time as we can organize a better social system than we have to-day.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the mover of this resolution, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), whose speech in introducing the subject showed close study and a great deal of thought. Since I have known him in this chamber, he has been in the forefront in regard to all legislation pertaining to the elimination of social injustices as well as to labour matters. I can well remember, when we were considering the old pension bill, the great assistance rendered by the hon. member in framing that humane piece of legislation and I was glad to have the honour of signing an agreement with the first province to adopt the scheme, British Columbia, in which the hon. member resides. I can also well remember the great assistance rendered by him in the way of advice to the committee on industrial and international relations.
I am sure it must have been rather a disappointment to him that when he introduced the resolution, it received from the government benches a little different treatment from that accorded any other resolution introduced by a private member this session. Generally speaking, when a private resolution is introduced, after the speech of the member introducing it, some member of the government states its position in regard to the subject matter involved. This resolution is one pertaining to the welfare of the labour men of this country and though we have been discussing it all afternoon, not a single member of the administration has gone on record even as accepting the motion which simply declares that the legislation, when it is introduced, should be national in its scope. Instead of that, they have left the task to one of the back benchers, the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley), who made an excellent speech, favouring the resolution, but in his argument pointing out every obstacle that he could imagine that would be in the way of the government enacting such legislation. Therefore I say that it must have been a great disappointment to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and all those who so far have supported him to see the government sitting idly by, or, as the Minister of Trade 
and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) used to say, lolling in their seats, not taking any position in the matter, but leaving it to a lone back bencher to state the government's position.


Mr. LAWSON:: If my hon. friend will not take too long, he will give some of the rest of us an opportunity of expressing our views in favour of the resolution.


Peter Heenan: I did not know my hon. friend had yet joined the government.


James Earl Lawson: The hon. member was referring to back benchers.


Peter Heenan: This is the government whose members are hiding themselves behind the British North America Act. They asked for and received a mandate from the Canadian people to deal with unemployment and employment on a national scale. At that time the British North America Act offered no obstacles. Anyone who, during the 1930 election, would say a word about that act, was ridiculed off the platform. They said: Elect us; we will do it on a national scale; if King can give you 50 per cent old age pension, there is no obstacle constitutionally in the way of our giving you 100 per cent. This government, as I say, are hiding behind the skirts of the British North America Act and any other excuse they can find. This government received a mandate from the people to deal with unemployment and employment on a national scale; they have not hesitated to take authority from parliament to deal with it nationally; they have taken a blank cheque to deal with such matters on a national scale; they have taken authority to deal with matters of this kind under peace, order and good government legislation and they can break the bones of any interests they think fit. But when the question is one of whether they can deal with an unemployment insurance scheme, the British North America Act stands in the way. I know it will be said by speakers who will follow me, if we can get any of them roused out of their seats, that the Liberal government also used to discuss the question of the British North America Act and point out the obstacles that lay in the way. If they say that, it will be true, because we never yet tried to deceive the people of this country; we never went out to an election to try to tell them that there were no obstacles in the way of social legislation. We were honest with the Canadian people and the gentlemen who deceived them in 1930 are now betraying them, because they are going diametrically opposite to the things

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Heenan
they promised the people in 1930. We never said that we could deal with unemployment insurance or old age pensions or anything of that kind except in cooperation with the provinces and I say that the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand) the other evening, unconsciously or unintentionally I hope, but as a matter of fact placed a wrong interpretation upon the platform of the Liberal party. The hon. member, in reading the Liberal platform of the 1919 convention, stated it in this way:
That in so far as may be practicable, having regard for Canada's financial position, an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence in old age, and other disability, which would' include old age pensions, widows' pensions, and maternity benefits, should be instituted by the federal government-
The hon. member stopped there. That is not even the end of the sentence, because it goes on to say:
-in conjunction with the governments of the several provinces.


Mr. MORAND:: Why did my hon. friend not do it?


Peter Heenan: We did.


Mr. GOBEIL:: What did the hon. gentleman do?


Peter Heenan: There is no reason that the hon. gentleman should have stopped there; he had the book in his hand. I am inclined to think, knowing him as I do, he did that unintentionally, but whether he did it unintentionally or unconsciously or otherwise, it is a misconstruction or misinterpretation and there was no need for it. As I say again, not only has this government a mandate to deal with this matter on a national scale, but the present Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), when they were in opposition, declared that they had the power. At that time we were discussing the question of what we could do with industries that were not conforming to fair hours of work. I think we were dealing with the steel industry in Nova Scotia. They said to the government of the day: Parliament has the power; shall we use it? This parliament ought not to go a step further until we say to those industries that are deriving the benefit from our tariff measures: You shall provide thus and so, hours of work, wages, a fair standard of living, or we dhall not give you tariff protection. So that if the Prime Minister and the members of this government had the power then, or thought they had, they have it to an even greater extent now, because they have
had a mandate from the people in addition. Does this government mean to say that if it wanted to do as it promised, deal with unemployment relief on a national scale without the assistance of the provinces or the municipalities, either the municipalities or the provinces would object? Does it mean to say that if it wished to pay old age pensions one hundred per cent from the federal treasury, as it promised, any of the provinces would object? Does it mean to say that if it wanted to construct a national highway from coast to coast and pay for it from the federal treasury, as it promised to do in 1930, any of the provinces would object? Of course they would not. Neither would they object if this government instituted an unemployment insurance scheme. There would not be the slightest objection so long as it was an adequate and workable scheme. And I may say in support of the resolution that the way it proposes is the only way that unemployment insurance can possibly work, either in Canada or anywhere else, but more particularly in a country like Canada where workers are going to and fro among the various provinces.
So this government has two ways in which to institute this much-needed reform; it has the way that the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley) advocates, that is in cooperation with the provinces, which is the proper way. I am satisfied that if that method were followed every province in this country would be satisfied to participate in an unemployment insurance scheme headed by the national government. And there is the other way, advocated by my hon. friends themselves when they were in opposition. They told us that we could say to the industries of this country; We will give you tariff protection sufficient to enable you to maintain a fair standard of living, to reduce hours of work and increase wages to provide for that standard of living, but if you do not fulfil these conditions you will not be protected by the customs tariff. I am in favour of the former system, but at all hazards I am in favour of one or the other, and I am satisfied that this government can put such a scheme into effect.
We talk about being a progressive nation, but in this respect we have not followed the mother country, which adopted a scheme of this kind twenty-three years ago. Of course the scheme made provision for old age, sickness, and many other matters in addition to unemployment. That scheme was introduced in 'Great Britain in 1911. Since then Italy, Australia, Bulgaria, Germany, Poland and Switzerland have followed, while within the
814	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Heenan
British Empire itself we have several schemes of unemployment insurance, for instance in the Irish Free State, New Zealand and Queensland. How, then, can we say that Canada is a progressive country with respect to its provision for unemployed workers? I believe that public opinion to-day is favourable to an unemployment insurance scheme in this country. This house approved of it in 1929. The Liberal government, of which I had the honour of being a member, canvassed the provinces with respect to it and we had replies, which should be on the files of 'the department, some of them favourable. I discussed the matter with some of the leaders of the provincial governments, and after discussing it they became even more favourable. On the 11th of May, 1932, I ventured to place on Hansard a suggested scheme, which though not complete in detail would have served at least as a basis for a scheme of unemployment insurance for this country, arid I was very glad to read that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) did me the honour of referring in some of his speeches to some things I had advocated in that speech. I pointed out that in periods of severe depression this fund undoubtedly would be drawn upon to such an extent that it probably could not stand the strain, and to cope with that situation I proposed that governments should refrain from going ahead with very large public works in times of prosperity but should reserve such works and the funds for them to relieve unemployment in times of depression. That suggested scheme provided for allowances of $55 a month for married men and $30 a month for single men, and if I remember correctly it called for something like 15 cents to 30 cents a week contribution from the employee. That was only a suggestion to assist the government in a small way in working out some kind of satisfactory scheme.
On November 22, 1931, the Prime Minister made a direct promise that he would institute such a scheme in this country. He said:
Under those circumstances, with a census about to be taken and the necessary figures to become available, with our actuarial force willing and ready to tackle the problem from the angles that I have suggested, does any hon. gentleman think that we would be doing justice to the Dominion of Canada or to ourselves if we now passed a resolution asking the government inmmediately to do something which it is not equipped to do?
I propose, if we are spared as a government and as individuals, that the information we will have before our term of office is ended shall be crystallized into the form of legislative proposals to be submitted to this house.

I am inclined to think it was then safe for the Prime Minister to make that statement when he included the words:
I propose, if we are spared as a government . . .
I do not believe that the people of this country will tolerate this government very much longer, even though it is a promising government. Their time is limited. But I would like to see them actually try to crystallize something before the people send them into oblivion. In 1933, two years later, the hon. member who introduced this resolution asked this question:
Will the government be in a position at this session to bring dowm legislation dealing with unemployment insurance, as referred to by the right hon. the premier, in debate in this house on November 22nd last?
Mr. Bennett: The answer is no.
It seemed to me at the time that the government, after blowing hot, had started to blow cold again, as usual. They had cooled off very perceptibly a couple of days ago, when the Minister of Railways deprecated the idea that this was the time to introduce an unemployment insurance scheme. I remember him appealing for cooperation from all sides of the house in that well-known red-blooded manner in which he speaks, and in concluding his remarks he said:
This is not a time for demagogism but a time for leadership, and after the leadership of this government carries Canada back, as it will, to normal conditions, then we will correct other evils. We will deal with such questions as unemployment insurnace and planned economy, for I personally believe that we shall have to deal with these matters. But when your house is on fire you do not stop to argue about loans or taxes. The first thing you do is to put out the fire, leaving other matters to be dealt with later.
So the Minister of Railways, speaking for the government, apparently had cooled off; evidently he was trying to put out the fire that had been started by the government itself.


Robert James Manion: May I just inform my hon. friend that so far as my remarks in connection with unemployment insurance were concerned I was speaking for myself only. I was giving not the government's opinion, but my own opinion.


Peter Heenan: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the essence of the solidarity of a government. Not so long ago the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) said that undoubtedly under certain conditions the railways of Canada will be or ought to be amalgamated. We had the Minister of Railways say that there was no thought of amalgamation, and the Prime Min-

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Heenan
ister said that if there was any thought or hint of amalgamation he and his colleagues would resign. Well, in the remarks of the Secretary of State were both the hint and the thought, and I do not know that any member of this government has any right to speak other than as a minister.


Robert James Manion: Might I ask a question?


Peter Heenan: I would rather you did
not.


Robert James Manion: I thought my hon. friend
would not like it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Talk insurance, not railways.


Peter Heenan: I would sooner talk sense than sit over there and talk nonsense. I do not know why, when we appeal to the government for unemployment insurance, they should loll in their seats and take no definite stand in the matter. Not one minister has spoken, though this same government has put sixty-five thousand railway men out of work since they came into office.


An hon. MEMBER:: You put one out of work every summer.


Peter Heenan: I did that for a purpose;
I did it to be unique. I wanted to be known as the only man that the Bennett government ever put into overalls.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are unique all right.


Peter Heenan: What does my hon. friend do between sessions? Does he just loll in his seat as he is doing at the present time, and do nothing; does he go back into a law office or a doctor's office; does he go on the farm or into the factory; does he just clip coupons, or what does he do? That same suggestion has been made here once or twice before. It is a peculiar thing that our doctors, lawyers, merchants and coupon clippers who go back into their offices between sessions pick on the only man who goes back into overalls. It must be wrong for me to do that, but I am not a bit ashamed. I am proud, and I thank God I am able to do it. It is honest toil, and because of it I am more able to speak for the labouring men of this country than are my hon. friends who sit lolling in their seats and will not take part in these debates.


Mr. BROWN:: I want to protest against
the hon. member's statement, that he is the only member who goes back into overalls.


Peter Heenan: I said the only member
who went back into overalls to make an honest living.
While I am discussing the question, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out the importance of this kind of legislation. At page 42 of the Labour Gazette I find the following:
The number of man-days worked on state-aided projects on a wage basis numbered 1,157,559 during the first eleven months of 1933, while to those employed on useful works in return for subsistence and a small cash allowance 8,494,212 man-days' work were given. This was a total of 9,651,771 man-days of employment afforded in 1933 up to November 30. During 1932, the man-days worked on "a wage basis numbered 7,700,709.
There is something wrong here; these figures have not been completed, or if they are complete there is only one thing we can deduce from them. It is that the men who performed the 7,700,709 man-days of work on a wage basis in 1932 were put on a subsistence basis in 1933. I am sure the government must be proud of that record; in 1933 they gave 8,494,212 man-days of work for subsistence and a small cash payment. In the government returns these men are counted as employed; this government does not hesitate to include these men in the aggregate as employed persons, yet they give this note here, which is not sufficiently complete to assist in analyzing the situation from one year to another, in which they say the men are working for their subsistence and a small cash allowance. I am sorry they had the nerve to include in a government report the statement that this government provides for 8,000,000 days'-work in a year, on a subsistence basis. In the summer time in northern Ontario they pay $5 a month, and their board. Of that $5 this government contributes $2.50. If one were to analyze these figures and direct them to the number of days worked, I do not know where he would come out. Hon. gentlemen across the way talk about the five cent speech. They throw remarks across the house about five cents which was mentioned one day in this House of Commons. But they are not giving even five cents; they are giving only one cent. I have in my pocket at the moment a cheque for one cent paid out to a man in the province of Ontario-and he is a white man at that. It appears to be the pay for a month's work, evidently after he had paid for small pieces of tobacco, and supplies of that type. When he had made these payments he had one cent left. The only redeeming feature about it, as I said before, is that the cheque was made out to a man called Caesar. Evidently the government have been reading the
816	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Heenan
liolv book and have come across the passage directing them to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. So they gave to this working man not five cents but one cent.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Did he get the cheque cashed?


Peter Heenan: No, I have it, and I have not got it cashed. I am going to take it with me and use it during the next campaign.
Then, I have another one for seventy cents. The person involved in this instance is a y.oung man who went through university. All this government can offer him is a pick and 'shovel so that he may work in a camp in liothern Ontario. At the end of the month after he had paid for a few knick-knacks which he required around the camp he had only seventy cents left. Then, I have another one for nine cents. In this instance I know the boy very well. His father equipped him with new boots, a new suit of overalls and new gloves, and he went out ready to work for the great and glorious Tory government which we have in the province of Ontario. At the end of the month's work he had nine cents coming to him.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: How much did he spend on knick-knacks?


Peter Heenan: All that he got, with the exception of nine cents.


Mr. BURY:: What was the balance left after paying for the knick-knacks?


Peter Heenan: It was $4.91, if my figures are correct. That is about the price of a visit to a doctor's office. If anything had happened him he could not have been taken to an undertaker. Coming home at the end of the month he had the soles out of his boots from walking on the rocks. So he got nine cents and lost his "sole" working for the Ontario government. Any man who would vote for a government which would treat a Canadian in that way ought to lose his "sole." It is sad to think that that is all this government has done for the young men of Canada, after three and a half years in office. It is even sadder to think that some of the ministers sm'ile and laugh at the misery of these young men.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: That is cheap.


Peter Heenan: It is cheap to smile; of course it is.
(


Raymond Ducharme Morand: No, it is cheap for you to say that.


Peter Heenan: That is all they do, smile and laugh and humbug. This government has been in office for more than three years and it is destroying the youth of this country.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I am surprised at you, Peter.


Peter Heenan: They have gone on deceiving the people for over three years by bluffing, blundering and blasting. They were going to do something at the economic conference, yet to-day our railroads are rusting. Sixty-five thousand railway men are out of work. In 1931 the railway men of Canada earned $74,000,000 less than they did in the last year of the Liberal regime. In 1932 they earned $120,000,000 less than the last year we were in office, and in 1933, $130,000,000 less. I want to tell this House of Commons that the railway men of Canada have paid an awful price for having a Tory government in power. Instead of a scheme for unemployment insurance we have provisions which will bring about greater unemployment. We have a wheat agreement which will provide for the sale and export of only half of the wheat crop of Canada. If the government makes any more agreements we will not need our railways. They talk about building deep waterways, despite the bad condition in which our railroads are to-day. That is all we are getting from this government.
I am sorry it is about six o'clock because there were further points I should have liked to have made in regard to this subject. If I have spoken with greater warmth than is my custom it is because I feel the government is carrying on a humbug of continual promises; it is playing hot one day and cold the next. We have one minister saying one thing in one part of the country, and another minister saying another thing in another part. But when they face this House of Commons they say, "I was speaking only for myself." One good feature I see is that some of the ministers are at last able to speak for themselves. They have sat for more than three long years, none of them daring to utter a word, except on occasions when they have received a nod or a wink from the gentleman who is the whole government of the country.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Bank Act-Mr. Rhodes
Thursday, February 22, 1934