Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Min. ister):: When the resolution with respect to unemployment insurance was being considered I indicated that the actuarial reports prepared by Messrs. Watson and Wolfenden would be available for the house. I found, when they were finally completed-they had not been then-that they were somewhat longer than I thought the house would desire to incur the expense of printing. So I lay two copies of each on the table, and if the committee think, after analyzing them, that they should be printed, very good, but as they deal with purely actuarial matters I did not think the expense of printing was warranted, unless the house is more interested than I think in purely actuarial computations.
Government Business



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Richard Bedford Bennett: That on Monday the 18th of February, 1935, and every Monday thereafter until the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I have no objection to the motion, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) told us when he was speaking on tile address that opportunity would be given to vote on the motion of the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) with respect to the operation of the Ottawa Imperial Conference trade agreements. I hope the Prime Minister will see' that that opportunity is given, and not cut off by this method.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I
wonder if the Prime Minister would concede another day to private members. He has given notice of motion to cut off Wednesday as well, and it is not customary to cut off both days at once. I have a notice on the order paper that has not been called at all, and it is. not one of these academic stunts, it is a matter of practical importance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: After yesterday's debate I gave notice in the evening of intention to suggest to the house that Wednesday should become a government day. We have not yet reached that, and as I have frequently said, if the view of the house is that private members should have another day of course it will always be available. That has always been the principle on which we proceeded, but having regard to the condition of the order paper I placed that notice on the order paper last evening.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. YOUNG:: 1.	Did the dominion marketing board on January 2nd, write to F. J. G. Cunningham, representative of the Saskatchewan Egg and Poultry Producers Protective Association, to the effect that as soon as the order in council with reference to the marketing scheme for (Mr. Bennett.]
eggs and poultry had been passed the board would furnish him with copies of the approved scheme?
2.	Were these copies ever forwarded, and if so, on what date?
3.	On what date is the vote on the said scheme to be taken?
4.	What sum of money was advanced by the dominion marketing board for the purpose of promoting the marketing scheme for eggs and poultry in Saskatchewan, and to whom was it advanced?
5.	Was any sum advanced by the dominion marketing board to any association opposing the said scheme?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Yes.
2.	No. No order in council has been passed approving the marketing scheme for eggs and poultry in Saskatchewan.
3.	February 16 to February 23, inclusive.
4.	No sum.
5.	No.
league OF NATIONS-SOVIET UNION DELEGATES


Mr. POULIOT:: What are the names of the delegates of the U.S.S.R. who were members of: (a) the first committee; (b) the second committee; (c) the fourth committee; (d) the fifth committee, and (e) the sixth committee of the fifteenth ordinary session of the assembly of the League of Nations, held in Geneva in September, 1934?


Richard Bedford Bennett: (a) M. B. Stein, (b) M. M. Rosenberg, (c) M. B. Stein, (d) M. M. Rosenberg, (e) M. M. Litvinoff.
league OF NATIONS-CANADIAN REPRESENTATION


Jean-François Pouliot: How many sittings of each of the committees, upon which Canada was represented, were held during the whole length of the fifteenth ordinary session of the assembly of the League of Nations, held in Geneva, in September, 1934?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 1st committee, 6 sittings; 2nd committee, 9 sittings; 4th committee, 12 sittings; 5th committee, 13 sittings; 6th committee, 17 sittings.


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Between the 10th and 27th of September, 1934, have there been, in Geneva, plenary sittings: (a) of the assembly, and (b) of the council of the League of Nations?
2.	If so, how many sittings did the Canadian and Russian delegates attend together; what were the dates of such sittings, and what was the purpose of each one?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	(a) yes; (b) yes. Canada is not a member of the council.
2.	Two sittings, (1) September 18, of which the purpose was to decide upon the admission of the UHH.R. in the league. After this had been approved, delegates of the UJ3.S.R.

Questions
took their seats in the assembly; (2) September 25, when the business dealt with was the admission of Afghanistan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Questions Nos. 5, 6 and
7 refer to the same matter. I have looked into the questions. I might say with respect to them that the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) has placed upon the order paper several questions regarding the relations betw'een Canada and the Russian delegations to the last assembly of the League of Nations. He seems to be particularly anxious to ascertain the part taken by the Canadian delegation in the invitation to the Soviet union to enter the League of Nations, and also whether the Canadian delegation had officially met Mr. Litvinoff and had made any arrangements with the Russian delegation. The situation is very simple, and I shall endeavour to satisfy the hon. member's desire for information by a brief and direct statement.
The Canadian delegation believed that the movement for the entrance of the Soviet union into the League of Nations, which was initiated by France and supported by the United Kingdom, was in the interest of the League of Nations and of world peace, and it shared in the steps necessary to bring that about. In response to an order of the house moved by the hon. member a copy of the telegram of invitation, signed by the delegates of some thirty members of the league, including Canada, has been transmitted for tabling. The Canadian delegation did not have any official meeting with the Russian delegation, and did not discuss or enter into any agreements. Owing to the fact that the Soviet union did not enter the league until nearly the end of the session, their delegates took practically no part in the work of the committees. The only plenary meeting of the assembly at which I was present and which was attended by the Russian delegates was the session on September 18, when the business before the meeting was the admission of the U.S.S.R. into the league; after this had been approved the Russian delegates took their seats in the assembly.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Questions 5, 6 and 7
answered.


Jean-François Pouliot: The answer is not complete.
l'ile-aux-grues, qce., telephone exchange


Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Who is in charge of the telephone central at rile-aux-Grues, Jlontmagny county?
2.	What is the salary of this employee?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Captain Hector Lavoie.
2.	$50 per year.


NEW BUILDING, OTTAWA-EXCAVATION
Mr. FOURNIER:: Are the excavation works for the new building to be erected on Wellington street, Ottawa, being done with excavators or by manual labour?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Work being done by usual methods, both being employed.


EMIGRATION TO UNITED STATES
Mr. DUGUAY:: How many Canadians left Canada for the United States, during the years 1922 and 1923?


Mr. GORDON:: As the dominion government has no officers employed recording emigration but only immigration there are no figures available showing the emigration from Canada in any year. To record emigration would involve the employment of many additional officers particularly on the international boundary.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):	I wish to ask the Minister of
Railways (Mr. Manion) how many applications are now before the board of railway commissioners to his knowledge in regard to the abandonment of branch lines on the Canadian National railway system.
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I do not think I can
answer that question at the moment, but I read in the press that there are a number of applications before the board. Of course the two railway companies have the privilege of applying to the board of railway commissioners to abandon lines, they do not have to ask our authority in any shape or form. However, I shall look into the question and inform the hon. member correctly as soon as possible.


USE OF DRUG HEROIN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) asked a question with regard to the drug heroin. At Geneva a.
British Columbia Radio

convention was passed limiting the manufacture and regulating the distribution of narcotic drugs, and the following recommendation was adopted:
The conference, recognizing the highly dangerous character of heroin as a drug of addiction and the possibility in most, if not all cases, of replacing it by other drugs of a less dangerous character, recommends that each government should examine, in conjunction with the medical profession, the possibility of abolishing or restricting its use, and should communicate the result of such examinations to the secretary general of the League of Nations.
In accordance with tills obligation, therefore, the Department of Pensions and National Health placed itself in communication with the various medical associations, provincial and dominion. So far replies have been received from eight, and as yet no replies have been received from three, so until these replies are received no definite action will be taken. Resolutions have been received from certain rotary clubs, including that o>f St. Marys, Ontario, and the hon member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) made representations on behalf of a body in his district.


NEWSPRINT INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, whereas two revolutions of the earth have taken place, and whereas not twenty-four but forty-eight hours have elapsed since the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) promised to table in due course the return with regard to the newsprint industry, may I ask him first if the file has been sent out of Ottawa to be combed by someone, and second, if the file will be tabled-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am asking a question,
and I want yes or no for an answer. The second question is, if the government is waiting until after the legislation regarding the eight hour day-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a minute.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. gentleman
kindly proceed to ask his question and direct it to the proper minister?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am asking, as a second
question, if the government are waiting until the legislation regarding the eight hour day and the minimum wage is passed before tabling such correspondence. May I add that such legislation will not pass until this correspondence is produced.
fMr. Sutherland.]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would ask the hon.
gentleman to bear in mind the rules of the house in regard to asking questions. No hon. member is more familiar with the rules in that respect than my hon. friend. He knows that what he has added to his question is not proper, and I would ask him to be good enough to observe the rules when asking questions.


Jean-François Pouliot: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker; I submit my two questions, and I withdraw the warning.


STORM IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Has the attention of the government been directed to the terrible destruction which occurred recently in British Columbia due to a storm in that province, with damage amounting to approximately $2,COO,000? If so, is the government considering the advisability of rendering some financial assistance to those who have been affected?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The premier of British Columbia has intimated that the storm had caused much damage, but no details have been indicated as to what the damage was.


BRITISH COLUMBIA RADIO
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena):: I should
like to ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) if any steps have been taken by the radio commission to ensure better radio reception in central and northern British Columbia. The minister is familiar with the problem; in that territory it is impossible to hear any Canadian broadcasts. According to my information some steps have been taken to improve that condition, and I should like the minister to say what has been done.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: I understand that some steps
have been taken by the radio commission to improve the situation in that district. I will communicate this question to the commission and will gladly give its answer to my hon. friend.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, now that private mem-

Marketing Board Advances
bers' days have been taken by the government I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) when he intends to proceed with the organization of the committee to consider amendments to the British North America Act.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: The committee was appointed
yesterday. I do not know that it is my duty to call it together, but if it is I will be glad to call it together without delay.
MARKETING BOARD-ADVANCES On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: In regard to question No. 1 on the order paper, paragraph 4 reads:
What sum of money was advanced by the dominion marketing board for the purpose of promoting the marketing scheme for eggs and poultry in Saskatchewan, and to whom was it advanced?
The answer is "No sum". I have in my possession a telegram from Regina stating that pool speakers have publicly admitted that they have received $20,000, which is being used to send ninety-five speakers throughout the province. Will the minister say there is no truth in that statement?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I would ask the hon. member to
let this question stand as notice.
NORTH SASKATCHEWAN BRIDGE On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, I have a question
to direct to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart). I have received telegrams from the Lloydminster board of trade, dated February 11; from E. Whitlaw, mayor of Ruddell, dated February 11; from F. Wright, commissioner of the North Battleford board of trade, dated February 8; from the Lash-burn board of trade, dated February 9; from William Wilson, overseer of Waseca, dated February 9, and from George Wyatt, secretary treasurer of the council of the village of Paynton, dated February 13, asking for the bridging of the North Saskatchewan river at a point called Ceepee, forty miles west of Saskatoon and sixty miles east of North Battleford. I understand the Saskatoon board of trade are backing the project also. I should like to ask the minister if he can make any statement to the house and country as to whether this important project will be included in any government public works program for this year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, some representations
have been made in the past in this regard, but I am not able to state what is the intention of the government. I suggest that my hon. friend will have to await the legislation that may be brought down, or the estimates.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I hope when the answer
does come down it will be satisfactory.



INQUIRY-MR. POULIOT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: I am not going to repeat the two questions I put to the government a short time ago, but I would ask the government to answer them. Silence.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: On February 4, at page 444 of Hansard, the hon. member for Jaoques Cartier (Mr. Laurin) put the following question to the government:
Did the Quebec government make a formal proposal to the federal government looking to an agreement in relation to unemployment with a view to exempt municipalities from contributing to unemployment relief expenditures?
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) answered "Yes". May I ask the minister to lay such correspondence on the table of the house?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I will be very glad to table the
correspondence that passed between myself and the premier of Quebec. I think two communications were addressed to me; the matter was considered, and I replied to those communications. I will table the letters tomorrow.



MONTREAL POSTAL TERMINAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: According to the press contracts have been let in connection with the Montreal postal terminal. I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) if these are only partial contracts or if they will ensure the completion of the work.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The contracts that have been let will ensure the completion of the work.
C.N.R.-Refunding



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the refunding of maturing and callable financial obligations of the Canadian National Railways and for the issue of substituted securities therefor, guaranteed by the dominion, in an amount not exceeding $200,000,000.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: The committee is aware no doubt that from time to time in the past the practice has obtained of taking the power through what might be termed an omnibus bill to refund and to fund the direct obligations of the dominion. This bill is designed to take the same course with respect to the guaranteed obligations, or in other words the obligations of the Canadian National Railways which bear the guarantee of the Dominion of Canada. We are asking authority up to the extent of $200,000,000. As a matter of fact there are maturing this year a limited amount of obligations, of which I shall give the exact amount in a few moments. But there are callable provisions in connection with a number of the issues which would enable us, if the market conditions warranted, to refund in the course of the present year not less than $172,000,000. Of course we would ask for the added sum, in the event of our being able to do the same thing with respect to callable obligations which might arise at the end of the year. I do not think I need dwell upon the wisdom of our refunding where possible and in that way reducing the interest charge in consequence. As a matter of fact in the latter part of last year we had two issues of the Canadian National Railways amounting in all, in round figures, to the sum of $20,500,000.. which were re-financed in the month of December. We were able to refund those with an issue of three per cent securities which, in that one transaction alone, will save the railways and to that extent will save the Dominion of Canada not less than $200,000 a year in interest.
To-morrow there falls due an issue of $17,000,000 of four and a half per cent guaranteed Canadian Northern Railway bonds. We have made arrangements temporarily to refund those upon a two pel cent basis. But TMr. H. A. Stewart.]
as the market presents an opportunity we will fund those for a longer term, saving a substantial sum in interest as against the rate which the maturing issues bear. It is necessary of course to secure this authority in advance, because there is not only the question of parliament being in session only for a limited period but the other point, namely, that the majority if not all of these issues are payable in the alternative, either in London, New York or in Canada, at the option of the holder. It would be dependent upon conditions from time to time as to whether a favourable opportunity will present itself.
To show how important it is that we should refund in terms of dollars, may I say that if we are able to refund the total amount which we can refund through the callable provisions, and also because of the obligations maturing to-morrow, during the course of the year, upon a basis comparable to the existing interest rate, we will be able to effect a saving in interest alone of, in round figures, the sum of $2,500,000 a year.


Mr. EULER:: I should like to ask the minister whether the government has considered the advisability of refunding not only the callable maturities but those which actually do mature. Instead of refunding only the ones he has mentioned, I should like to know whether or not they have in mind the possibility of refunding at a lower figure the balance of about a billion dollars, payable on account of the national railways. It will be desirable to have that done, if possible.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I entirely agree with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) as to the desirability, but we must take first things first. Of course we must deal with, the maturing obligations.


William Daum Euler: Quite so.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Then it remains open to us to deal only with those maturities which have a callable provision. Of course if after that arrangements could be arrived at whereby all the holders would be content, despite the contract, to accept a lower rate of interest, needless to say we would all be only too happy to accept such an arrangement.


William Daum Euler: Would it not be worth while to try?


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Would the minister state whether or not there is any provision being made for an overhauling of the whole capital structure of the Canadian National Railways?

C.N.R.-Refunding


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I do not know that that question arises at the moment. Certainly it is not one I should like to discuss at the present time.


Mr. RALSTON:: The minister referred to refunding S17,000,000 due to -morrow. I presume he has in mind the paying off of the $17,000,000 and financing on short term for the funds in the meantime.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We have made arrangements on short term financing for a temporary refunding at the rate of two per cent interest.


James Layton Ralston: On call?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, for a short term.


James Layton Ralston: In Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Part in Canada and part in the United States, because a portion of the securities are held in New York. But of course we will refund them as and when the market conditions warrant.


James Layton Ralston: If the minister has a list before him of the issues which will fall due this year, could he give me some idea of the premiums, if any, which would be payable?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is an issue of
$60,833,333.33 of Grand Trunk Railway four per cent perpetual guaranteed stock which is callable at 100. I have not the data before me, but my recollection is that that is payable in England. However, of that fact I cannot be sure at the moment.
There is an issue of Canadian National Railway 44 per cent thirty-year bonds, due September 15, 1954, amounting to $26,000,000, which is callable at 102; a Canadian National Railway issue of 44 per cent forty-year bonds, due December 1, 1968, amounting to $35,000,000, which is callable at 103; an issue of National Transcontinental Railway Branch Lines Company 44 per cent first mortgage bonds due October 1, 1955, amounting to $2,541,000, callable at par; Mount Royal Tunnel and Terminal Company Limited 5 per cent first mortgage bonds due April 15, 1970, amounting to $952,893.33, callable at 105; an issue of Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada 7 per cent debentures due October 1, 1940, amounting to $23,740,000, callable at 1024; Canadian Northern Railway Company 7 per cent debenture bond issue due December 1, 1940, amounting to $23,779,000, callable at 1024. The total of the various issues I have just given aggregates $172,846,226.66.


James Layton Ralston: Did I understand the minister to say that there were no other issues falling due this year except this $17,000,000?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The $17,000,000 issue falling due to-morrow is the only issue falling due this year. The list I have given is the complete list of those issues which contain the callable provision enabling us to call them this year.


James Layton Ralston: At what rate was my hon. friend reckoning interest when he mentioned a possible saving of $500,000?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In round figures 34 per cent.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, it was
formerly the practice I think for the national railways to issue these obligations on their own account, guaranteed by the federal government. In view of the fact disclosed before the parliamentary committee on national railways and shipping that bonds issued direct by the government could be sold just a little more advantageously than those issued by the national railways direct, and guaranteed by the government, I would like to ask whether it is the intention of the government to have this issued as a direct obligation of the federal government, and charged I presume against the national railways, instead of being issued by the railways, as formerly, and guaranteed by the government.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, that is a very large question. I would not wish to shield myself behind the usual and quite proper formula that the intention of the government can only properly be made known when it has arrived at a decision. I do not take that ground at all. I would point out that it is a large question of policy as to how far it may be wise for the government to add direct obligations in place of their present indirect obligations, especially -bearing in mind the -circumstance that, while it is true there is a margin of difference in the rate on a direct obligation and a guaranteed obligation, the tendency is for that margin to narrow very closely. That is particularly so in Canada. The tendency heretofore has been for that margin to be slightly larger in Great Britain and in New York, but on the whole the tendency has been for that margin to narrow to a very small point. At the moment I would not like to express an opinion whether, on balance, if it were possible, it would be the part of wisdom to stand directly under the whole load at the present time.


William Daum Euler: If I am not mistaken the
committee I think included in its report a recommendation that in future the bonds be issued on the direct responsibility of the government. I may be wrong in that but I am inclined to think that that was the recom-
C.N.R.-Refunding

mendation of the committee and that its report was adopted and accepted by parliament.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That may be so.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Has the
government any intention of undertaking a revaluation of the capital structure of the Canadian National Railways so that it will bear some relationship to the actual replacement value of the present assets?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would not undertake to
answer that question at the moment, certainly not in connection with this measure.


Mr. HANBHRY:: I would like to suggest
to the minister that he place on Hansard a statement of the bonded obligations of the Canadian National Railways and its affiliations.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend will
refer to the budget speech of last year and the year before, and the year before that again, he will find them there in complete detail, and also in the annual report of the Canadian National Railways.


Wilfred Hanbury: The minister in referring to some issues that were maturing stated that some were payable in New York and some in London. I would like to inquire whether it is the intention of the government, where possible, to make all future issues payable in Canada only, or whether the old policy will be continued.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not get the latter
part of my hon. friend's question.


Wilfred Hanbury: I asked whether in
future all issues of a similar nature would be payable in Canada only, where possible, or whether the old policy of having them payable both in London and New York, or one or the other, would be continued?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The answer to that question would be, which is the more favourable market when an issue is being made? We cannot project ourselves into the future. All I can say is that the policy we have pursued has been so far as possible to confine our borrowings to the Canadian market, but there may be, and no doubt will be occasions when it may be more advantageous to borrow in other markets.


James Layton Ralston: Do I understand that it
is the intention to make all of these new refunding issues callable?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Every one of the issues
that we have made recently has had callable provisions.


James Layton Ralston: And that is the intention here?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is the intention with respect to the future.


James Layton Ralston: The bill will no doubt
disclose the answer to the question asked by my hon. friend from North Waterloo, whether it is intended to undertake these as direct obligations of Canada or as guarantees. I suppose the minister cannot now indicate what authority will be given in the bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The bill will be in the
terms of similar bills which have been introduced, and it will provide in the alternative either for direct obligation or for guarantee.


Mr. COOTE:: Mr. Chairman, may we take it for granted that none of these new issues will be made payable in foreign funds except such as are renewals of maturing issues now payable in foreign funds?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have already stated that where we can we will refund in Canada, and certainly in Canadian funds. But when it comes to a question of refunding maturities which are held outside of Canada the question of repatriation arises, and it is a question then of what is on balance the wiser policy to pursue.


Wilfred Hanbury: In connection with the
minister's last remarks I submit that it is better to pay the Canadian people a higher rate of interest and maintain your obligation in Canada, where it is possible to do so, rather than enter into an obligation in some foreign country. I believe the minister would get the support of this house for a policy on that basis. We know that there is considerable money for investment in Canada to-day, even although the banks have invested in government securities over 50 per cent of the savings of the people. I think the government should give very serious consideration to the issue of Canadian obligations, where it is at all possible, even if the rate of interest may be a little higher at the time.


Edward Joseph Garland: May we
take it that the statement of the last speaker indicates that the party to which he belongs has abandoned the policy of free trade in finance?
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 19 respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for the refunding of maturing and callable financial obligations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Aids to Navigation-Collection of Dues



AIDS TO NAVIGATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide for the collection by the dominion government of dues to be applied towards the maintenance of the lighthouses and buoy erected or placed by the British government on or near the coasts of the Bahamas and Leeward islands, from ships arriving at and departing from ports in Canada which derive benefits from the said lighthouses and buoy.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Alfred Duranleau: 
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: It is impossible for us to obtain
full information before the resolution goes into committee regarding the payment of dues by Canadian or Australian or other vessels that benefit by the lights in question. I suggest we go into committee so that the minister can give us some details.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacDonald (South Cape Breton) in the chair.


Edward Joseph Garland: With whom did this idea originate? Is it the result of an agreement arrived at by an imperial conference in London; is it by agreement between the dominions and Great Britain; or whence has the idea come which is embodied in this resolution?


Alfred Duranleau: 
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I understood the minister to say that the other dominions would adopt similar legislation. He mentioned Australia-


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: And South Africa, I
thought, and he even mentioned India. Does the minister mean that these dominions or possessions or whatever they are called have ships that pass through that particular territory covered by the resolution?
812	COMMONS
Aids to Navigation-Collection of Dues


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say offhand whether those countries have ships deriving benefit from the lights by passing through the Bahamas; but if a ship, British or foreign, navigates in that neighbourhood and thus derives benefit from the lights and does not visit any port in Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the Irish Free State, that ship will not contribute to the maintenance and improvement of those lights although it has benefited from them. That is why the British authorities have asked the dominions to collect dues for the general fund from those ships which do not visit ports on the other side but which visit dominion ports before or after having benefited from those lights; according to regulations it is one penny per ton of registered tonnage of each ship.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My point is this-perhaps the minister cannot supply the information- but I would like to know if it intended that the other dominions are to enact legislation covering the Bahamas and Leeward islands, or is this to be restricted to Canada? I do not think Australia is interested in it.


Alfred Duranleau: I have already stated that all the dominions and colonies were asked to adopt similar legislation, that is to provide for the collection in their ports of dues for the British general fund. I have just stated that the Commonwealth of Australia, India and the Irish Free State have already adopted and probably New Zealand at its forthcoming session will adopt similar legislation; that is, they will become collecting agents for the British general lighthouse fund.


Mr. CARDIN:: Is this proposal not going to bring about a very serious change in the system which prevails in Canada so far as lighthouses and buoys are concerned? It is very well known that vessels coming into Canadian ports at present have no dues to pay in connection with the maintenance or repair of lighthouses and buoys. According to this resolution if the proposed legislation is put into effect, vessels entering Canadian ports will have to pay to Canada dues which they are not at present called upon to pay. This is a material change and I am afraid it is opening the door to a new policy here which may lead us sooner or later to the establishment of the system which prevails in England and other countries with the exception of Canada and the United States. Is the minister not somewhat afraid that this bill will create a precedent which may prove harmful to our ports later on?


Alfred Duranleau: As I told the house a minute ago, these dues are for the British general fund, not for our own. We are not 
legislating for Canada; we are legislating only to give power to our customs officers to collect for Great Britain dues from ships which do not visit their ports on the other side but which derive benefits from those lighthouses, and visit the Canadian ports. This is only the enforcement of a British law in a British possession, the West Indies; that is all. We are only becoming the collecting agents. No principle in regard to our own legislation is involved. We have no lighthouse dues in this country and so far as I can see we do not intend to impose any dues for lighthouse maintenance. This is to help the British general fund by collecting its lighthouse dues.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Vessels entering Canadian ports have not so far been called upon to pay any dues even to England or to any other country for the maintenance of these lighthouses and buoys, but when the proposed legislation is put on the statute books vessels will have to pay in Canada dues that they formerly were not asked to pay.


Alfred Duranleau: Not for our lighthouses. Our officers are only the collecting agents of Great Britain.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If I understood the minister aright a moment ago, he said that possibly part of these dues will be for our benefit.


Alfred Duranleau: I said that perhaps Great Britain will pay us a certain percentage of these dues to cover the expense of collection. That would be only fair.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has any request been made of the United States government in turn to share part of the expense in the maintenance of these facilities for the same reason the minister gives for asking us, namely that their ships use those ports and receive some services from those lighthouses and buoys? The proposal seems to me eminently fair that one pays on the basis of the service secured, but to be fair it must apply to all parties participating in the benefit. If Canada, Australia and New Zealand are to assume their share of the burden without any foreign countries also sharing, that is not an equitable distribution of the cost. Has the minister any information on that question?


Alfred Duranleau: I am not aware that the United States ever asked for contributions for their lighthouse services, but I can say that United States vessels navigating through the Bahamas and Leeward islands, if they do not visit a port in Great Britain or Northern Ireland or the Irish Free State but visit a port in Canada, they will be asked by our officers to pay these dues.

Aids to Navigation-Collection oj Dues


Edward Joseph Garland: But they will not necessarily visit a port in Canada. They may be plying between United States ports and ports in the Bahamas. Why should they not in turn be required to pay part of the cost? Why should the United States customs authorities not be induced by voluntary arrangement to collect just as we are now being asked to collect some share of the cost?


Alfred Duranleau: So far Great Britain has asked only its dominions and colonies to help it in the collection of these dues.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is going to be to the detriment of Canadian ports. After this proposed legislation is passed, vessels entering Canadian ports will have to pay these dues. If the same vessels visit United States ports, they will have nothing to pay for the use of these lighthouses and sendees. That appears to be a system which will operate against our Canadian ports.


Alfred Duranleau: There may be a loss to the British general lighthouse fund if they have no agreement with the United States for the collection of dues in the ports of that country, but at the present time Great Britain is asking the aid of the dominions and colonies only in the collection of these dues.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I quite understand that
what we are creating here is a collecting agency for England, but I am afraid it is going to operate to the detriment of our Canadian ports. It is going to impose dues on all vessels visiting our ports.


Alfred Duranleau: Vessels which have
derived benefit from those lights.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly, but vessels also deriving benefits from those lights going into the United States will have nothing to pay.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: They will not be encouraged to come to Canada, they will go to the United States.


William Duff: I think the best thing the
minister can do with this resolution is to let it stand. It is quite evident that he is badly advised either by the British government or by his officials in putting this resolution on the order paper. I could understand it if, following the Prime Minister's wish regarding conventions about eight-hour days and minimum wages and other matters for the whole British empire, or the whole world, the British government were putting forth a proposition that all lights in the British empire should come under one general fund. If that were
the proposal then I could understand why ships coming into Canada or going from Canada should pay into that fund. But why in the name of heaven should any ship either coming to or going from Canada pay for lights in the Bahamas or the Leeward islands? Do the Bahamas pay for our lights in Canada? Do the Leeward islands, the Windward islands, does Australia? And the minister tells us that the Irish Free State has agreed to pay; have they any shipping? You might as well say that Switzerland or Alberta is willing to agree to collect for these islands.
Mr. MoINTOSH: What about Saskatchewan?


William Duff: Or Saskatchewan. The thing
is ridiculous. The minister knows that the Canadian taxpayers pay for all the lights on both our coasts and on the great lakes. We do not ask the Bahamas or the Leeward islands or Australia or the Irish Free State or even Great Britain to help pay for these lights. Not only does Canada pay for all the lights in Canada but also for some in Newfoundland as the minister knows. These are lights of a particular kind and placed in positions of particular advantage for Canadian and other shipping. But why should the Canadian vessel owner or taxpayer pay for lights in the Bahamas or the Leeward islands? Take for example the Empress of Britain, she makes perhaps twenty trips to Quebec in a year. If this resolution passes, every time she enters at Quebec she will have to pay lights dues for lights, where? Down at Nassau. The only time the Empress of Britain goes to Nassau is perhaps once a year; when liquor gets scarce in Quebec and she takes a number of passengers down to Nassau. Mr. Chairman, the suggestion or resolution is ridiculous. I say seriously to the minister that when Great Britain comes forward with a proposition that all the lights in the British empire should be maintained from one fund that will be time enough to ask Canadian shipping to help keep up lights in the Bahamas or on the coast of England or elsewhere.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I would be opposed to
that.


William Duff: So would I, but I am putting that forward as a much better proposition than the one the minister asks us to adopt now. I ask the minister to have the committee rise, so as at least to give time for more consideration.


Mr. CHURCH:: I look on the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) as the admiral of the Canadian navy. I trust
814	COMMONS
Aids to Navigation-Collection oj Dues
the day is not far distant when Canada may realize its duty to the British fleet, and be ready not only to contribute to aids to navigation but to make a proper contribution by the people of Canada to maritime freedom. We do not know what we owe to the British fleet. When the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough was sitting on this side of the house he will remember the Petersen contracts in which it was proposed to pay thousands of dollars by way of subsidy to a concern with no control over ocean rates at all. I hope the day is not far distant when the people of Quebec and of all the provinces will take a broad view of this matter, because I believe in the principle on which confederation is based, the principle of all for one and one for all. My friends on the other side are always talking about more overseas trade. We have the Canadian merchant marine and it is necessary no doubt to maintain these contributions and collections as aids to navigation, and they have not been opposed in the past by hon. members opposite. I maintain that not only should there be a contribution towards aids to navigation, to avoid disasters and loss of life, but it should be made willingly. I hope the day is not far distant when these aids may be extended and increased to the head of the great lakes, where there have been many disasters through lack of proper lights and signals and aids to navigation. I commend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) for the resolution. Hon. members of the opposition should be consistent.
I have never gone to sea but if I went I should feel safe with such a sea admiral as the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough.


Mr. POWER:: It took a great deal of circumlocution or circumnavigation and ingenuity for the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church) to reach the point where he could wave the flag and sing Britannia Rules the Waves. But with all respect to him I think we have a perfect right to object to this resolution until at least we have more information. The minister has told us that the Irish Free State and Australia and India are proposing to pass similar legislation.


Alfred Duranleau: They have passed
similar legislation, they are collecting these dues.


Charles Gavan Power: He has not yet told us who asked this country to do so. Was it by a letter from the British government, a letter from the collectors of the lighthouse fund, or is it a matter of agreement, one of these conventions that we are ratifying now, or did it IMr. Church.]
originate in the minds of officials in his department? We want far more light, but we do not want to pay for it unless we have to. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) referred to the tax on vessels such as the Empress of Britain. The Empress of Britain I think is a vessel of about forty thousand tons. I understood the minister to say that the tax would be a penny a ton each time this vessel comes into Quebec?


Alfred Duranleau: I understand the tonnage of the Empress of Britain is forty-two thousand tons, and the tax is a penny a ton on the registered tonnage.


Charles Gavan Power: That would amount to $420 each time this vessel came into Quebec.


William Duff: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be $840.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not surprised that the Prime Minister needs an economic council, when the whole House of Commons cannot make a simple calculation in multiplication. I am inclined to agree with the Prime Minister that it is $840. Therefore that is what it would cost the Empress of Britain every time she came into the port of Quebec if the explanation given by the minister is correct. And she comes in something like ten or twelve times a season.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, twenty times.


Charles Gavan Power: It has been pointed out that the Empress of Britain may conceivably go to the Bahamas once a year with one of those ocean cruises, and for that she would have to pay something like $8,000 or $9,000. The thing seems absurd on the face of it. As has been pointed out by some of our friends from the prairies it seems absurd that we should carry the burden of these duties when the United States, our next-door neighbour, is exempt. And particularly may I say that it is with a certain amount of regret I see this government, of all governments, imposing such dues on vessels coming into Canadian ports. One of the principal articles in the program of this government was free ports, though I must say that in the application of that term I fear those who preached that we should have free ports in this country neglected to look up either the dictionary meaning of the term or the meaning generally accepted in maritime countries. However, they left the impression with the people of this country that free ports meant ports with lower dues, but here one of the first pieces of legislation with respect to ports will place our ports at a disadvantage as compared with those of the United States.

Aids to Navigation-Collection oj Dues
And for whose benefit is this being done? It is for the benefit of ships trading in the Bahamas, for the benefit of ships, I would say, largely owned by Americans. I do not know what the proportion is, but I would say that far more ships of American registry ply in those waters than ships of Canadian or even of British registry.


William Duff: We have only two ships in Canada that go to the Bahamas.


Charles Gavan Power: Apart from bootlegging
vessels we have probably only two Canadian ships that go to the Bahamas. My hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough tells me the only tiwo vessels are the Lady Rodney and the Lady Somers. It strikes me that the whole proposition is very much like having the American government ask us to impose an income tax on our citizens, the proceeds of which would be devoted to keeping up the highways or bridges of the United States, and more than that, it would be the imposition of a tax on people formerly exempt, because in this case vessels coming into Canada, as has been shown here this afternoon, are exempt from dues in connection with our own lighthouses. I cannot imagine anything more extraordinary than asking the Canadian people, who have contributed largely over a period of years to the cost of lighthouses and other aids to navigation, and who do not charge that cost to vessels entering Canadian ports, now to suffer in any way or make any further sacrifices in order to keep up the lighthouses of any other country. I cannot understand why this legislation should be introduced, and after mature consideration I think probably the minister will withdraw it.
Mr. VEiNilOT: Will the minister explain how these dues are collected now? How does the British government get any revenue from vessels using or deriving benefits from the Bahamas islands lighthouses?
Mr. DURlAlNLBAU: The collection is made when a ship that has benefited by tho.se lights visits a British port, and similar laws have been adopted by Australia, India and other parts of the British empire. If a ship does not visit a British port before or after having derived benefits from those lights but lands in a Canadian port, under the proposed legislation the collection will be made at this port. That will foe the practice in Canada if this legislation is adopted. At the present time if a Canadian ship derives benefits from those lighthouses on its way to Great Britain, for instance, she pays these dues on her arrival in the British port. We are only asking now that these dues be collected in Canada for
the general fund of Great Britain from ships deriving benefits from these lighthouses, visiting a Canadian port instead of a British port. There is nothing extraordinary in this measure. We are only adopting a regulation in force in Great Britain for the maintenance of their lighthouses. It is quite true that we have not the same policy in Canada, but since we are not doing this for our own benefit but are acting only as collection agents for Great Britain I think this is fair legislation.
Mr. VEfYIOT: Can the minister inform the committee what constitutes deriving benefits from these lights, which would entitle the British government to collect dues? What would be considered deriving benefit? Would a vessel have to enter a port of the Leeward islands or of the Bahamas group?


Alfred Duranleau: No. According to the regulations-


Mr. VENJOT:: Perhaps the minister will let me finish. Would the vessel have to enter one of those ports, or would it be taxed
for going along the sea coast and being guided in the trip across the ocean by the lights it might see along the coast? What entitles the British government to collect those dues for benefits derived by such vessels?


Alfred Duranleau: I understand there are British regulations stating the zones and routes within or along which ships derive benefits from those lights, even though the ships do not visit a port in the Bahamas. If the ship passes within a certain distance of the lights, so that it must have those lights in order to obtain its direction, it derives benefits from the lights and is supposed to pay the dues. I might say to my hon. friend from Quebec South that the Empress of Britain, which voyages from Quebec to Southampton, does not pay any dues for these lighthouses. These dues would be collected only if the Empress of Britain went to the West Indies, for example, or passed through the Panama canal. On voyages fro-m Quebec to Southampton no dues would be collected in connection with those lights.


William Duff: Does my hon. friend mean to say that a vessel going through the Panama canal and not calling at Nassau or Jamaica would have to pay something to this fund when it returned to Canada because it might happen to see the lights whilst thirty, forty or fifty miles away, on a fine night?


Alfred Duranleau: No. When it is considered, according to the British regulations,
816	COMMONS
A ids to Navigation-Collection oj Dues
that the ship has derived benefits from the lights or when it has been guided by the lights, it is supposed to pay dues.


William Duff: Who is to decide when the
ship derives benefits?


Alfred Duranleau: Regulations have been adopted by the British authorities setting out certain zones.


William Duff: We would like to have those zones. The minister must realize that the Bahamas and Jamaica are in an entirely different position from Canada. Canada is a self governing country, and while we are under the British flag and part of the British empire we are in an entirely different position from either the Bahamas or Jamaica. If the British government would come to the Minister of Marine or to this government and say, " Let us pool our lighthouse and buoy interests in the British empire; if you will collect from ships arriving in Canada we will collect from ships coming to Liverpool and London and other British ports, and from that general fund maintain all the lights." If that were done I could understand that there might be some sense in the resolution. But surely the minister or the government is not going to compel the ship owners to do what is asked in the resolution. Goodness knows there are few enough ship owners in Canada now; most of the ships have been driven away from this country, first because of the shipping act of last year, and secondly because of the act which was on the statute books previous to that. We have driven our ships to Newfoundland, or to some other place, for registration.
Surely the minister will not compel the ship owners of this country to pay for lights in the Bahamas or Jamaica. Canada is paying for her own lights. Ships coming from New York or any other port of the United States get the benefit of those lights. This country does not ask United States ships to pay light dues when they arrive at Halifax, Vancouver or any other Canadian port, nor does the United States ask us to pay light dues on our ships travelling from Halifax or Sheet Harbour to the ports of New York or Boston. So far as that is concerned there is a reciprocal arrangement. Simply because the Bahamas are a crown colony, and Jamaica is practically in the same position I cannot see why our ships should pay the British admiralty or into a British fund for the purpose of keeping up lights either in the Bahamas or Jamaica. It is not right, and I demand of the minister that he ask this committee to rise and report progress, and that he should not 
try to force this resolution through parliament. It was bad enough last year when the minister forced the Shipping Act through the house. It has been on the statute books a year, and the minister has never dared to put it into effect. Here is another matter coming along to make it harder for the ship owners of this country, a provision which will compel them to pay money to the British treasury for lights in the Bahamas and Jamaica. It is neither fair nor right and I demand of the Prime Minister and the government that the minister be asked to move that the committee rise and report progress.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I should like to ask the minister whether or not the intention behind the resolution would be that of having the Canadian government collect fees for Trinity House. Hon. members who know the sea will know that most of the international lights, and the matter of developing lights in harbours, has been brought about by an institution in Great Britain known as Trinity House. It is possible that the lights may have been placed in position by Trinity House for the purpose of guiding international navigation. I should like to ask the minister whether or not the imperial government are collecting money for Trinity House through the instrumentality of this federal government.


Alfred Duranleau: According to the information I have and the correspondence which has taken place between British authorities and my department, I believe that is not the situation. These lights were placed years ago by the British government and at the expense of the British exchequer. Only in 1898 was the original cost and maintenance of the lights transferred to the general lighthouse fund of Great Britain. I understand that at the present time the board of trade of England is in charge of the administration of the lights.


Humphrey Mitchell: I believe that if the
minister looked into the matter he would find that Trinity House is an independent organization which has been given power by the British government to collect dues and fees for the lights. I believe if he went into that aspect of the matter he would have no difficulty in answering the observations quite properly made by hon. members on this side of the house. Most of the lights in the world -and I am speaking in a broad and general way-are maintained by the organization I have named which, to all intents and purposes, is quite independent. The British government merely gives it power to erect the

Aids to Navigation-Collection oj Dues
lights. In many places where there are lights there are no governments which could be responsible for the maintenance of such lights. No doubt the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) knows about Trinity House.


William Duff: Would the hon. member allow me to answer the question? Whilst in the old days there was a fund known as the Trinity fund, such fund applied only to lights in the British Empire, and before several British states obtained their autonomy. For instance, the Canadian ratepayers pay for the lights in the strait of Belle Isle. We pay for the light at Cape Race; we pay for the one at Cape Ray, we pay for the one at St. Paul's island, and the one at Anticosti island. Any vessel of any nationality may use those lights without paying light dues. If Canada has been good enough to provide lights for the shipping of the world and for vessels coming from the Bahamas, she should have like privileges extended to her. Of course we know no shipping comes from the Bahamas or from Jamaica to Canadian ports. As I said a moment ago, the only Canadian ships which use the ports of the Bahamas or of Jamaica are the Lady Rodney and the Lady Somers. Our lights are open for shipping from Jamaica; we have lights in place to protect any shipping there may be from the Bahamas, and I say it should be a reciprocal arrangement. The only reason the British government has asked is because the Bahamas are crown colonies. Surely there is no need for this country to pay light dues to keep up lights in the Bahamas. With the exception of the island of St. Pierre the Bahamas are the most prosperous islands in the world. On account of the liquor trade those islands have prospered-and I do not say they should be accused of conspiracy. The treasury of the Bahamas is full to overflowing, and I cannot see why we should be asked to pay for lights around those islands. The same applies to Jamaica. Jamaica is in a much better financial position than is Canada, and I cannot see why this poor country which is keeping up the lights on the Atlantic coast, on the great lakes, on the Pacific coast and around Newfoundland for the benefit of international shipping should now be asked to pay for lights in the Bahamas and Jamaica.
It is a most unusual proposition when we find the minister or the government asking us to take such action. They are not well advised in placing this resolution before parliament and in asking the taxpayers and the ship owners to give effect to it. I respect-92582-52
fully ask the Minister of Marine to move that the committee rise, and I would suggest also that before he proceeds-if he does proceed-he secure some further information to put before the committee.


Alfred Duranleau: What information do you want?


William Duff: I do not want any, but the
minister wants some.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He needs it.


William Duff: The1 minister is at sea. He
is not only in the dark and in the fog, but he is at sea. I would advise him to get more light on the subject before he asks parliament to tax the people and the Canadian ship owners to keep up lights in the Bahamas and Jamaica.
Mr. CA6GRAIN:	I do not think we
should have any further discussion without more detailed information from the minister. As I understand the situation, the resolution would have the effect of placing a burden on ships coming to Canada. That point has been indicated by the hon. members for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) and Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). I am afraid such provision as is now indicated would have the effect of taking away more of the trade of Canada, because vessels from any port in the United States going to the points indicated would not have the dues to pay. The result would be that we would lose some of our shipping. As has been pointed out-and I know because I visited that part of the country only last summer-the Canadian government pays for the lighting around Newfoundland, takes care of repairs and maintenance and pays the salaries of officials. Now if in Canada we maintain lights and seaways for all the vessels that come to our waters from all parts of the world, I do not see why we should be called upon to pay a tax upon the vessels coming to this countiy. I do not think it is fair. The minister may have good intentions. He wants to help other parts of the world, and to help the fund in England and to help those organizations that are looking after the collection of these dues. But charity begins at home, and we should not be doing anything in this country that is going to be injurious to the interests of Canadian shipping. I think the minister has the interests of Canadian shipping at heart, that he means well, but he has lots to do and he has not in his department a deputy minister to advise him. He has an assistant deputy minister, but for the last three years he has not had a deputy minister. Formerly he had

818	COMMONS
Aids to Navigation-Collection of Dues
a deputy minister who was well versed on all these questions, and it may be that if the minister had had a deputy who had been in office for a couple of years and familiarized himself with all these questions he would not now be presenting this resolution to parliament. As I say, I think the minister is sincere but perhaps he does not see the bearing of the legislation that he is asking the house to accept. He means well, but of course he is not a shipping man although no doubt since he has been Minister of Marine he has learned something about shipping; but before that he had not touched even the fringe of the shipping business.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that the suggestion that has been made that the committee rise and report progress so that the minister may consider the matter mo,re fully and be in a position to give the information that has been asked for by my hon. friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell), for instance, is a very reasonable one.


Alfred Duranleau: I have no objection to that.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Then when the resolution comes up again and we have all the information before us, and when the minister himself is in a better position to answer questions and to give the house full details and give this whole question more careful study himself, he might not be willing to press the resolution any further.


Alfred Duranleau: What details do you want?


Vincent Dupuis: In my opinion details will not suffice. I speak humbly because I am not a mariner nor an admiral, although I am an admirer of the department of the hon. minister. But as I see this question, if the minister cannot convince this house that this legislation will not put this country at a disadvantage compared with other countries of the world, all the details in the world will be useless. I do not see why this legislation was brought down. I understand that this government are heartily in favour of imperialism, but in this legislation they are working quite to the contrary end. It may be that it will help the British empire to pay a few dollars for lighthouses, but on the other hand the results will be disastrous because it will prevent ships coming to our own country, which is a part of the British empire. I do not see why this legislation was ever brought in when it was admitted that this country pays all the expenses of its own lighthouses and even those in Newfoundland. I am not sufficiently conversant with shipping laws to 
be sure that shipping from the United States coming to Canada would have to pay lighthouse dues, but I think not; I think there is no international agreement to that effect. If that is so, may I be allowed to fancy that the hon. minister has another thought in the back of his head, that in passing this legislation he will induce ships to go to the United States instead of coming to Canada, and that he will then have to dig out the Chambly canal and that his real reason may be that he wants to give the government a good reason for digging it up. If that is his reason I am all in favour of the minister, but otherwise I would suggest that consideration of this resolution be postponed until we are convinced that it will not be to the detriment of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the collection of an admitted liability of a ship is what is aimed at, but inasmuch as apparently the lack of knowledge has not proceeded from the minister but from those who have criticized him, possibly it will serve a useful purpose if the committee rise and report progress, and afford those who have been criticizing an opportunity to realize what the measure really is for.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to stand for that. There is no man in this house with such little knowledge of shipping as the Prime Minister, and indeed about a number of other things. He should not set himself up to criticize myself and other people for trying to get information about this matter from the minister. I have been very fair, and I am not going to allow the Prime Minister or anybody else to make any insinuations such as he did a moment ago.
I think I made a fair proposition to the minister when I suggested that he have the committee rise and report progress. May I say to the minister that if this country is paying for the upkeep of lights in the Bahama islands and Jamaica, we should ask Great Britain if they are willing to pay for the upkeep of lights in Canada, because there is no country in the world whose shipping uses Canadian lights more than Great Britain. If we are to pay Great Britain for the upkeep of lights in the Bahamas and Jamaica we should inquire of Great Britain whether they are willing to pay for our lights, and especially the lights at Belle Isle, Cape Race, Cape Ray and the lights off St. John and Halifax, and in the St. Lawrence river. That is a fair proposition. I believe in reciprocity, as the Prime Minister knows. I am a stronger advocate of reciprocity than the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Finance, and I repeat that if this country is

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. MacNicol
going to pay for the upkeep of lights, perhaps not in foreign countries, but in British colonies scattered all over the world, the British government should help pay for the upkeep of lights in the St. Lawrence and on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Canada. That is a fair proposition. Again I say, Mr. Chairman, that I am not going to stand for the insinuations of the Prime Minister that we on this side of the house do not know what we are talking about.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty is that it is not the country that pays any part of it, as any hon. member knows who knows anything about this resolution. It is the ship that pays the dues, and it is an admitted liability, and this legislation is merely to provide that as a matter of courtesy we will collect it, the same as Australia and New Zealand are doing. The liability is admitted. It is not a question of the liability of Canada or of the taxpayers of Canada. The ship pays the light dues if she uses the facilities; that is all.


William Duff: That is a very wise and smart remark of the Prime Minister, very wise indeed. A country is made up of individuals, whether they are ship-owners or captains or mates or sailors or prime ministers or ministers or anybody else; we are all the people of this country. My hon. friend the Prime Minister, perhaps not to-day, but not so very long ago, owned shares in ships. I know that at the convention in Winnipeg he was going to lay his all on the altar to serve Canada, and get rid of his holdings in ships and everything else.	But thousands of
people have shares in ships belonging to Canada, and they are taxpayers of this country. While technically the Prime Minister is right in saying that the ship pays, actually the owners of the ship pay, and not only the owners of the ship but the owners of the cargo also pay, and not only the owners of the cargo, but the consumer also pays. Consequently the Prime Minister is wrong and I am right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not desire to take up the time of the house. I never owned shares in any ship; that is unfortunate but it is a fact. May I further remark that the Canadian Pacific ships to which reference is made are registered either in London or in Liverpool and not in Canada.


William Duff: Does the minister not own shares in the Canadian National ships as a ratepayer of Canada?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not want to prolong the discussion except to say that my hon. friends are wrong when they contend 92582-52J
that this legislation would discriminate against Canada. The ships of all the countries of the world which will derive benefit from these lights will have to pay dues, so that there is no discrimination against this country. However, in order to enable my hon. friends to study the whole matter and to be better posted the next time, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 12, consideration of the motion of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. 8, to establish an unemployment and social insurance commission, to provide for a national employment service, for insurance against unemployment, for aid to unemployed persons, and for other forms of social insurance and security, and for purposes related thereto.
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Toronto Northwest) :: 
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, first I must say that I am a supporter of the principle of unemployment insurance. I, with other members on this side of the house, have always approved of it every time the question has been discussed or raised in this house. Unemployment insurance is no new move; if did not come as a 'bolt from the blue as the result of a certain atmospheric commotion one fine evening last January. It has been in force in many countries for different periods of time. The World Economic Survey for 1934, published by the League of Nations, mentions that this form of insurance is now in force in seventeen countries. In nine countries it is a compulsory system, while in eight countries it is voluntary. The United States magazine, Review of Reviews, in its January edition mentions that at present unemployment insurance schemes are being discussed in forty-eight states in the world, as well as in the congress of the United States.
In England unemployment insurance was established in 1911, after a few years of work. There it constituted part of the chain of social policies launched by the late Mr. Asquith when he was Prime Minister, after the elections of 1906, and it was presented to the House of Commons in England by Mr. Lloyd George, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, after a thorough study of the question in Germany, where the' system was already in force. Indeed, it was a part of their social program of reforms, which included old age pensions, health insurance, factory acts, a companies act, and wage regulation acts. All these were put on the statute books of Great Britain by the Asquith government, which tends to show that those men, the Liberals of Great Britain, who are sometimes charged with being adepts at the policy of laissez-faire, are those who put most of the social legislation of England on the statute books of that country.
This is no radical change in the capitalist system, I assure you. Some of the nations which have the system in force are the strongest bulwarks of capitalism, and Canada is far ahead of them in the matter of advanced legislation. Nowhere has it cured unemployment ; especially has it not solved the problem of a depression unemployment, such as
I Mr. MacNicol.]
exists at the present time. This measure cannot help those1 who are unemployed in Canada to-day. The government are rather unfortunate in their chain of reform legislation. They introduce the eight hour day bill at a time when the workers of Canada would like to work one day a week if they could; they introduce a bill to enforce a day of rest every week when the workmen would1 like to have an enforced day of labour weekly, and they introduce an unemployment insurance bill which may give something in the future to the labour men of Canada who at the present time can afford to contribute to the fund, which most of them cannot. It is, I admit, a sop to discontent. Accompanied by other legislation which would deal with the present distressing problem of unemployment this legislation would be desirable, and because I am in favour of it I wish we might have this system as a valid, constitutional instrument, and not merely what is proposed by the government to-day.
Let me tell my hon. friend who has just taken his seat that I agree with him that it is desirable that this should foe a national system. There would be objections to various different provincial schemes of unemployment insurance instead of a national scheme. For instance, it would disturb the equilibrium of industrial relations in the various provinces. Labour naturally would be inclined to go to the provinces where such legislation was on the statute books, and on the other hand it is possible that employers would prefer provinces where they would not be forced to contribute to such a scheme. So it is desirable that it should be a national scheme. I agree with the view taken -by members of the government until they changed their opinion in January last; a national scheme should be reached by either an amendment to the British North America Act, by some enabling: legislation on the part of the provinces or by some understanding with the provinces in order to establish a scheme which would be acceptable to everyone in this country.
A constitutional aspect was raised on various, occasions in this house by the members of the government. There was the question of property and civil rights, which no one can. deny not only enters into the discussion of this matter but is the mainstay of the whole proposal. The scheme relates to relations between employers and employees, and more so when it is a compulsory scheme, as the one: which we are discussing to-day.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Lapointe
How has the government tried to get around this difficulty? I was hoping my right hon. friend opposite would give some further explanations when he moved the second reading of the 'bill. When speaking on the resolution he said that he did not want to anticipate the longer explanations he would give when the bill was under discussion. My right hon. leader has raised the question, and I was hoping some member of the government would give the house the reasons upon which they base their new found claim to jurisdiction in the matter. However, not having received that, I must rely on the preamble of the bill, a very long preamble in which the government tries to find justification for the legislation mainly on two points, first on sections 23 and 427 of the treaty of peace and secondly on the provision of peace, order and good government of Canada.
As I am limited 'to forty minutes in my observations I am afraid I have not the time to make complete quotations. However article 23 states that the memibens of the league:
(a) will endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women and children, both in their own countries and in all countries to -which their commercial and industrial relations extend, and for that purpose will establish and maintain the necessary international organizations;
But they do not specify the manner of doing so. Subsection (a) is preceded by two lines which qualify the whole article:
Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon.
The article I have read is subject to the qualification that the whole arrangement is subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon.
Then article 427, the last article in the labour part of the treaty, merely enunciates a principle. It states:
The high contracting parties recognizing that the well-being, physical, moral and intellectual, of industrial wage earners is of supreme international importance, have framed, in order to further this great end, the permanent machinery provided for in section 1 and associated with that of the League of Nations. They recognize that differences of climate, habits and customs of economic opportunity and industrial tradition,-
-enter into a consideration of the case. I have not the time to read it all. Then they continue:
But holding as they do, that labour should not be regarded merely as an article of commerce. they think that there are methods and principles- for regulating labour conditions
which all industrial communities should endeavour to apply, so far as their special circumstances will permit.
Then they indicate nine goals as being desirable to reach,-the eight hour day, the weekly day of rest, the abolition of child labour, and so on. But unemployment insurance is not even mentioned in the goals which are outlined to the nations of the world as being desirable. The article concludes by stating:
Without claiming that these methods and principles are either complete or final, the high contracting parties are of opinion that they are well fitted to guide the policy of the League of Nations.
And so on. Where do we find there' an obligation to enact employment insurance legislation? I do not wish to enter upon the same line of argument I used a few days ago in connection with another matter, but I repeat that it is only the obligation which creates the jurisdiction in favour of this parliament.
Section 132 of the British North America Act reads as follows:
The parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British empire, towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries.
There must be obligations binding on Canada as a result of conventions or treaties with foreign countries which bind Canada. I am surprised to find the following words in the preamble of the bill:
And whereas it is desirable to discharge the obligations to Canadian labour assumed under the provisions of the said treaty.
To discharge obligations of Canada to Canadian labour is a noble act, but it is not covered by section 132. What gives jurisdiction to this parliament is the obligation of Canada towards foreign countries, not towards any class of the population in Canada. It is not stated in the preamble that Canada had any obligations towards foreign countries as a result of sections 23 and 427 of the peace treaty. My hon. friends cannot even argue that there is a draft convention, as they did in connection with the eight hour day. There are draft conventions but for a reason better known to the Prime Minister they have not been approved by the house, have not been laid on the table of the house and can give no authority or jurisdiction to parliament. I need not deal with that part of the question at all.
How could Canada be bound to an unemployment insurance scheme? There are 50 member nations of the League of Nations who
826	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Lapointe
are obligated by the peace treaty, 66 per cent of whom have no unemployment insurance schemes. I repeat that there is nothing binding, but that a goal has been shown to the members as being desirable.
Then there is the further point, namely the jurisdiction resulting from peace, order and good government. Although I do not wish to repeat what I said a few days ago I should like to read part of section 91 of the British North America Act:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and' with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.
And in most of the decisions of the privy council regarding jurisdiction which have gone against the contention of the federal parliament it has been specially stated-and the matter is so clearly expressed in the section there can be no doubt-that those laws for the peace, order and good government must be in relation to matters not coming within the classes of subjects assigned to the legislatures. Surely property and civil rights are one subject which is specifically assigned exclusively to the provinces under section 92 of the British North America Act.
I shall not refer again to the various decisions of the privy council except perhaps to the Snider case in 1925 where one of the tests of provincial jurisdiction was that the matter of industrial disputes was one that could be dealt with separately by any province, and however desirable it would be to have national legislation with regard to it the fact that it could be dealt with by any province took away the claim to jurisdiction set forth by the federal parliament. Is it not the same in this matter? Does anybody claim that the provinces would not have the right to have an unemployment insurance scheme of their own? Obviously they have that right. Nobody can challenge that, and because of that, the thing cannot be changed into a federal matter merely by a stroke of the pen here, by the will of the government.
My hon. friends opposite rely on the two aviation and radio cases. The judgment in the first was delivered in November of 1931, and the judgment in the second on the ninth of February, 1932. I do not want to discuss this thing over and over again except to say that in both cases there was a binding convention; there was a treaty in respect to aviation, and there was a convention in respect to radio signed by ninety countries and ratified by His Majesty the King. Canada was bound

by the provisions of those two treaties, and those were the reasons for the judgments that were delivered.
I do not want to quote any of the remarks of the judge except one. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister, at page 642 of Hansard of February 8, 1935, quoted the remarks of the Lord Chancellor in the aviation case, but obviously he was .led astray by the officers or the secretaries who looked up the quotations for him because between two paragraphs there has been eliminated a most important one which changes the whole complexion, and I should say the whole meaning of the quotation. I am going to read what was eliminated and I hope that anybody who reads my right hon. friend's speech that was delivered on Friday last will insert these words in the quotation on page 642 at the bottom of the second column where the three dots are. The quotation I am going to read is more voluble than the three dots:
Inasmuch as the act embodies a compromise under which the original provinces agreed to federate, it is important to keep in mind that the preservation of the rights of minorities was a condition on which such minorities entered into the federation, and the foundation upon which the whole structure was subsequently erected. The process of interpretation as the years go on ought not to be allowed to dim or to whittle down the provisions of the original contract upon which the federation was founded nor is it legitimate that any judicial construction of the provisions of sections 91 and 92 should enforce a new and a different contract upon the federating bodies.
That disposes of the claim that because Canada in common with the rest of the world has widened her activities and developed tremendously, it follows that the British North America Act also has widened and developed and should be changed. It is true that Canada has developed and has widened her activities. But the British North America Act is as it was, and until it is amended in the proper way, which I do not oppose, I say to the government that the only way for this legislation to be enacted as they are trying to do, without the cooperation of the provinces, is by an amendment to the British North America Act. But so long as that act remains there, it is our constitution, and there is no widening process nor development that can change it without new action on the part of those who agree to changing it.
The right hon. the Prime Minister in introducing the resolution said that the law officers of the crown are of the opinion that this legislation is within the jurisdiction of this parliament. Well, if that is so, they have changed their minds, for on the tenth
FEBRLARY 14, 1935	827
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Lapointe
of May, 1928, in the committee presided over by my hon. friend from North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) the Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Edwards, was heard, and I quote these three words from his remarks:
Mr. Heaps: If I understand the statements here this morning correctly I would interpret your remarks to mean that the federal government has not authority to impose dominionwide legislation, or has not authority to impose compulsory unemployment insurance, or sickness insurance?
And the answer of the Deputy Minister of Justice was:
Yes, that is correct.
On April 23, 1929, the same Mr. Edwards, the Deputy Minister of Justice, was again heard by the same committee, and he referred to his evidence of the preceding year and stated that he adhered to what he had said at that time.
Now I come to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) who is the head of the law officers, and I am going to quote from his remarks in this house on March 22, 1933, and my hon. friend will not be able to say now that he held these views because he had not received or read the judgments in the aviation and radio cases because this was more than a year after the radio case and eighteen months after the aviation case. I quote from pages 3294 and 3295 of Hansard of March 22, 1933:
Mr. Guthrie: As the department over which I have at the moment the honour of presiding is and has been for some time looking into this question of unemployment insurance, may I say a word in regard to the matter. The difficulties in the way of a federal system of unemployment insurance are very serious if such a system is to be carried out on a contributory basis which, I believe, is the only method which would be approved by parliament, that is, contributions by employees, by employers, by the federal treasury and perhaps as well by the provincial treasuries. To inaugurate and carry out a scheme of that kind without provincial consent and without an amendment to the British North America Act would be impossible. Parliament cannot force employers to contribute nor can it force employees to contribute. These are matters entirely within the jurisdiction of the various provinces, and unless the provinces are willing to surrender some of their rights, their powers, it is impossible without an amendment to the British North America Act to carry out any scheme under the jurisdiction of this parliament. I noticed the leader of the opposition stated in his opening remarks that it would be just as easy to carry out an unemployment insurance scheme as to carry out on old age pension plan.
Mr. Mackenzie King: No. I said the very reverse; I said that it would not be as easy
to carry out an unemployment insurance scheme.
Mr. Guthrie: That is the corrected opinion of my right hon. friend after the Minister of Labour had spoken.
Mr. Mackenzie King: No, it is not. With all deference to my hon. friend, if he will look at the record, he will see that I said that the same questions of jurisdiction and methods of procedure arise in each case.
Mr. Guthrie: The same questions do not arise. In the old age pension scheme the question was simply this: the federal government will contribute certain money and the provincial governments will contribute certain money. The difficulty was overcome by a dominion act and a provincial act. That was all there was to the matter. This plan of unemployment insurance involves not only the question of government contribution, but compulsory contributions by employers and employees, which is a matter of purely provincial jurisdiction.
I am disclosing no secret when I say that at the conference the provinces were not prepared to give up those rights nor to agree to any amendment to the British North America Act for that purpose. Very serious discussions took place, and while the question was advanced, it certainly was not advanced to the point of agreement, no agreement being reached on the subject. Until we have a solution of these two questions: the power to assess the employer and the power to assess the employee, I do not think there is much hope of a federal unemployment insurance scheme. If we can overcome those difficulties; if we can reach an arrangement upon those two questions, then I think the field is fairly clear and satisfactory legislation can be formulated. But until we have those questions cleared up. I do not think very much advance can be made.
That was the opinion of the Minister of Justice, expressed in March, 1933, and the leader of the opposition has quoted statements to the same effect, made by the Prime Minister on two occasions, on April 29, 1931, and on November 22, 1932-all, except the 1931 remarks, after the two judgments on radio and aviation. But there is more than that on the part of the Prime Minister. There is his letter, dated August 31, 1934, to the provincial premiers, in which the question of unemployment insurance is raised. I will read three or four of the first paragraphs of that letter:
As I indicated at the meeting with the provincial premiers in July last, it is my purpose to call a conference of representatives of the governments of all the provinces to meet at Ottawa before the end of the year to discuss with the federal government the following questions and' such other matters as may be placed upon the agenda after I have been advised of the views of the premiers of the several provinces:
1.	What steps can be taken to reduce the evils of duplicate taxation and provide a more logical allocation of sources of revenue now available to dominion and provinces?
828	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Lapointe
2.	Are the provinces prepared to surrender their exclusive jurisdiction over legislation dealing with such social problems as old age pensions, unemployment and social insurance, hours and conditions for work, minimum wages, et cetera, to the dominion parliament? If so, on what terms and conditions?
3.	Is it desirable to endeavour more clearly to define the respective jurisdiction of the dominion parliament and provincial legislatures with respect to health and agricultural and other matters in which there is a duplication of effort by federal and provincial authorities?
I have not time to read it all, but my right hon. friend said the other day that when he wrote paragraph 2 he was speaking-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the whole letter.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, the whole letter then-he was speaking for the provinces; he -was stating the case of the provinces. My right hon. friend in paragraph 2 says:
Are the provinces prepared to surrender their exclusive jurisdiction over legislation dealing with such social problems as old age pensions, unemployment and social insurance, hours and conditions for work, minimum wages, et cetera to the dominion parliament?
And in paragraph 3 he makes this statement:
Is it desirable to endeavour more clearly to define the respective jurisdiction of the dominion parliament and provincial legislatures with respect to health and agricultural and other matters in which there is a duplication of effort by federal and provincial authorities?
Paragraph 2 was referring to matters which are exclusively under the provinces, and No. 3 was referring to concurrent matters on which both the federal and the provincial governments have authority. I invite you, Mr. Speaker, I invite every member of this house, I invite the Dominion of Canada to read this letter and say what other meaning can be attached to what the right hon. gentleman said. And while he was writing that, only a few months ago, my right hon. friend, having stated at almost every session that the matter was purely a provincial one, made the statement on the radio in January that this program of reform he had been unable to deal with because of the storm which had prevailed during these last four years, in which he had to steer the ship. Well, w'as it the storm or the British North America Act which was the obstacle in the way of this reform legislation? It appears, by every declaration, not only by the Prime Minister, but by the Minister of Justice, by the Deputy Minister of Justice and by other members of the cabinet, by the Secretary of State, that the constitution was the obstacle that was in the way. The Secretary of State, who is a very distinguished lawyer, spoke in 
Montreal before the Young Men's Canadian Club at the Queens hotel in November last, when he absolutely took the stand that these matters are exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The Secretary of State uses energetic language at times and I like him for that. Let me read his concluding words:
On the other hand, there are political and social propagandists-blind leaders of the blind -who are persistent in their efforts to procure the dominion parliament to pretend to appropriate and illegally to exercise powers which are exclusively vested in the provincial government. One of these, to whom I recently suggested that a certain course of action was unconstitutional, made reply: "To hell with the constitution!"
I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker.
In these days of social unrest, when people who are suffering are insistent on reform and impatient of delay, those who believe that evolution is more effective than revolution must again and again and persistently demand that municipal authorities assume their full responsibilities in municipal matters, provincial authorities assume their full responsibilities in provincial matters, and dominion authorities there full responsibility in dominion matters.
It is a proper matter for intelligent discussion as to whether the exclusive power of the provinces in matters of social reform should be considerably curtailed, and the powers of the dominion correspondingly extended. Meanwhile, until the British North America Act is amended by constitutional methods, no good purpose can be served by either the dominion parliament or the provincial legislatures attempting illegally to exercise powers now fully vested in the other or others of them.
This is from the Montreal Gazette of Tuesday, November 27, 1934. Of course I admit that I have the greatest admiration for my right hon. friend; he is, as we all know, a distinguished jurist, but I have an admiration for his opinions as expressed last year, the year before and the year before that rather than for the one he expresses to-day on the eve of a general election in order to promote a nelw program of reform.
The other day I heard the Minister of Finance, replying to a motion for the nationalization of banks and explaining why the Bank of Canada had not been made entirely publicly owned, say there might be danger on the eve of a general election; the temptations might be great. He said:	Governments are composed of men; they are human and might yield to certain demands to which they would not yield at other times. Perhaps the nearness of the elections has something to do with this ne'W move on the part of the government.
But let me ask this question of my hon. friends opposite. We all say it is desirable that this should be a national system. What

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Lapointe
if some of the provinces, not having been consulted, not having been asked to cooperate, this scheme not having been submitted to them in any way, decide that they will enact their own schemes of unemployment insurance? .Nobody will deny (that they have the right to do so; nobody can say that they have not the right to do so. What will foe the consequence? There will be chaos, confusion; and will that foe advantageous to labour and to the industrial situation of Canada? The government cannot plead emergency on questions of present relief. We have unemployment all over the land. Yesterday I received a letter from the officers of the council of my own city of Quebec pointing out thait the number of people on relief is just as large as it was last year at the same time. We have a problem of relief, and the government might argue that there was an emergency as regards relief for unemployment, but not an emergency for a scheme of unemployment insurance which will be operative only in future years and when probably times will have become normal, more particularly because with such a scheme you cannot solve a problem of unemployment created by depression but can solve only a problem of temporary unemployment created by social conditions or changes in factories where people are employed
My right hon. friend said to the board of trade in Montreal the other day that before he changed his mind on many of these questions he had had conversations with Mr. Litvinoff of Russia, Sir Stafford Cripps and Mr. Strachey.
Mr. BENNETT': That is not correctly reported. I had not conversations with Sir Stafford Cripps, but I said that Sir Stafford Cripps and Mr. Strachey had made speeches in Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: I hope my right hon. friend is not taking his inspiration from Sir Stafford Cripps.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Humphrey Mitchell: Why not?


Ernest Lapointe: Because Sir Stafford
Cripps has preached in Great Britain that the only way for those who are within his group to put into effect their social legislation will be to suspend the constitution of the old country the very day after the election. He said so; he wrote it, and I will show it to my hon. friend, although I have not time to do it now. Sir Stafford Cripps was repudiated by labour at the annual meeting afterwards. If he goes too far for labour in
Britain, I am sorry that my right hon. friend should take his inspiration from him on questions of this kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is hardly fair. The hon. member surely does n-ot wish to misrepresent me. I said that Sir Stafford Cripps had spoken strongly on the socialistic side. I did not give my approval. On the contrary I said that I was wholly opposed to it and I said that very clearly too.


Ernest Lapointe: I am pleased my right hon. friend so states, but once again he has been misquoted in the press.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those who were present will tell my hon. friend what I said.


Ernest Lapointe: I repeat that the only way to deal with this question properly would be either by an amendment to the British North America Act in order to have valid legislation or by passing our legislation after having had an understanding with the provinces by way of enabling legislation or otherwise.
I am sorry my time is short. I should have liked to place on Hansard a quotation from what the Secretary of State said when some hon. members in the far corner in 1932, two years ago, preached that this dominion dhould simply assume jurisdiction as to the water powers of the province of Quebec and deal with them as if we had jurisdiction. This is what he replied:
It is not for me to say that that contention is valid until it is finally passed upon by a judicial court of final appeal. But when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests that we should take that property and that right, leaving the province to contest our taking of its property, that is simply making the appeal which the ordinary burglar-makes when he enters a house and takes property which he knows does not belong to him, leaving it to the householder to put the burglar-out and to protect his chattels. I feel sometimes in sympathy with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he suggests, in regard to the protection of labour in this country, certain social improvements, but that proper end cannot be attained by burglary and theft such as he has advocated' in this house to-night.
That is exactly what the government is doing now. The government know there is a considerable body of public opinion in Canada which says that this is a provincial matter. In addition they know the law officers of the various provinces claim that this is a provincial matter, but they simply say, ego nominor leo-my name is lion; I assume the authority; I am passing the legislation. That is the same psychology as that of a lynching

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Beynon
mob-to assume powers, even when one does not know whether he has them or not. I am sorry I cannot conclude my remarks at this time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. W. A. BEYNON (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), in his address the other day gave a number of reasons, or alleged reasons, why he had not proceeded to do during his regime what he so strongly urged this government to do immediately after they took office. The first of those reasons was the financial situation: I shall touch on that very briefly.
The right hon. gentleman said it was necessary to balance the budget and to take care of the obligations of the government before venturing upon any new scheme. The budget was balanced, he tells us, in 1924. From that time on he had various other reasons for not proceeding, to which I shall presently refer. It is remarkable, however, that while the party opposite could not proceed with social legislation because of financial conditions, in the last year of their term of office they were able to authorize the Canadian National Railways to spend $205,000,000. That authorization is remarkable in view of the statement made by the right hon. gentleman on Tuesday last, when he said the following, as reported on page 737- of Hansard:
In order that I may not be misunderstood, may I make clear that if we are to economize, as I think we shall probably be compelled to do all around, the last place at which I think economy should begin is with respect to social services. I think great care should be taken to see that those persons in the country who are less fortunate than their fellowmen are the ones to receive the first concern of the government.
That was the right hon. gentleman's view on Tuesday last. But he could not launch such a scheme as this in 1929, although he could authorize the Canadian National Railways to spend $205,000,000. The next reason he offered was want of jurisdiction. I shall refer to that briefly at the conclusion of my remarks: I pass it for the time being.
The next reason he offered was somewhat akin to the first. He said that very difficult matters were pending between the provinces and the federal government; that in the western provinces the question had arisen respecting the return of the natural resources to the

provinces, and while that was pending he thought it unwise to launch any scheme that would involve a question of jurisdiction as between the dominion and the provinces. He said also that in the east there was the question of maritime rights that had to be settled, and for that reason also he was not prepared to launch any new scheme of social services.
The fourth reason he gave is more remarkable still. He said that during the years 1921 to 1925 he had practically no majority in the house. He said he had a majority of but one. The balance of power then was held by hon. gentlemen who sit to the left of the official opposition, and he said that with that small majority of one it was unsafe for him to launch any measure pertaining to social services. So apparently the responsibility rested upon hon. gentlemen sitting to the left of the official opposition; he did not feel that he could depend upon their support for his social legislation. It is remarkable, though, that the only resolutions dealing with social services during that period, the only moves that were made along that line, emanated from those hon. gentlemen who held the balance of power. Yet while they were urging these resolutions and forcing them upon the attention of the government he was afraid to bring in measures such as these for fear hon. gentlemen to the left of the official opposition would not support measures which they themselves had suggested! It is interesting to note what he said on that subject. At page 740 of Hansard the right hon. gentleman said:
It is one thing to be in a position to bring in extensive schemes on any subject when as prime minister one has behind him a majority of thirty or forty members who at a nod will do as he wishes; it is an entirely different thing to attempt the passage of such measures when a prime minister has for himself and party a majority of only one, or no majority at all.
From that remark I gather he expects when he has a majority of thirty or forty they will obey his will at a nod. Yet we have heard them time and again in this house complain that the government party stands behind its leader, whom they accuse of being a dictator, a Mussolini and all that sort of thing, just because the members who sit with him on this side of the house are prepared to stand behind him to put through the program which the government initiates.
The next reason given by the right hon. gentleman was a yet more remarkable and more vital one. He said, If I did pass this legislation I did not know what the Senate would do. I refer to page 740.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Beynon


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it good practice that we should quote from Hansard of this year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is in the same debate, not another debate.


William Addison Beynon: The right hon. gentleman said:
May I point out the further fact that to become law legislation has to pass both houses of parliament, and the Liberal administration of which I was the head had to consider with respect to all legislation the reception which would be given in the other chamber. ... If in the earlier years we had attempted anything more than we did I do not know what would have happened.
Then he quoted an English statesman as having been fearful of the reaction of the House of Lords. Now that simply means that while there was a Conservative majority in the Senate the right hon. gentleman felt he was not safe in introducing in this house any reform legislation. The situation we have to-day is that the Conservative party has a majority of twelve in the Senate, and there are some twelve or thirteen appointments to be made. I think I am fairly safe in saying that the majority of those appointed will be Conservatives, so that when this house is dissolved the Conservatives should have a majority of some twenty-five in the Senate. Therefore I think it important that before the people of this country go to the polls they should know that as the Senate is then constituted the right hon. gentleman will not feel safe in bringing in any reform legislation for the next twenty-five years.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: We shall abolish the Senate.


William Addison Beynon: The situation will be such therefore as not to warrant the right hon. gentleman in introducing any reform legislation at all.


Vincent Dupuis: The abolition of the Senate will fix that.


William Addison Beynon: We did hear something before about reforming the Senate, and all the right hon. gentleman had to say at the end of nine years was that the Senate was so bad that he could not do anything on account of it.
The right hon. gentleman made a mistake which is frequently made when a man is making out a case, that of making out too good a case. He said that as far back as 1931 he urged upon the Prime Minister that he should take immediate steps in this matter of unemployment insurance, that he should call a conference of the provinces and try to
get them to agree, and that he should proceed to consider amendments to the British North America Act and to settle once for all the question of jurisdiction. I ask hon. gentlemen to note that that was the right hon. gentleman's first year in opposition. Let us see what he had to say in his last year of power, just a few short months before he made that speech in 1931 to which he referred, in which he urged upon the Prime Minister what he ought to do. I quote now from Hansard of 1930 at page 106. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement of the Prime Minister regarding unemployment insurance, which he made yesterday to a western delegation, will the federal government take the initiative in calling a special conference to consider this problem?
That was a straight question, and the reply was rather remarkable. The Prime Minister of that day, the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) said:
Perhaps the hon. member will intimate what that statement was.
Almost twenty-four hours had passed and he had forgotten what he had told the delegation from the west. Then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) said:
As T understand the statement, it was to the effect that the federal government was very much concerned in the matter of unemployment and believed that one of the solutions was a system of unemployment insurance and that the government would be willing to take any steps possible towards bringing about an understanding between the provinces and the federal government. I want to know if the government will be willing to undertake the calling of a special conference so that this matter can be expedited.
Following that we have the last official pro nouncement by the leader of the opposition when he was in power, as to what he proposed to do in regard to unemployment insurance. Here it is:
My recollection is that a special committee of this house considered this question last session and brought to the house a report to the effect that unemployment insurance was necessarily a matter with which provincial governments rather than the federal government would have to deal. I think I expressed the view yesterday that in my opinion a system of unemployment insurance would be a constructive way to deal with the unemployment problem-
That is a little different from what he is saying to-day.
-to which system not only the employer and the governments concerned would contribute but the worker also.
832	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Beynon
This is what he proposed, however, and this is very interesting in view of the wonderful advice he gave the Prime Minister in 1931, a few short months later, as to what should be d'one:
If the provinces make a move in this matter and it appears that the federal government can be of assistance-
You see, first the provinces were to move, not the Prime Minister.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes, but-


William Addison Beynon: I shall be obliged if the
hon. gentleman will just keep quiet and let me continue:
If the provinces make a move in this matter and it appears that the federal government can be of assistance in helping to bring about uniformity as between the provinces of any plan proposed, or can cooperate in other ways in any discussion on the subject, we shall be glad upon invitation to take the matter under consideration.
That is the extent to which the right hon. gentleman was prepared to go in 1930, the last year he was in power. Neither he nor his party intended to make a move; they were leaving it to the provinces to formulate a plan and to invite him to come in and, by discussion, help them cooperate between themselves, and he would only come in upon invitation. That is the man who, a few short months later, found that there was a great obligation on the part of the Prime Minister of this country to call conferences, to investigate the jurisdiction in order to settle that question forever and, if necessary, to amend the British North America Act.
I was rather struck with the very fervent and rather poetic peroration of the right hon. gentleman which appears at page 754 of Hansard for this year. Referring to the bill brought in by the Prime Minister the right hon. gentleman said:
In the circumstances, I say to the Prime Minister that in these days of stress and anxiety and suffering for the mass of the people, they are crying for bread and he is giving them a stone. They are crying for fish and he is giving them a serpent-
Those words sounded rather familiar to me; I thought perhaps I might have heard them in some former incarnation, but I discovered that I had heard them in this house. In 1932 the right hon. gentleman made a similar peroration, and at the end of his address in connection with the unemployment and farm relief measure, he said:
The women and children who are suffering in this country to-day have asked the Prime Minister for bread, they have asked him for work, but he has given them not even a stone

or a serpent; he has given them an extinct enactment, he has given them a dead statute.
That was at page 704 of Hansard for 1932. I might suggest to the right hon. gentleman that a man who sees serpents so frequently is in rather a critical state of mind. I might also suggest to the right hon. gentleman that when he .made that statement in 1932 he was belittling the statute then before the house to reinstate the farm relief and unemployment measure of the previous pear. My right hon. friend made the very dramatic statement that the Prime Minister was giving the people a dead statute when they wanted bread. I should just like to recall to his mind the fact *that the dead statute fed and clothed many hundreds of thousands of people in this country. At that time he said the Prime Minister would not even give the people a stone or a serpent. In his speech on Tuesday he admitted that the Prime Minister now is giving them a stone and a serpent. Well, if the dead statute so far exceeded the expectations of the right hon. gentleman what may we not expect from the stone and the serpent?
There is one other point I should like to mention, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. gentleman complains that the Prime Minister has offered a stone and a serpent. I ask any member of this house or any electors throughout this country to read the speech delivered by the right hon. gentleman in 1930 and see if they can find out what he intends to give the people as a substitute.
One other thing struck me very forcibly in the remarks of my right hon. friend, as well as in those of the ex-M'inister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) this afternoon. That hon. gentleman dealt at very great length with the constitutional question. Every word of that address and a great part of the address of the right hon. leader of the opposition, was predicated upon the assumption that, immediately this statute is passed, the people of this country are going to try to destroy it. It seems to me that the members of this house ought to represent pretty well the views of the people, and when every party is claiming the honour of having fathered this legislation it is a strange assumption to make that the people whom they represent are going to set out to destroy it. Why, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) were almost vying with each other as to who originated this scheme, and we have no fault to find with that. But it must seem strange to the people of this country that all parties in this House of Commons should vie

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. McIntosh
with each other in commending this legislation, in supporting the very principle behind it and declaring that if it is to be effective it must be national and not provincial. That is the one point upon which all are heartily agreed, and yet we are told that the people whose views hon. members of this house are supposed to represent are going to set out to destroy this measure. And it is not merely this particular measure, with any faults the opposition may think it has; if they destroy it they destroy the whole principle. If they attack its constitutionality they make the enactment of any statute of the kind utterly impossible. I do not believe the people of Canada will tolerate that attitude on the part of any political party or group. I believe they will insist that hon. members who have supported the measure, their followers and their lieutenants in the provinces, continue to take the same stand, namely that this legislation is for the benefit of the Canadian people, and I believe the Canadian people will not tolerate any attempt to destroy it.
This afternoon the ex-Minister of Justice made a very strong plea for the constitution. He said Canada had grown and developed but that the constitution had stood still. Every constitution in the world is subject to two dangers. One is the reckless and thoughtless disregard for the constitution. I do not believe any party in this chamber can be charged with that. I am sure all hon. members will agree that the constitution has never been endangered by the introduction of legislation for the masses of the people. The second danger, however, to which every constitution is subject is that of holding so rigidly to its letter and form that it becomes subversive of all measures for the amelioration of the wants and needs of the people. To my mind that is the greatest danger which can threaten any constitution. So long as it meets the needs of the people and brings relief where relief is required, the danger is not great, because there is a sufficient body of sound and sane opinion behind it. But the danger is very real when we hold to the letter and form to such an extent that the constitution becomes not a bulwark of the liberty of the people but simply an obstacle to all progress and all reforms tending to alleviate suffering. That I believe is the only real danger facing our constitution to-day. I should be interested to know who throughout the length and breadth of the land are so completely out of touch with the general sentiment in Canada-because either they or every hon. member in the house is out of 92582-53
touch with it-that immediately the statute is passed they will rush to the courts in an attempt to destroy it.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, I do not intend
to follow in detail the remarks of the last speaker, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Beynon) further than to say that when he talks about the importance of unemployment insurance between the years 1922 and 1930, when the Liberals were in power, he is not talking sound sense, for the simple reason that in those days there was very little unemployment in Canada about which to talk, or which necessitated putting into practice a measure of this kind.


Mr. SHAVER:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Also, Mr. Speaker, if
between the years 1922 and 1930 the question of unemployment insurance was not of paramount importance in the practical politics of Canada-and it was not-then it ill behooves the hon. member for Moose Jaw to rise in his place and attempt to indicate that because unemployment insurance legislation was not introduced in those years the Liberal party, and my right hon. leader, were loath to introduce it. When there is no necessity for a measure, why introduce one, and especially at a time when there was being carried out in this country a great policy of industrial and railway development involving millions and millions of dollars?


Frank Thomas Shaver: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, I have the floor
and my time is short. Further, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who preceded me made the statement that the country and the electorate would come to the support of the Conservative party because the members of that party sitting in parliament are supporting this Bill No. 8. Well, if they do, they will show an entirely different disposition to that which was shown in any of the by-elections during the past four years.


Mr. ROWE:: That is getting old.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, it is not. With
these remarks I shall proceed to discuss the bill 'before the house. As chairman of the industrial and international relations committee which sat between the yearn 1922 and 1930 I find it refreshing to see ministers and hon. members to the right of Mr. Speaker rising in their places in this house and espousing the cause of unemployment insurance. It

834	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. McIntosh
is an attitude vastly different from the one they took for eight years in the history of this Canadian House of Commons. Before I have completed my observations this evening I shall show that from a parliamentary standpoint their position on this question is anything but sound, is not historic and is not encouraging.


An hon. MEMBER:: Anything else?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes. When one recalls the political somersaults hon. members opposite have taken in the last four years one cannot help but think of the biblical quotation: can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? If one were actually to believe that the attitude of hon. members opposite is sincere he would have to come to the conclusion the answer is that the Ethiopian can change his skin and the leopard his spots. I believe however that the Canadian people will have some doubt about that, and for that reason I think the matter is worth looking into very carefully.
When one comes to a discussion of unemployment insurance and like matters it is well to consider whence the Conservative party has come.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where
are they going?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is very important
too.


Mr. COTNAM:: It is where we are going that counts.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: In the words of the poet, whither are our friends going? In the historic Conservative party of Great Britain the word "Conservative" was the most dominant. The party was supposed to be a Conservative party in opposition to the subversive policy of the Whigs. Then at a later time the Conservative party took on the name of the constructive and positive party with regard to constitutional reform as opposed to the radicalism of the Liberals. There is their basic history in a constitutional sense. In other words they were-and are still-the party of laissez-faire. They wanted to conserve and stand on the same platform politically forever and ever almost, while the Liberal party was ever going onward, making progress and putting through radical measures on behalf of the people.
In regard to the basic social and political policies of the Liberal party as the British party of parliamentary reform, all we need to know is that the Liberal party has always stood for a policy of peace, retrenchment and
lMr. McIntosh.]
reform. These principles have always been fundamental in the evolution of the party and they are as fundamental to-day as ever. The Liberal party has always stood for international peace and justice based on national honour and national self-respect. In a reform or retrenchment sense Liberals have ever stood for lowering government expenditures, cutting down the national debt and the national interest and lowering taxation. And the Liberal party stands by these policies yet.
In the way of constructive reform all one has to do is to read British history from 1800 to 1832 and onward through the times when Lord John Russell, Sir Robert Peel, Palmer-ton, Gladstone, and later Asquith and Lloyd George piloted the Liberal party in Great Britain. The Liberal party has continually stood for civil and religious liberty; for a belief in human personality; for a belief in the value of human energy; for the state creating conditions which would be more satisfactory for the average worker; for standing by the mastery of each individual's capacity, as well as for establishing a real policy of equality of opportunity. Down through the period of British history this policy of sound radicalism or sound reform on the part of the Liberal party was continued-right down to the war and subsequently. Liberal policy was at the back of practically every article of the treaty of peace. The Liberal party stood for fair and humane labour conditions for men, women and children abroad and in their own country; for the just treatment of the natives of territories under their control; for the supervision of the traffic in women and children; for the supervision of the traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs; for supervision of the traffic in arms and ammunition; for taking a stand on behalf of controlling international disease and ill health The physical and intellectual welfare of industrial workers in Great Britain and in the world was likewise espoused, and the necessity was urged for action on the fundamental causes of national and international unrest. That is why the Liberal party later gave all its support to the labour portions of the peace treaty and took the stand that labour should not be looked upon as a saleable commodity. Liberalism was constantly upholding the right of free association for employers and employees; a reasonable standard of living; the eight hour day and the forty-eight hour week, and a weekly day of rest. It stood further for equal remuneration for work done by men and women, and

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. McIntosh
for equality of treatment for all workers; for the rigid inspection of factories in which industrial employees were working.
The Liberal party in Canada has also a substantial policy in the way of peace because its plank in that regard is as follows:
The Liberal party will seek to further wherever possible those courses in international relations which make for peace and good will among nations, and promote friendly intercourse between them. It will seek to further the work of the League of Nations.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that the hon. gentleman is reading his speech. That point of order was raised when I was speaking a few evenings ago.
Mr. MdINTOSH: The hon. gentleman read his speech for forty minutes the other day, and I think if he had spoken for forty hours he would have surely read on for forty hours.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: On the point of order, the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) knows what the rule is, but I think he is just following his own notes.
Mr. McIlNTOSH: That ds right. I was just saying what the policy of the Liberal party was on the questions of international peace and national retrenchment. The Liberal party stands for a policy that has been the policy of the Canadian people from decade to decade, for it seeks to effect a retrenchment in public expenditures and a reduction in the principal and interest on the national debt, and by selling goods cut down taxation and balance the budget. It has also been the party of reform throughout Canadian history.
In passing may I just say that 1 have a book here entitled Porritt's Evolution of the Dominion of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. MelNTOiSH: Mr. Speaker, although the hon. gentlemen do not understand the contents of this book, that is no reason why they should not listen to what I say about it.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: It would be all1 right to read it if you could read it well.
Mr. MdINTOSH: I am not going to read from the book, Mr. Speaker, but may I point out that throughout Canadian history the Liberal party has been the party of reform. It is the party of reform to-day and will be the party of reform to-morrow. Some of the reforms which the Liberal party stood for in days gone by have been: the simplification of procedure before the courts of law, a very important reform; the repeal of all laws conferring special privileges upon the church, 92582-531
another reform that abolished all idea of having a state church in Canada; reform in the sale of crown lands. The Liberal party stood for the election of the governor; for the election of the legislative council by the people; for representation by population, and for the secret ballot. Later, it stood for the right to negotiate commercial treaties with other countries of the world, a right that we have to-day. The Liberal party has stood stoutly for these things year by year throughout Canadian history.
These are only a few of the reforms for which the Liberal party has stood. It has stood for the upbuilding of responsible government and for the control of revenue by parliament, and I submit that the history of the Liberal party has made this bill possible.
Let me discuss for a moment or two the industrial and international relations committee report presented to parliament on May 23, 1929. I wish to show the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite on this question of unemployment insurance. In presenting the report on that date I tried to indicate, as chairman of the committee, that the committee had done its best to obey the mandate of parliament to investigate and report upon this very intricate and technical question. In analyzing the report I went on to show that its adoption was vital inasmuch as it was in the direction of industrial and universal peace, which is based on international justice. I emphasized the importance of the report both nationally and internationally. It was pointed out that the question could not be dodged, that the time had come for action, and the report embodied the endorsation and the affirmation of the principle of insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity. It also supported the principle of a contributory system involving the employer, the state and the employee, and it went on to discuss a comprehensive national health policy as well as the securing of further data after the taking of the census. It proposed a conference between the provinces and the dominion in order to bring about the necessary cooperation without which this important problem could not be approached effectively.
When the committee's report came before parliament an amendment was moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and an important debate ensued on the question. The hon. gentleman expressed the opinion that the report should be referred back to the committee for reconsideration and further report and that there should be something more tangible, more concrete. He held that the report was really a step backward. The question of jurisdiction
836	'	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. McIntosh
then came up in consequence of this amendment. The amendment itself was to the effect that the report should be sent back to the committee and that the provinces should be requested to pass the necessary legislation giving up their jurisdiction with a view to having the matter dealt with nationally. That gave rise to considerable debate in the house, and I think it is necessary to run through that debate in order to indicate the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite on this very important problem.
At page 2776 of Hansard of May 23, 1929, I find the following statement by the present Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) on this question. He quoted the amendment, which was:
That the said report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations be not now concurred in but that it be referred back to the select standing committee on industrial and international relations with instructions that they have power to amend the same by adding thereto a clause recommending that all the provinces of the dominion be requested to pass legislation under which the jurisdiction in relation to legislation providing for unemployment, sickness and invalidity insurance, based on compulsory contribution and which is now claimed to be within or subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, be vested in the dominion government.
The hon. gentleman followed that up by saying:
Does the hon. gentleman suggest that, when specific jurisdiction is vested under the constitution in the provinces, the provinces by any conceivable legislation could' revest that jurisdiction in the dominion parliament? It seems to me to be the most extraordinary suggestion I have heard for some time.
That was the point of view of the Secretary of State on that occasion. But the hon. gentleman also made this statement:
That being admitted, why should the parliament of Canada express a gratuitous opinion upon a public matter which is not within the legislative jurisdiction of parliament or the administrative jurisdiction of the government responsible to parliament? Why should we in this parliament, who have very extended duties and obligations to the public, set ourselves up as the judges of the duties and responsibilities of members of the several legislatures, and attempt, by adopting a report of a nature which I have read, to superimpose our gratuitous opinions upon the legislatures of the provinces and the governments w'hich are responsible to those legislatures? Even if we adopt the report of the committee in its present form, we are going far outside of any jurisdiction committed to the parliament of Canada,

There we see the hon. gentleman, who is a member of the present ministry, taking the stand that it was an insult to the provinces, an insult to any provincial government in Canada, that even an opinion should be expressed at that time in the House of Commons on this question. Well, as I have said, it is a long distance between an attitude of that kind and the attitude which we have demonstrated on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite on the present occasion. Then the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens), then representing Vancouver Centre, made the statement that the report was all eyewash; that was his attitude. And a little further on at page 2787 we have the point of view of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) on the amendment which was before the house. These are his words:
While Bourinot's opinion was as Your Honour has quoted, nevertheless it is pointed out in May, as in the rules of the house, that when the matter is clearly a subject that this house should not pronounce upon, it should not be asked to do so, because by so doing the house would be pronouncing on something over which it has no jurisdiction. The last part of the amendment asks that the legislative powers-the legislative powers, mark you-of the provinces, which are defined by section 92 of the British North America Act, shall be vested in the dominion government.
In other words, the right hon. gentleman was of the opinion, that there should be no pronouncement whatsoever on the subject. His attitude was practically the same as the Secretary of State's, for that hon. gentleman said that no gratuitous opinion should be advanced on that report because it was purely a provincial problem.
On the other hand, we find that the attitude of the Liberal party on this question has been sound throughout; you will find it so in that very debate. The then Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) took the view that the matter was entirely one for the provinces; it came within the ambit of provincial jurisdiction. He cited the danger of interfering in a matter of this kind; there was no doubt in the minds of the law officers of the crown, nor was there any doubt about the constitution in that regard. For instance, he quoted, as reported on page 2777 of Hansard of 1929:
17. The parliament of Canada cannot under colour of general legislation deal with what are provincial matters only, and conversely provincial legislatures cannot under the mere pretence of legislating upon one of the matters enumerated in section 92, really legislate upon a matter assigned to the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. McIntosh
18. If the dominion parliament or the provincial legislatures have no power to legislate directly upon a given subject matter, neither may they do so indirectly;
These two statements were taken from Lefroy's Canada's Federal System. That is the stand which hon. gentlemen opposite took with regard to that matter when it was before the house, and to-day we have them taking an absolutely different stand. For instance, I want just to touch upon an article that appeared in the Ottawa Journal on May 23. 1929. I take it that that article clearly represented the attitude at that time of the Conservative party. It was absolutely Conservative opposition opinion and I am reading it not because I always disagree with the Journal, because I read the Journal I think once a day and the Citizen also once a day; as far as these two newspapers are concerned they are among the brightest and best in Canada. But this is the point of view of the Ottawa Journal on that date on this very important question which was before this standing committee of the House of Commons. The editorial goes on to say that a small committee of the House of Commons "blithely shoulders the huge task of looking after industrial and international relations." Then it states that the committee has reported to parliament that it endorses the principle of state insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity and that it favours compulsory contributions by the state, employer and employee. Then the editorial adds:
It is, perhaps, fortunate for the country that neither the committee nor parliament possesses authority to give effect to the principle so " lightly endorsed."
That was Conservative opinion in 1929. Then when the report goes on to deal with the matters I have already mentioned, the Journal makes the statement that these provisions of the report would be enacted into law if something did not arise to block the committee's main purpose-the committee with the portentous name that is out to do something.
Further on the same editorial deals with the report and investigation at that time in this language:
It is absolute nonsense. The country has no more need of unemployment insurance than it has of polygamy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that a Tory journal?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, it is. The editorial
goes on to say:
In England there is something to be said for unemployment insurance because there the industrial and economic conditions are entirely different.
But it says that there is no reason for it in Canada because this country is sparsely settled, lacks population and is 'passing through an era of tremendous development. It continues :
The proposition, therefore, to ensure our people against unemployment is absurd. The natural result will be to add to cost of government, produce more bureaucrats and discourage thrift and industry that are the real safeguards against unemployment.
A little farther on it says, in regard to the national health recommendation:
Nor can we ever see anything sensible in this recommendation.
According to the Journal there is nothing sensible in it. It asks:
What is wrong with our health anyway?
The editorial goes on to say that there is nothing wrong with our national health and there should have been no provision in the report about a national health policy. Then it makes this further statement:
This work belongs to the provinces.
That is, the work of unemployment insurance or insurance against sickness and invalidity belongs absolutely to provincial jurisdiction and the Journal does not hesitate to say so. It continues:
The federal government is but duplicating provincial activity and adding to the cost-
-when it makes any movement in the matter whatever. It reiterates that the committee and Liberal government action in the matter means little more than to "pile up expenditure." Further on it says:
Even more fussy and futile is the suggestion that in the coming census provision be made for securing data on unemployment and sickness and have same compiled and published at the earliest possible date.
Yet that part of the report was carried out in 1931 and it constitutes part of the foundation upon which the present legislation has been founded. Further on the editorial says that there are two federal organizations getting this unemployment and health information and that it is not necessary because by the time the information would be needed, the situation might be entirely changed. Fancy!
Lastly, the editorial says that there was not the slightest danger of this report being adopted; that it was but an expensive frill, and that if it were done it would but prove that any organized minority in Canada that makes enough noise could get its point of
838	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. McIntosh
view accepted by parliament. It winds lip by saying that there is "too much paternalism," and damns the report endorsed by parliament in the way the Journal can so forcibly do.
My contention is that that point of view by Tory journalism all over Canada built up a menacing volume of public opinion at that time detrimental to insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity. That opinion was emphasized in this house-as I have shown-excepting to the right of the Speaker, that is on the part of the government of the day. Such opinion had an adverse effect upon the provinces. There was a division of opinion on this important question all over Canada because of the attitude of the Journal, as shown by the attitude the provinces took in regard to it. At that time there was no volume of public opinion in favour of this question outside members of the Liberal party in the house and out of it. There is no doubt about that at all. The Conservative party was quite hostile to the question of social insurance in the house; they poured cold water on it every time they could; they never spoke a word in favour of it and they discounted it whenever the opportunity arose.
The report of the industrial and international relations committee was sent to the different provinces, and what do we find? We find that there was no cooperation shown by the provinces with regard to this report, consequently no action was possible in connection with the question of unemployment insurance in 1929. I have before me the report from Nova Scotia. At that time the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) was Prime Minister of that province and today he is in the ministry and is, I am told, whole-heartedly for unemployment insurance. What was his attitude in 1929? Did he say that his province favoured it? Did he say that his province would support it? Did he give any aid to the then Liberal government to evolve a policy that would later meet unemployment all over Canada? He never said a word in favour of it. This is the letter dated August 3, 1928, from Halifax:
Dear Sir:
I have your letter of July 31.
This is in answer to Mr. Heenan, then Minister of Labour, who sent out this report to all the provinces.
The whole subject matter will have to be studied with great care by the government, and for that purpose we will await the printed report of the minutes of proceedings and evidence.
fMr. McIntosh.]
Meantime I have to point out that while the government is sympathetic toward all modern measures of similar character which have for their object the betterment of living conditions, the limiting factor in the province of Nova Scotia is that of finance.
The very argument used by my right hon. leader when the matter was 'before the house a few days ago, that finance is an important limitation. Note the word "sympathetic." Then he goes on:
For practically fifteen years this province has not had a balanced budget, and before we can take up the subject matter of industrial and international relations we are immediately confronted with a very heavy obligation which would arise with the adoption of the old age pension system.
Yours very truly,
E. N. Rhodes,
Premier.
There is not a word in that statement by the present hon. Minister of Finance to the effect that this is a national matter. He accepts the report of the committee that it is entirely within the provincial jurisdiction. But to-day we have the Minister of Finance and the other ministers of the crown and those sitting back of them taking the stand that constitutionally this question 'belongs to the dominion, when the whole evidence before parliament is absolutely against that contention. As far as the Liberal party is concerned we are consistent in the matter; we are simply holding to the view we held before, which is also the view of the law officers of the crown and of the courts of justice.
We have also a statement from the former premier of the province of New Brunswick, another Conservative leader in eastern Canada. Writing to Hon. Peter Heenan, then Minister of Labour, on August 3, 1928, he said:
My Dear Minister:
Your letter 31st ult. received with reference to insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity.
Of course I recognize the desirability of some such provisions as these, but I think you will understand that, faced with the question of old age pensions and whait I regret to say seems to be the probable withdrawal by your government of the assistance to technical education, it is utterly impossible for a province with such limited means as New Brunswick to consider, at all, the subject about which you write. These things are simply matters of financial ability to do things, and when we have not got the money we cannot, and should not, undertake the responsibility.
Yours sincerely,
John B. Baxter.
There is another statement 'by a provincial authority in New Brunswick that the money was not on hand, but there was no question at

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Mitchell
all raised as to jurisdiction; it was accepted that the matter was one belonging to the provinces and had nothing whatever to do with the dominion.
I might go on to read statements from all the provinces and prove by them that in not one instance was the statement of the committee that the matter of unemployment insurance came under provincial jurisdiction challenged. It has remained for the dominion government to come forward six years subsequently, with an unemployment insurance measure entirely national in scope not based upon provincial cooperation, and, it would appear, not upon sound justice.
May I say that the Liberal party wants to see unemployment insurance put upon the statute books; but it wants something more than that: it wants this measure to become effective as soon as possible, and we are anxious to cooperate with the government in that regard, but-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: But!


Cameron Ross McIntosh: -but if we are to have a measure that will never go beyond the statutes, which is not sound in jurisdiction, and which can never be effective industrially, then the time this house is spending on this bill is largely wasted. We hope there will be real advancement made with this legislation; that even yet the government will institute the closest scrutiny with regard to the legality of this measure, and see to it before it is too late that when the bill becomes law it will be constitutionally sound and that litigation will not render it void and useless.
In closing I should like to refer to the part of the present bill which deals with national health. To my mind if the term "eyewash" was ever applicable to any part of any bill introduced in this house it may well be applied to that part of Bill No. 8, because while we have national health talked about there is nothing effective in the bill in regard to a real national health policy, not a thing. There is not one word more in that bill with regard to a national health policy than w'as in the report of the industrial and international relations committee of 1929, which was endorsed by the house, and in which a comprehensive national health policy was advocated.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was amused at the observation of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Beynon) that everyone was claiming the fatherhood of this child. What the working people are most concerned about is who
is to be the mother; they are desirous that this legislation shall not be stillborn through the instrumentality of the constitution. We have here what might be called an inverted case of the Dionne quintuplets. In that case we had a marvel in medical science, a mother giving birth to five children. In this house we have-


Ira Delbert Cotnam: A five year plan.


Humphrey Mitchell: -we have 245 members claiming responsiblity for one child. Now, it can't be done. Many men have been mentioned in this house who have used the constitution as a barrier to progress, and the thought crossed my mind that it is a good thing there is not a constitutional Guy Fawkes around.
I think it is fair to say that governmental institutions in their fundamental concept should deal with the major risks of life from the viewpoint of the great majority that make up the working force of this and every other country. I think those major risks can be boiled down to three. One is sickness and the obligations arising out of sickness; another is unemployment, the worry, the trials and the tribulations of men and women who are anxious to work and unable to get the opportunity to earn a livelihood and provide for themselves and their dependents; and a third is the problem of old age and the fear of destitution. These are three fundamental problems in the life of the nation, simply stated; and since the dawn of history mankind has been wrestling with them. I think also one may safely say that we have moved very slowly towards their solution. In the material sphere enormous progress has been made in the last century, progress of a kind and on a scale unexcelled in the history of the w'orld. In fact we have almost invented ourselves out of a way to earn our livelihood. We have been so clever that we have forced millions of men and women on this continent to walk the streets owing to the introduction of the machine. I would like this to be considered by the government, that notwithstanding this legislation they are setting in motion, they should not lose sight of the great responsibility confronting them under present day conditions, concerning the problem that we almost forget about because of the depression, that of being too old at fifty-five to obtain gainful employment. That problem existed even in the most prosperous times. Then there is the problem of technological unemployment. The other day I
840	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Mitchell
saw figures which have not been disputed, showing that even with the depression, if the productive forces of the United States were on the 1929 level, with the reduction of the working day to six hours they still would have an army of unemployed in that country numbering 6,000,000. You cannot wish yourself out of a jam like that. If private employers will not give leadership and adjust their business structures to meet the crying need for employment then in my judgment the duty lies with the government to provide that leadership. That is what I have always maintained. I think the test of any society, industrial or agricultural, is its ability to insure the membership of that society against the economic hazards of life, and I think that should be the pressing force behind the legislative functions of government. Security must be the cornerstone of any nation if progress is to be made. I think the test should and must be the degree of security given the individual in the form of productive employment and protection against such hazards as I have mentioned.
At the moment, Mr. Speaker, we are merely dealing with the [DOT] principle of the bill; we are not dealing with the sections. I think the principles boil down to two questions, is the bill constitutional, and shall we have contributory or non-contributory unemployment insurance. In the few remarks I make I am going to discuss the bill from that standpoint. This afternoon I listened to the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who discussed the constitutional aspect of the measure. He pointed out very clearly the clauses of the treaty of Versailles affecting the working-people of the nations engaged in the war. He pointed out the solemn obligations under that treaty of peace that pledged the nations to move in a certain direction in order to meet pressing problems as they affected the daily lives of the people in the respective countries at the close of the war. I was in the war; I was in England at the conclusion of the war, and I have a very vivid recollection of the cry of Lloyd George, "Make this a country fit for heroes to live in," and so on. I believe the men came back from the war with faith-almost a divine faith, I might say-that the promises contained in the peace treaty would be implemented by both the victorious and the defeated nations, but in this dominion it has taken fourteen years for us to carry out the promises incorporated in the treaty of Versailles.
So we have the constitutional question brought up in connection with this matter.
I know the opinion of the average working-fMr. Mitchell.]
man; I think I can reflect it as well as anyone in this House of Commons. I came from the workshop to this house, and when my constituents are through with me I will go back to-


Mr. HEAPS:: The workhouse.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) says I will go back to the workhouse, and there may be more truth than fiction in that statement. The average workingmen are not greatly interested in the constitutional question. They want to get something done; they are asking, "When do we eat?" The average man in the street is saying, "For God's sake give us an opportunity for productive labour, so that we can meet our obligations and look after our families without need of charity." That is the cry of the man in the street to those having leadership in this dominion.
We are accustomed to this constitutional argument; it has been the barrier that has stood in the way of most social reform. I had a great deal to do with the propaganda carried on in this country for the establishment of an old age pension scheme in Canada. I remember the way that proposal was bandied from one government to another; eventually, of course, we did get a system of old age pensions. Then I have a vivid recollection of the opposition to these schemes that have been advocated by labour for many years. I would like to ask these provinces to come out in the open and say so if they do not want a system of unemployment insurance. Let them be frank about it if they do not want these very necessary reforms that must be carried out if the problems of mass production and modern industry are to be met. I have not heard them; I do not think any member of this house has heard them make that statement. Let us be frank about it; let us come out and say so if we are opposed to these things. I object very strenuously to any man in this country mixing up the rights of minorities with the obvious necessity of moving in the direction in which this legislaton goes. There is no man in this house or in this country who is more fixed in his opinions as to the rights of minorities than I am, but I do not believe that the rights of minorities should be used as a smoke screen to prevent the passage of legislation of this description and its practical application in this country. If the contention of the hon. member for Quebec East is sound, this bill is not worth the paper it is written on. Let us be frank about it; let us tell the people of

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Mitchell
Canada that if the constitutional position taken by the hon. member is sound, this House of Commons is wasting its time.
I know the western provinces do not care much about the constitutional aspect of it. Last year in this house I quoted a statement by the then Premier of Alberta, Hon. J. E. Brownlee, which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of January 21, 1934. Mr. Brownlee said that all the western provinces had agreed to give up their constitutional rights in order to make such legislation possible, and he said the dominion government was working on a measure along that line. That was in answer to a question by the executive board of the Alberta federation of labour, asking the government of that province to lend its aid to the institution of an unemployment insurance measure in that province.
I also think we should be very frank with the working people of this dominion, and disabuse their minds of the belief that this legislation can meet the problem of unemployment. I know that in the propaganda stage that precedes the launching of any legislation of this kind statements are apt to be made by enthusiasts that would lead people to believe more than is actually the case. That is a fact that one encounters in connection with all legislation, whether it be social or otherwise. Extravagant statements are made as to what can be done by legislation similar to this. I think it should be made clear that the government must initiate policies to take care of the tremendous unemployment problem in this dominion, and no attempt should be made to lead the people to believe that this legislation can be a solution for that problem. It should be made clear also that this does not relieve this government or any government of its duty to supply food and shelter for those who at the moment are on relief. That is a problem that must be meit until those unfortunate people are able again to take their part in the industrial or agricultural life of this dominion. Neither do I think it does us any good to say why someone else did not do this, what somebody said in 1896 or 1902. or whether somebody has changed his mind in the last two years. After all is said and done a man who cannot change his mind -well, he never had one. I am not interested only in a recital of the achievements of the group to which I belong, or to a discussion of the achievements of other political parties. I am most concerned about the passage of this legislation in the broadest possible form
and in terms through which the greatest number will derive benefit or advantage. It is a great tragedy that suffering has always been the midwife of progress. I believe it is fair to say that ten yeans ago no government in Canada would have taken the chance of passing legislation of this kind. Notwithstanding the fact that a large body of public opinion pressed for such legislation I do not believe opinion was strong enough to command the notice of any government. We have to be fair about it, and that is why I make that observation.
It would be easy for me to say that I have advocated this legislation for a lifetime, and in that way get some kudos out of it. It would be easy to say that hon. members in this comer of the house did so and so, but I believe we have to be perfectly frank about it. I question very much whether the average man or woman of ten years ago had any interest in unemployment insurance. At least that was my experience, and I believe if there had been any interest in the matter we would have an entirely different situation to-day. There would have been a scheme in force, broad in its application, one which would have lightened the mental strain and burden suffered because of the great depression.
We now come to a discussion of contributory and non-contributory unemployment insurance. Frankly, I believe in the contributory system, the system advocated by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, and I make that choice without any equivocation. I hold the view that no nation which gives the people something for nothing can endure; we might as well be honest about it. Neither do I believe that the burden should fall too heavily upon the worker who comes under a scheme. It is my opinion that the present legislation goes too far in that direction, and that a greater burden should be placed on industry and on the government. We know that all social services, including even the salaries of hon. members in this chamber, are a charge on the living standards of the Canadian people, and any legislation involving an expenditure of money must in the final analysis have its effect on the productive forces and on the whole structure of the country. My greatest concern is that when the scheme is launched the workingman may have something to say about it. Unless a person helps to pay for a thing I question very much whether he has any right to say anything about its operation.
842	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Mitchell
One feature of the bill which meets with my approval is that the responsibility for administration is placed squarely where it belongs, namely upon the workers and employers in industry. Undoubtedly the workingmen have some right to say how the payments shall be made, how the operations of the act may be broadened, and generally to watch over its development. There can be no doubt that the scheme will have to be hammered out in the laboratory of the industrial structure of our country. We shall have to do the same as other nations have done, the same as Great Britain did, namely, work the scheme out by the process of trial and error; and quite possibly that work will not have been completed in this generation.
I appreciate the fact that to advocate a non-contributory system of unemployment insurance would be the most popular stand. I have no quarrel with people who hold that view; the right to agree is the basis of human freedom. After giving the matter very careful thought, however, I have some to doubt very much whether we could have a system of non-contributory unemployment insurance without having a dictatorship. We could not have that form of protection unless the state could say to the worker, "This is the amount you will be paid; this is the kind of work you will do"-and have control of all the movements of the individual connected with the scheme. We must remember that this is to a great extent an agricultural country, and any scheme must meet the views or be capable of receiving the support of that great body of people.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: What do they do in dictatorships?


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall tell you in a moment. That is why I believe a non-contributory scheme would be unsound. Someone has asked: What do they do in dictatorships? Well, my reply is that any man with a bayonet in his fist can be a dictator, so long as he does not stick it into himself. I believe that has been proved.
Frankly a non-contributory scheme would not, in my opinion, meet with the views of the average Canadian. The people in this country would rather help to administer and pay for their scheme. Believing that, undoubtedly I should take responsibility of saying so. In working out the scheme the government must take into consideration seasonal employment, and may I indicate in passing that the bill does not make provision for those who are working on a five day or even a four day week, a fault which can be

remedied when the bill reaches the committee. Further, consideration must be given to the fact that many people engaged in industry are working on short time. Arrangements should be made whereby those people can meet the payments without any undue hardship on themselves, and the legislation must be elastic enough to permit the admission of such people. No man should be penalized or placed outside the scope of the legislation because of circumstances over which he has no control. Many men, particularly in the railroad industry, who would ordinarily be engaged in steady labour are working, due to the depression, only two weeks a month.
The measure contains the further constructive suggestion, namely that it will make use of the employment agencies, or as they are called in Great Britain, the labour exchanges. It will permit the mobilization and organization of labour on a much more satisfactory scale than has obtained before in Canada. To those who speak of provincial schemes I would point out the utter impracticability of a provincial scheme in legislation of this kind. A man might live in Ontario, for example, and the scheme might not be in existence in Quebec or Manitoba. That man would be frozen to working in Ontario in order to gain the benefits of the insurance scheme. Anyone who has made any study at all of labour matters knows that you should not deny the worker the right to go from one end of this dominion to the other, should the need arise, in search of employment. If you had a provincial scheme you can readily see how the worker would lose the benefits of it-unless he went into the province in which the legislation was operating. We have seen that in practical application so far as the old age pension scheme is concerned. Notwithstanding the fact that that legislation has been in existence since 1927, there are still three or four provinces, Quebec for example, which have not brought that scheme into being. In connection with mothers' allowances we saw how a widow living outside the boundaries of a province where mothers' allowances were in effect would immediately move into Ontario, for instance, to qualify under the residence rule for the allowance under the act. So we have had practical experience of the unsoundness of attempting to deal with these great social problems on a purely provincial basis. I think that has been proven conclusively, and in my judgment we would be foolish-I do not say that in any critical sense-if we did not take cognizance of the very practical experience we have had in the application of measures of this kind.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Ralston
When the bill gets into the committee stage I shall have a great deal to say in connection with incidentals surrounding the application of particular clauses of the bill itself. I have often said that men are the instruments of policy, and one of the most important factors in the successful application of legislation of this kind is that those in charge of its administration shall be sympathetic to the legislation. That is a very important feature that must be borne in mind by the government, that men in charge of applying this form of legislation should be sincere and sympathetic in the broadest sense, so that the law may have as wide an application as possible in the shortest possible time. So, Mr. Speaker, I trust that the government will use good judgment in selecting men who have had some practical experience in the problems of the labour men of this country, and that on the other hand they will select men who are imbued with the soundness of enactments of this character and have a vision of its possibilities for good in the lives of the working men and women of this dominion.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is a forward step, and I would be insincere if I did not say so. There are many criticisms one could offer of the measure, but I am now endorsing the principle of the bill because it is a form of legislation that meets a crying need in any industrial country. It must be remembered that even in the midst of this depression there are tens of thousands of borderline cases who should be on relief and whom a measure of this kind will help tremendously. When the scheme gets into its stride, if we ever get out of this depression, I visualize a constructive approach to the problem of ironing out the inequalities of seasonal occupation in this country. There are also potentialities in the stabilization of working conditions and of maintaining the demand for consumption on the part of the Canadian people, the benefits of which will be reflected back to agriculture. That has been proven in other countries. In Great Britain at the moment one sees tremendous sums of money in circulation through schemes of this kind and which, under the conditions under which we are living at the moment, would otherwise be tied up in the banks and in strong boxes throughout the country.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am going to support the principle of the bill and ask for its widest application for the benefit of the working people of this dominion.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, before the vote is taken I think perhaps a word or two should be said with regard to some phases of the matter
which have been covered to some extent but which might deserve a little more amplification.
In the first place let me say to my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Mitchell) that I rise to support and we on this side of the house will support in principle the idea of unemployment insurance. It is not any new feature as far as those on this side of the house are concerned. It is a matter which has engaged the attention of members of this side of the house for a number of years, as has been indicated by the record which has been placed on Hansard by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) and by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe); and regardless of the fact that my hon. friend is not interested in the history of the activities of the other parties in connection with this measure, it seems to me that it is a matter of some interest to the country generally to know whether or not this measure is being brought forward at the present time by those who have consistently in season and out of season supported the principle, or whether it is being brought forward, just on the eve of an election, in the form of a so-called reform program in entire contradiction of the position which has been taken by the right hon. leader of the government and his colleagues almost right up to the time he gave his radio broadcasts.
I want to say to my hon. friend who has just sat down, and to you, Mr. Speaker, that the record of the Liberal party has been a steady effort towards putting on the statute books a comprehensive, workable and valid unemployment insurance measure. That record is indicated by the fact that it was the Liberal party which in 1926, and again in 1927, advanced the principle of old age pensions, and after their old age pension measure was defeated by the Conservative majority in another place succeeded in putting it upon the statute books where to-day its benefits are being enjoyed by the old people of this country almost from one end to the other. This it seems to me is a matter which the people of this country will take into consideration when they are considering the sincerity of those who are supporting the bill at the present time.
May I say further that my right hon. leader made a declaration in this house, not on the eve of an election, but over two years ago, indicating that the Liberal party had as a plank in their platform a national unemployment insurance measure, and the steps which had
844	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Ralston
been taken and were being taken to carry that out are well known to members of this house and this country.
When I mention my leader I want to say this, that the members of this party take some satisfaction in the fact that the leader of the Liberal party has in season and out of season during his whole life been interested in social legislation-not at the last minute, just on the eve of an election in 1935, but year after year his whole training, his experience and his activities have been in the direction of social reform. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I think we can say with considerable pride that the record of the leader of the Liberal party is not excelled at least by any statesman living or dead in Canada for his attention to and interest in matters that pertain to the social welfare of the people of this country. The other night there was put on Hansard the record of the Liberal party in connection with social legislation. It went back to the days of the establishment of the Department of Labour, which was followed by the passing of the conciliation act; with the passing of the railways dispute act; the passing of fair wages provisions, whereby employees of the dominion government received the benefit of the fair wages statute and of the eight hour day; the passing of the Combines Investigation Act; the passing of the Technical Education Act of 1919, which was the outcome of a commission that had been appointed by the leader of the opposition when he was in power; and with the passing of the Old Age Pensions Act. That is a record in which the Liberal party takes some pride, and therefore it comes as a natural step that the members of the Liberal party should support an unemployment insurance measure. But the members of that party take as much pride in the fact that its leader has not only worked through practical legislation but has devoted his life to the education of the people of this dominion and the spreading of information among them in connection with measures along this line; and I am not at all sure that the foundations of the legislation which we are dealing with to-night and of previous legislation of this kind cannot be found in the fact that the people of Canada have been informed and have had their minds concentrated upon such measures through the efforts of the present leader of the opposition and former Prime Minister of Canada.
Let me emphasize what I said a minute ago, that the peculiar satisfaction which we have on this side of the house is that the views which the leader of the opposition represents

here as leader of the Liberal party are convictions which are inherent in every fibre of his being and which he has practised from the time he entered public life, and are not the result of an overnight change of coat such as took place early this year when the Prime Minister felt the dread of the wintry blasts of the condemnation of the people at the polls. My right hon. friend is able to change legal opinions as he is able to change other views in connection with his public life. It is typical of him. My hon. friend who has just spoken says that it is no discredit to a man to change his mind. That may be so, but at the same time we Should expect some constancy in public men.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Layton Ralston: I know that my hon. friends have been taught not to expect that on their side of the house. The Prime Minister is the gentleman who not long ago in this house was talking about sound money and deprecating the idea of turning on the printing press, and yet he is the very gentleman who suddenly was found, only a short time afterwards, doing a sleight of hand inflation trick-I use that term in no invidious sense-by means first of becoming a borrower from the banks, issuing treasury notes, and the next moment becoming a lender to the banks, printing about $35,000,000 of paper currency to loan against the treasury notes he had just issued. That is the gentleman who had talked about sound money. We have had in the last six months the same gentleman who talked about sound money issuing currency to the extent of between $30,000,000 and $40,000,000, carrying it to the banks and issuing cheques, notwithstanding the fact that the gold reserve has not increased; and yet he was extremely wrathy, particularly at those in one corner of the house, who talked about the possibilities of turning on the printing press. The same gentleman, two or three years ago, when the matter of a central bank came up, stood in his place and intimated that there was no need whatever of a central bank, that the Finance Act contained all the provisions necessary for the financial operations of the country; and though he did not use the word "ridiculous" he intimated that it was ridiculous to talk of a central bank in this country. And yet we find that on January 2 or 3, I forget which broadcast it was, he was boasting of the fact that his reform program had commenced and that he had inaugurated a central bank, the very thing he had opposed
FEBRUARY 14, 1935	g45
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Ralston
so strenuously. He had he said inaugurated the central bank as one of the first steps in his reform program.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not correct to say he opposed a central bank.


James Layton Ralston: I have stated exactly what he did. On the motion of an hon. member on this side of the house he intimated that the Finance Act would probably do this country, I think he said, for a period of fifty years, so far as he knew. But the central bank was suddenly grasped as one of the measures of reform; and as a matter of fact he did not know it was a reform when he put it on the statute books, but only realized it on the first of January this year.
And then we find him dealing with social reforms. He is not one who has extreme familiarity with matters of social legislation. Only a year ago he was speaking in Toronto and he had not very much idea of these social reform measures, these social reform activities and this social reform program. He said:
I would like to promise you a spectacular move that would make you hip, hip. hurrah; but, gentlemen, you did too much of that a few years ago, forgetting that some day the bills would have to be paid. We cannot offer you anything spectacular-nothing but thrift and hard work.
That was only February 2, 1934. He did not intimate that any reform program was necessary, but a little later in the year he said:
I believe we have passed and left behind us the great depression we encountered in 1929 and 1930. We are standing on the threshhold of a greater progress and greater prosperity than we have ever known.
That was June 8, 1934, and on August 27 he spoke at Quebec of the depression "of late lamented memory." Then on the first of October in London he spoke of "the steady progress which Canada has made in the last eighteen months." And on the very day that the newspapers published the report of his radio speech there appeared an advertisement issued by his government through the Department of Trade and Commerce:
As the year 1934 passes into history, Canada can look back on a period of unimpaired progress so definitely sustained that it has brought us to the pathway that leads to sound, sensible and stable prosperity.
That was on January 1, and yet on January 2 my right hon. friend said over the radio:
The world is in tragic circumstances. The signs of recovery are few and doubtful; the signs of trouble are many and they do not lessen. The world is searching pathetically for safety and prosperity. It will find them only when each nation, resolute to effect its own regeneration, will come to a meeting place with all the others in the spirit which declares that even the most powerful among them has no real economic independence of the rest. That time has not yet come. Meanwhile dangers abound.
And a few lines further down he said:
But the facts, grave as they are, do not cast me down nor will they you. I am deeply anxious, but I can never doubt this country's coming triumph if you will range yourselves on the side of progress and reform. For then we will fight on, you and I, and we will win.
Then, although Canada was according to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the way to sound and sensible prosperity, on the next page there appeared this:
Reform or no reform! I raise that issue squarely. I nail the flag of progress to the masthead. I summon the power of the state to its support.
That was stated by the gentleman who a year before had said, "We have nothing spectacular to offer, nothing but thrift and hard work." Now my right hon. friend has indicated to us what the trouble really was. He said in that same broadcast speech-and
1	am paraphrasing him now-"I had people coming to me asking me to put reform measures upon the statute books." Then he goes on:
I can assure you that it was not easy to say no. I had to harden my heart. I did so, but with more sorrow and sadness than I have ever known in my life before. I can assure you with equal truth that, had we said yes to those sometimes frantic pleas, Canada would not have been where it is to-day. We had to defer reform until the time for reform had come.
The time for reform came just on January
2	in the year of the election when the last
session of parliament was about to be convened. What a thrill this has given our hon. friends! Some of them have said: He has turned socialist. Others said that he had turned radical.	People said that he had
turned reformer. I think the country knew what had happened-nothing more than that he had electionitis. We know, as we have reason to know, remembering the campaign of 1930, that when he is suffering from that fever he is liable to say almost anything. After all, in the bill that we have before us to-night, is it really a policy of reform which my right hon. friend is bringing before the country or is it a policy of "recant"? I presume my right hon. friend, if I am to
846	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Ralston
judge from the citations which have been read by the hon. member for Quebec East and quoted by my right hon. leader, has decided to swallow himself in this program of reform and to repudiate, if necessary, not only principles but also some solemn assurances and admissions which he made to the provinces in September last when he admitted, in a letter which he sent out to them, that they had "exclusive jurisdiction" with regard to this question, that is all forgotten now. He did not refer to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did.


James Layton Ralston: In his address the other
day in introducing the resolution he referred to the jurisdiction, but nothing whatever was said about the fact that he himself, eminent lawyer as he is, had no longer ago than September last indicated to the provinces that, at least in his opinion and speaking as Prime Minister of Canada, they had exclusive jurisdiction. Already, if we are to judge by the bill which is before us, the exaggerations of the reform program are plainly evident. Unemployment insurance was one of the high lights of that program, and what have we before us? We have a bill which purports to provide for unemployment insurance. The Prime Minister has quite frankly and sincerely said that it is not a recovery measure. It is not an emergency measure; it is not a relief measure; it is something which will not take effect for some time. My hon. friend who spoke last said: When will it take effect? We know a man has to contribute for at least forty weeks before he gets any benefit at all, so it means that for at least a year nobody in this country will receive any benefits from this legislation.
But leaving out the question of delay, what else have we? We have a bill which omits to make any provision whatever for those engaged in three out of the four primary industries in this dominion, although they are to be taxed to pay for the others. That is the first thing with regard to the bill. The second is that it is a bill which, as I said a moment ago, admittedly does nothing whatever to deal with the present situation. Third -and I wish I could put this in as graphic language as the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) did the other night-one of the features of the bill which I think the government will surely see ought to be changed is that which appears to emphasize and glorify the bureaucratic type of government which is exemplified in other countries

by the exhaustion of the alphabet in connection with the different boards, committees and commissions they have there. This bill piles commissions on committees and boards on commission in addition to referees and umpires. It adds to the burdens of the taxpayers and to the irritation of those who come under the provisions of the measure. It seems to me a pretty definite attempt by the government to honeycomb our national life with a group of, so far as parliament is concerned, irresponsible and detached bodies who function independently of any departmental responsibility and who go to make officialdom the master rather than the servant of the people of this country. Fourthly, this bill which was one of the high lights of the Prime Minister's reform program, relies for its very foundation upon the shifting sands of questionable legal validity. As I go on, I want to call to witness the Prime Minister himself, his Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and his Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) in support of that statement.
The radio speech is now under the microscope. Let us compare this bill with that radio speech. The flag of progress has not been nailed very high on the mast so far as this bill is concerned.


William Duff: Halfmast.


James Layton Ralston: Seventeen other countries have unemployment insurance. This matter is nothing new, nothing novel. My right hon. friend has not apparently gone very far along the line of reform in this the first bill which he has brought down to implement his reform program. But I am going to leave aside the matter of the scope of the measure and the question of the machinery provided in it and to deal for just a moment or two with what it seems to me is the first essential of any bill and what will be an important consideration for anybody who has to do w'ith this measure and who expects to get any benefit from it, namely, the question of its validity. The bill will not be of very much good if, as my hon. friend who spoke before me said, it is unenforceable. As he said, in that case it is just a piece of waste paper and we are wasting our time. Under this legislation certain rights to benefits are conferred, and that is the important matter so far as the working people of this country are concerned. In addition to that and supporting it is the obligation of the employer to pay. That is imposed by the bill. In addition to that there is the obligation of the employee to pay. That is imposed by the bill. In addition to that there is a provision which gives the employer

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Ralston
authority to collect from the employee the assessment as set forth in the bill. These are matters regarded as property and civil rights and within the jurisdiction of the provinces. If the contributions cannot be enforced or if a contribution by the central body to the beneficiary cannot be enforced, the legislation is an empty shell and a mockery.
I am not going to deal with the legal point, that is to discuss the radio case, the aeronautics case, the Snider case and others referred to by the Prime Minister at some length. I want to say just this: There has been prior to the time he introduced this bill a universal admission that such a measure was not within the legislative competence of this parliament. Until my right hon. friend spoke the other day when he introduced the resolution, neither he nor any of his ministers ever expressed any opinion other than that which was expressed by him in September last when he wrote to the provinces. Under these circumstances the situation is rather grave. My right hon. friend ought to give a fuller explanation than he has done with regard to what he considers to be the fundamentals upon which the validity of this bill can be supported. He is not an inexperienced counsel; he is a most experienced one; he has had experience in the privy council in constitutional cases; and when a man of his standing at the bar, a former president of the Canadian Bar Association, expresses an opinion on a legal matter, it is to be taken with a good deal of weight; and he has expressed this opinion in the house more than once on previous occasions. But we are left in the dark- except as far as my right hon. friend mentions treaty provisions-we are left in the dark as to the reason for the fundamental change that has taken place in his opinion and in the opinion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie)

who by the way has not favoured us with any address at all or any explanation on this rather important point as to the validity of the bill. Well, we have the preamble, and as was referred to by my friend the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) the preamble purports to support this legislation on the ground that it falls within article 23 and article 427 of the treaty of Versailles. The hon. member for Quebec East mentioned article 23 this afternoon and put part of it on record. The first part of article 23 indicates in the clearest terms that the whole undertaking, whatever the undertaking may be in that article, is:
Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon. . . .
Where is the international convention in connection with this subject? Has it been agreed upon by this parliament? It has not. It has not even been brought down. Yet article 23 is being relied on by the Prime Minister as having created an obligation whereby section 132 of the British North America Act comes into play and whereby this parliament is given jurisdiction to enact legislation to carry out that obligation. But we must first have the obligation, and quite apart from the rather important introductory words I have quoted is there any definite obligation regarding unemployment insurance in the body of the article? As my hon. friend from Quebec East pointed out, I should think the only possible clause which might include unemployment insurance is to be found, if found at all, in the general words of subsection (a):
(a) will endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women, and children, both in their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend, and for that purpose will establish and maintain the necessary international organizations.
Those are pretty general terms. To found jurisdiction in a field which is as competitive as that of provincial and dominion legislation it would seem to me that we ought to have more specific words than are there in order to establish that an unemployment insurance act is intra vires of this parliament. That is quite outside the first point I make, which is that whatever undertaking there is must be subject to and in accordance with-note those words particularly-an international convention, and such international convention has never been approved by this house or agreed to by Canada.
Then the other article invoked is 427. Well, that is even more nebulous. With all respect to those who drafted the treaty and to those who signed it, that article merely expresses a pious hope.
The high contracting parties, recognizing that the well being, physical, moral and intellectual, of industrial wage-earners is of supreme international importance, have framed, in order to further this great end', the permanent machinery provided for in section I and associated with that of the League of Nations.
They recognize-
No obligation yet.
-that differences of climate, habits and customs, of economic opportunity and industrial tradition, -make strict uniformity in the conditions of labour difficult of immediate attainment. But, holding as they do, that labour should not be regarded merely as an article of commerce, they think that there are methods and principles for regulating labour
848	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Ralston
conditions which all industrial communities should endeavour to apply, so far as their special circumstances will permit.
Among these methods and principles, the following seem to the high contracting parties to be of special and urgent importance:
And then they go on to enumerate a number of principles not one of which would seem to touch unemployment insurance. Now it does not require a lawyer to appreciate-the veriest layman can realize it, reading that- that there is no obligation contained in article 427. Yet we have gone to the trouble of reciting that as containing an obligation which entitles us to invoke section 132 of the British North America Act and gives us jurisdiction to enact this legislation.
The other provision referred to is the peace, order and good government provision of section 91, which was dealt with in the Snider case to which my right hon. friend referred, in which it was laid down that you could not invoke the general residuary powers contained in the words "peace, order and good government" in connection with any matter that fell strictly within the express subjects referred to in section 92. Property and civil rights are contained in section 92, therefore it would seem as if peace, order and good government would not be sufficient ground on which to base the validity of this legislation.
My right hon. friend has invoked an entirely new' principle. I suppose he says he has the authority of the judicial committee of the privy council for it. The judicial committee did, as my hon. friend from Quebec East said, in the aeronautics case and again in the radio case intimate that there was jurisdiction to carry out a treaty. But in those cases there was a treaty, as my hon. friend from Quebec East said-a binding treaty in each case. Here there is no treaty, not even a committal. Assuming there were some kind of a treaty, I am not sure that my right hon. friend is quite justified in going the length of assuming that Canada can enter into any treaty obligation at all, no matter how far it invades provincial jurisdiction, and still legislate to carry out that treaty under section 132. Let me give an instance. It will be said that it is farnfetched, but my right hon. friend's reasoning has to carry him that far. I have said that property and civil rights are within the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces. Public lands are within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and employment of labour is within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Let us assume that the Dominion of Canada saw fit to make a treaty with Siam, under which Siam would agree to admit our
TMr. Ralston.]
fish free of duty-I am sure the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) will agree that that is highly desirable.


William Duff: Hear, hear.


James Layton Ralston: In return for what? The Dominion of Canada says, We will do two things; we will give Siamese residents in Canada a preference in the labour market- that is rather shocking, but suppose the dominion says it will do that. Or it says: We will give Siam certain crown lands in the province of Quebec. Now there is the treaty. Is there any limitation? Does my right hon. friend think the dominion has the power to compel employers in the various provinces to give Siamese labourers that preference or the power to hand over to Siam provincial crown lands without the consent of the province concerned? Is that what section 132 means? Yet my right hon. friend's reasoning must carry him that far, if he is simply going to invade provincial jurisdiction and say that any treaty the dominion sees fit to enter into can be implemented, no matter if it takes provincial lands or invades the realm of provincial jurisdiction. My right hon. friend in his statement the other day intimated that he thought it went that far. He said, as reported at page 643 of Hansard:
The ratio decidendi of the case is that section 132 confers on this parliament the power to discharge every obligation under a treaty, whether it affects the dominion or a province, which we enter into as part of the British empire. It may therefore be taken that wherever, as a part of the empire, a treaty is made by the parliament of Canada, this parliament has complete jurisdiction to deal with every phase of the subject matter of the treaty to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the provinces of confederation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the privy council said.


James Layton Ralston: The privy council did not say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, just those words.


James Layton Ralston: I am saying those are not the words of the privy council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am saying they are.


James Layton Ralston: I am saying that is the extreme position to which my right hon. friend is carried. But there is no convention at all. The Minister of Justice, in getting out of rather a bad hole in which he found himself in regard to having expressed an opinion on the invalidity of the eight hour day convention, indicated that he had expressed that opinion before there was any convention; but now, said he, there is a convention and of course I change my opinion.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Ralston
1 point out that in this case of unemployment insurance there is no convention; what is his opinion therefore in this case? The Prime Minister says that the minister believes that in this case, notwithstanding that there is no convention, there is a binding obligation on the Dominion of Canada. I leave my hon. friend the Minister of Justice to deal with that himself if he cares to. I submit that there is no obligation under article 427 and no obligation under article 23, and there is no convention. I submit to my right hon. friend that there is the most serious doubt as to the jurisdiction of this parliament to pass this bill.
Then I go one step further. Leaving all these legal considerations aside we have the declaration of the Minister of Justice who is the attorney general of the dominion, in 1933, which was put on record this afternoon by my hon. friend from Quebec East. That was after the radio and aeronautics cases had been decided, and yet my hon. friend was still asserting that it was the provinces which had jurisdiction over unemployment insurance. In 1932, again after the radio and aeronautics cases had been decided, my right hon. friend said this was within the jurisdiction of the provinces. That citation was put on reicord, from Hansard 1932-33, page 1452, the other night by my right hon. leader. Then we have the words uttered in 1929 by the Secretary of State, to be found in Hansard for that year at page 2776, which were put on record by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh), indicating the same view. When we have that situation do not my hon. friends, and particularly those interested in labour, think the proper thing to do in the first place would be to bring down the opinions of the law officers of the crown, in order to let this parliament see whether there is a possibility of this legislation really being good? Then do they not think, in the second place, that this matter should be submitted immediately to the Supreme Court of Canada in order that we may know whether we are going to enact legislation which, to use the expression of my hon. friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell), will be worth anything at all? In that connection I should like to cite what the Prime Minister said in connection with old age pensions. I quote from Hansard for 1926, at page 1970.
Faulty legislation placed upon the statute books the effect of which is to bring about chaos is very much to be deprecated. Anyone who has followed the course of legislation in any country, especially legislation of this character, will realize that where you rely solely and entirely upon experiments you have nothing 92582-54
but political action following political action and what was intended to be a great benefit has in many instances been a positive disadvantage to the very class it was intended to benefit.
Let me also remind my right hon. friend of what he said in a letter written to his former colleague, the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), as contained in sessional paper No. 99:
In due course a committee of eleven was appointed and you were elected chairman. From that time the committee had an absolutely free hand and no effort of any kind, shape or form was made to in any way limit or restrict its activities except that on more than one occasion we pointed' out to you the danger of creating in the minds of those interested. especially in the retail business, the impression that parliament could provide a remedy for the conditions of which they complained in view of the decisions of the courts as to the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures over contracts and price fixing.
I am pointing out the danger of creating in the minds of the people of the Dominion of Canada the impression that this parliament has the undoubted right to legislate in connection with the matter of unemployment insurance, in view of the legal position, and in view of the statements of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State. I say that even if this measure is only for the future; even though it will not take effect until next year, so far as practical benefits are concerned, we ought to set ourselves to do a workmanlike job in connection with it. If the Prime Minister fails to do that I submit that it will corroborate and seal the conviction in the public mind that this legislation will prove to be not a benefit but rather a gold brick and a sham, as being inadequate in its provision in that, as I said a moment ago, it omits three of the primary industries entirely and secondly in that it establishes a bureaucracy. Thirdly, and worst of all, it is a measure born not of lifelong convictions and practical activities in connection with social legislation but bom of a feeling of desperation, and a knowledge on the part of the Prime Minister that he is about to face the electors of the dominion, and that he must look for something with which to obscure the promises he made in 1930.
I say to the right hon. gentleman that we will do all we can to assist in making this legislation, the sincerity of which we are bound to doubt, just as workable as possible, but at the same time we warn the people of Canada, just as he warned his Minister of Trade and Commerce, that we see the danger of a false impression being created in the minds of the

850	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Bourassa
working people of this country with regard to the benefits which may be received from this legislation, in view of the very doubtful validity of the measure, which doubt is supported by the right hon. Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, before the debate closes I feel bound to express my disagreement with practically the whole house in regard to this measure. I am brought to my feet by reason of an observation made by my good friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) when he stated, somewhat mistakenly, that there were 245 fathers to this bill. I disclaim all paternity.
I am not going to develop my reasons for that statement, because it would be unfair to the house and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to prolong the debate unduly. I am opposed to this measure for many reasons. First, I am opposed to it bceause of the constitutional aspect which has been so ably presented by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and just now by the hon member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). For the life of me, I cannot understand how a single Liberal can vote for this measure after those three speeches. Second, l am opposed to it because it offers no cure whatever for the present unemployment situation, and this was handsomely admitted by the Prime Minister in introducing this measure. Third, I am opposed to it because it offers no relief in the future for a very large class of workers in some of the most important and permanent industries of the country, as was well pointed out by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth this evening. Fourth, because of conditions peculiar to this country such as the climate, the variety of occupations and the seasonal work, it is no remedy to copy a measure suitable to a country like Great Britain in order to cure an evil which with us is different and always will be different. I see in that another form of that old colonial spirit which thought that by copying anything on the statute books of England we were answering the needs of the people of Canada.
My fifth reason for opposing the measure is that it adds again to the load which is already weighing so heavily upon the shoulders of the ratepayers of this country; and when I speak of ratepayers I do not mean the wealthy ratepayers; I am speaking of that undefined class of small proprietors in the large centres, in the towns, in the villages, and a very large

number of farmers, who are already overloaded with taxes for schools and for the support of municipalities, provinces and the dominion, and who cannot bear any more taxation.
My sixth reason for being opposed to this legislation is that I find in it what I have seen growing in the last four or five years, and what evidently is going to continue to grow, whether the present government remains in power or whether my good friends here, the Liberals, come back to power. I refer to the tendency to purchase the good will of the various classes of the community by pouring public money into their pockets, favouring one class at the expense of a second, and a third class at the expense of a fourth. I have denounced it when it was a policy of high protection for industry; I denounce it now, because the effect of our whole so called social legislation is to debase the social spirit of our people, to create a fast growing class of beggars, loafers and crooked men, who expect the state to give them a living and who are endeavouring to avoid any individual or corporate effort to help save their own situation.
I am not going to deal at length with this or any other aspect of the problem. May I say that I have liberated my mind on this occasion and I may have further occasion to do it on other measures which will be presented to us. As a Canadian and as a friend of all classes in Canada, I believe we are on the wrong track towards remedying the evils that are upon us. No legislation, and especially no amount of money, will accomplish any good until we have created in the minds and hearts of all classes of Canadians a true social spirit. My good friend from East Hamilton knows about the experience in England in connection with this or similar legislation. Let me quote to him the opinion of a man who has given all his life to the welfare of the labouring class in England, a man whom I had the pleasure of knowing a good many years ago, a man who was then at the height of his popularity; I refer to John Burns. In the month of June, 1901, I met him in the city of London, after he had returned from a trip through Canada and the United States. I asked him to give me in a nutshell his impression of the labouring class in America as compared with the labourers of England. He said, in substance: "I will tell you frankly that the main difference I have found was this: The average American thinks of himself first and of his class after. We have been able to create a social spirit and bring about social legislation in England because

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Manion
we have educated the English working man to think of his class first and himself afterwards." When he spoke of the average American he was including the Canadian along with the workingman of the United States. Ho said that of course he knew if the conditions of his class were improved he and his family would receive the benefits.
After forty years of experience in public life, having acquired knowledge of what is going on in different countries, I state quite frankly that the chief characteristic of our so-called American civilization, of our so-called high standard of life, is selfishness, individual selfishness, class selfishness. Almost every farmer thinks first of himself and then of the other farmers. Almost every workingman thinks first of himself and afterwards about his fellow workers. Every class of workmen think first of themselves and of their special trade; they do not care what will become of the workers in other unions or in other trades-and likewise with the industrialists and the professional men. Of course, that is an evil common to all new countries, the individuals of which migrated from various other countries. They come to the new country for the purpose of improving their individual conditions. Their main concern was and is the acquisition of individual wealth. Then came the days of corporations which each individual joins to get as much as he can from or through that corporation, as much as he can from the public treasury and from the consumers in the country. That is the social spirit we have. If we wish to have social legislation which will accomplish good, we must first work out and make firm the social spirit of the nation. We must imbue the labourer, the farmer, the business man and the professional man with the idea that if he wants to get something from the state and something from his fellow citizens, he must be prepared to give himself, his family and his country the full benefit of his effort to ameliorate his own condition and the condition of his class, and to help remedy the conditions of his country.
The policy of spoon feeding which has developed since the war is to my mind an instrument of debasement of public virility and social spirit. Our farmers to-day in the old province of Quebec are fast losing their sense of honour and their sense of duty. Many farmers to-day are thinking of going into bankruptcy and following the example which has been set by so many industrialists and merchants, namely that of cheating their creditors as much as they can, and then getting money from the state to make good. What
will they reap from going into fraudulent bankruptcy? That is the object many farmers have to-day. I have had experience with labour unions, and I have seldom found a true apostle of the proper social spirit among the labourers. At times, in the city of Montreal, I have been called upon to act as a friendly arbiter between groups of labourers and their employers. What did I find? On the one hand I found the employer thinking only of one thing, namely imposing the hardest conditions he could on his men, and on the other hand I found the men thinking of only one thing, namely, wresting from the company all they could, with entire disregard for the good of the community.
I have spoken at greater length than I had intended, but so far as I am concerned, if this goes to a vote, I shall record my vote against the second reading of the bill.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to follow the practice which is so popular at the beginning of remarks, namely to say thai I had no intention of taking part in this debate. At the same time, however, since the introduction of the bill I have listened to the speeches of hon. members opposite and from time to time I have jotted down on a sheet of paper some of the illogical arguments they have used.
Particularly was I struck when to-night the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), with his ability as a master of jibes and sneers, attacked the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) because that right hon. gentleman, forsooth, had had the courage to say necessity demanded that some of the errors of the economic system of to-day must be corrected. According to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, apparently it is a greater crime to say that errors need correction and to have the vision and the courage to correct them than it is to be absolutely strict, as his leader has been, in putting into books, putting into speeches, putting into charts, putting into platforms and putting into the mouths of committees principles up to which he never lives.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bou-rassa) who has just taken his seat, put his finger upon the truth when he said-I may not be using his exact words, but I believe I express his view

that if hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken had any honesty in them they could not possibly support a measure which they have opposed ever since it was introduced. The hon. member for Labelle has been honest enough to say that he is going to oppose the measure; only a few moments ago he made that statement quite
852	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Manion
frankly. He says he will not vote for the measure because he does not believe in it, as is obvious from his observations. Hon. members opposite do not believe in it. But, not believing, not one is going to be honest enough to vote against it. They are claiming that it is unconstitutional, claiming that it is inconsistent, claiming that the right hon. leader of the government is no fit leader for this country because he has changed his mind in one or two matters. Yet, claiming all that, they will vote for the measure. When we come to a vote on the second reading or third reading not one man of the whole group on the other side of the house, with the exception of the hon. member for Labelle, will have the courage to stand up and vote against it.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth stated a few moments ago that the trouble with the Prime Minister was that he had electionitis, simply because he saw the need for reform. May I ask the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth if his right hon. leader had electionitis when in the last session of parliament-in fact I believe it was after the last session of parliament and before the last election-he was responsible for passing orders in council making legal the eight hour day, and only the eight hour day, on public works in Canada, and yet did not put it into effect? Did his leader have electionitis, when just 'before the last election he took out of the treasury of the countiy tens of thousands of dollars-I do not remember the exact amount-and handed it in extra payment to the charwomen, forsooth, of the city of Ottawa, just before the election, ini order to make sure of their votes? There is no doubt about the purpose of that move.
Was his leader suffering from electionitis when he travelled from the Atlantic to the Pacific and talked of Senate reform, and then never touched it in nine years when he got back into power? Was his leader and the former Minister of Labour, a colleague of my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth, suffering from electionitis when they travelled around this country and said, "We must have unemployment insurance in this country," and yet never did anything to put it into effect? The right hon. leader of the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth has done nothing in this house but talk of the principles which he upholds, yet did nothing to put those principles into practice when he had the power; and I say here that when the time comes the people of this country will have to judge between a man who always talks principles and does not practise them,
[,Mr. Manion.]
and a man like the present leader of the government, who may at times perhaps be inconsistent in some of his statements, but who has the courage and vision to bring into effect corrections of the economic system under which we- are living in order to save that system in which we believe. The whole boast of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth and the other side of the house about their leader is that he has been consistent and my leader inconsistent. Somebody much greater than I once said that consistency was the bane of little minds, and I think that is probably true. I would point out that one of the names in English history which has come down to us during the last half century has been that of Sir Robert Peel, one of the greatest leaders that England ever produced, one of the greatest men that ever stood in the British parliament, and1 yet a man of whom it was said that 'before he finally went out of power he had put into effect practically everything that he had opposed earlier in his career. Is it then a crime to change one's ideas if one sees the need of change? I think it was Abraham Lincoln who said that anyone was welcome to his cast-off ideas; and my hon. friends opposite are welcome to the cast-off ideas of the present Prime Minister, or of any member on this side of the house.
Hon. gentlemen opposite, the hon. member for Quebec East, the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, and even the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) to-night in that masterly and classical manner of his, have been spending hours in this house telling the people of our country that this legislation that is proposed by the Prime Minister is unconstitutional. Well, if they are convinced that it is unconstitutional, and that it cannot be1 carried out, as they say- that the provinces will prevent its being carried out-should they not honestly and squarely oppose the measure instead of doing as they are doing, expressing their opposition to it in speech but pretending that they are going to support it in action? That is the attitude they are taking. They tell us that they are for this measure. Without exception hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house, one after the other, except the hon. merhber for Labelle, have stood up and said: I want it distinctly understood that I am for this measure, but I want it also distinctly understood that the measure is no good, it is unconstitutional. And anybody who has the sense of an ordinary workingman cannot help

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Manion
but realize that they will do everything they can to make it unworkable if they ever get a chance to put it into effect The leader of the opposition the other day, in that two-hour weary and dreary speech of his, as usual, made the statement that his government could not put such a measure into effect because they had to balance the budget. Then he showed that they had balanced the budget, that between 1925 and 1930, he said, they had actually cut down the debt of this country by $240,000,000. That was the statement also made on a number of occasions by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, that they had cut down the debt of this country by $240,000,000. Well, if they were able to cut down the debt of this country by $240,000,000, were they not then in a position to do a little towards putting into force some of this social legislation that we are attempting to bring in, and was not that the proper time to put social legislation into effect, preparing for days that must come in every nation when times would not be so good as they were throughout the world between 1925 and 1930? But as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, one must not take hon. gentlemen opposite exactly at their word with regard to that $240,000,000, because, instead of cutting down the debt of Canada by $240,000,000 between 1925 and 1930, they added to the debt of the railways by $461,000,000. That is what they did. They added to the debt by $461,000,000, and if you take one from the other it leaves a net addition to the debt for which this country is responsible, although indirectly I admit, of $221,000,000 during that time. That is the actual fact.


William Duff: You have not reduced the
debt since, either on the railways or anywhere else.


Robert James Manion: Certainly not, and no one knows better than the hon. gentleman, who is on the railway committee, that it was he and his friends on the other side of the house who put the railway into such a condition that they added to the debt of the railway in one year, as was so well pointed out by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Bey-non) in an outstandingly able speech to-day, not $205,000,000, as he said, but almost $250,000,000.


William Duff: And you never opposed one
dollar of it.


Robert James Manion: One of our members stood up and did oppose it.


William Duff: You did not.


Robert James Manion: I have admitted that in the house before. I did not understand it, but hon. gentlemen who were sitting in the government of that day, and who should have known better, permitted the Canadian National to be used as a pork barrel from the Atlantic to the Pacific, building hotels, terminals, branch lines, acquiring dead lines, building steamships and other things, to the amount of $250,000,000 in one year, or over two-thirds of the whole national debt of Canada before the war.


William Duff: And you never opened your
mouth about it.


Robert James Manion: Maybe I did not open my mouth about it, but my hon. friend is very good at opening his.


William Duff: I do not put my foot in mine like you do.


Robert James Manion: Well, I could put my foot in the hon. gentleman's-there is plenty of room.
Between 1926 and 1929 there was a boom and expansion throughout the world, and the revenues not only of this country but of every country were expanding. That was the time, if ever there was a time, when this country could easily have put into effect social legislation. I made inquiries two years ago of the bureau of statistics as to what were the total wages and salaries paid in Canada in 1931. That was not the boom year, but two years after the boom broke; and I found that the wages and salaries paid in this country-not the dividends and interest paid to the richer people-amounted to $2,500,000,000. One per cent of that would have created a fund each year of $25,000,000. If, as the Prime Minister pointed out the other day, hon. gentlemen opposite had put some legislation of this sort on the statute books at that time, as they should have done, we would have built up a fund of one or two hundred million dollars with which to help bridge over the depression when it came.
Mr. CAMPBEIiL: You were in power then.


Robert James Manion: We were not in power
from 1925 to 1930.
Mr. CAMPBELiL: You were talking about 1931.


Robert James Manion: I was talking of the period from 1925 to 1930 when big revenues were coming in, and I say that in that period, at one per cent a fund could have been built ' up which would have helped us bridge over the depression.
854	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Manion


William Duff: You admit that we were
prosperous then.


Robert James Manion: Yes, but not because of
my hon. friends opposite. It was because the whole world was booming, and there was nothing that my hon. friend and his friends did to make us prosperous. On the contrary they did everything in their power, by allowing other countries to restrict their markets to us, to wreck this country in trade and everything else.
The right hon. leader of the opposition the other day spoke for two solid hours, and his lieutenants and supporters ever since have been giving constitutional reasons of all kinds, and various other reasons, why this legislation should not go into effect. They have proven through the Liberal convention and the reports of house committees in 1928 and 1929, and even by the book that the leader of the opposition wrote twenty years ago, that he has always stood for these principles, but he has never put them into practice. It reminds me of that rhyme-I may have forgotten the exact words, but it goes something like this:
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: "It might have been."


William Duff: "O wad some power the
giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us."


Robert James Manion: I did not catch what the
hon. gentleman said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Duff: Will the Prime Minister
please keep quiet.


Robert James Manion: About ten years ago I
compared the leader of the opposition to Mr. Micawber. When Micawber owed a debt he always insisted on giving a promissory note and thanking God that the debt had been paid, and the leader of the opposition has been apparently under the impression for the last twenty years that so long as he put in books, in speeches, in charts and platforms, principles which he never lived up to when he got into power, the people ought to be satisfied and happy. He has been on all sides of all questions, and any one of us, the humblest member, can take that book which he wrote and which I tried to plough through some years ago, being unable to finish it- and I never met anyone but the leader of the opposition himself who did finish it-anyone, I say, can take that book and prove that the right hon. gentleman has been on all sides of all questions at all times in any period in the last twenty years.


William Duff: You have been on two sides
of the reciprocity question.


Robert James Manion: I admit some of my inconsistencies; I wish my hon. friend would admit some of his.


William Duff: Mine are legion.


Robert James Manion: I know it.


William Duff: I don't have to admit it.


Robert James Manion: The greatest theoretical
reformer in this country has been the leader of the opposition. If this man Hauptmann who was convicted last night-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert James Manion: had had his abilities in the line of proving an alibi-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert James Manion: -he would not have been found guilty.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back.


Robert James Manion: There is nothing to take
back; I did not compare the right hon. gentleman to Hauptmann. My hon. friends are a little too thin skinned, after some of the remarks they have addressed to this side of the house.
I simply wish to point out that the Liberal party, ever since this measure was introduced, has been pretending cooperation and really opposing the measure. They have done as they have usually done with all the measures which we have introduced at any time in the last four years; they have been fault finding, opposing and offering destructive criticism. They have stood up when they thought it good politics and said, "We are for these measures;" but they put every obstacle in the way of getting these measures on the statute books. They forget that the world throughout the last four years has passed through one of the most terrible crises in its history. They forget that there have been thirty million unemployed, of which number Canada has had but a very, very small proportion, about one or two per cent. In all the industrial countries of the world there have been some thirty millions unemployed, and two-thirds of the world's trade has been cut off by the depression. But my hon. friends have deemed it sufficient for them to play politics, placing party first and the state second. Macaulay once said that none was for the party and all were for the state; but on the other side all are for the party and' none is for the state. And that has been so throughout the whole four years. In

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Manion
my opinion the people of this country realize that the Prime Minister has had the vision and the courage to recognize the necessity for correcting the errors of our system. Anyone who is not totally blind and deaf knows that the system under which we live has very serious errors. No system under which young men and young women, boys and girls coming out of our schools and colleges, find it impossible to get work; no system under which there are hundreds of thousands of people who are willing to work and unable to get work, who cannot earn the necessaries of life for their loved ones; no system that permits that condition is a good system. The system should be corrected, and my right hon. leader, the Prime Minister, is attempting to correct these errors from within. But my hon. friends are doing everything they can to prevent the system being corrected-what for? For purposes of party politics and nothing else. The leader of the opposition says that this measure will do nothing for those who are at present unemployed and that we are not worrying about the future. That is another attempt to capitalize discontent. Have we had any support from him during the last four years, and particularly during the last year, when we supplied $40,000,000 for public works?


William Duff: Did we not vote for it?


Robert James Manion: When it was in your constituency, yes.


William Duff: There was not a dollar in
my constituency and I voted for it.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend does
occasionally vote against his party.
Mr. DU'FIF: But you said a moment ago that I didn't. Be consistent.


Robert James Manion: I was not speaking of the hon. gentleman but of his party. His whole party opposed the empire agreements-


An hon. MEMBER:: And we will again.


Robert James Manion: -and to-night they have been criticizing the central bank. They have criticized the marketing act, and for weeks in this house they opposed assistance to the provinces, assistance to the municipalities, assistance to the railways, because the Prime Minister had the courage in a time of necessity to guarantee, at no cost to Canada, so far at any rate-and I do not think it will cost the country a cent-money for the Canadian Pacific Railway in relation to some of their commitments.


William Duff: We voted for it.


Robert James Manion: You may have voted for it but you talked against it. My hon. friends usually get in line and vote for what looks good politically, but they always stand up and oppose everything that is brought forward. We looked after the drought area in Saskatchewan, where there were 300,000 people on relief. This government took care of them and received little thanks from the members from Saskatchewan on the other side. We took care of camps for the young and we were accused of setting up slave camps for these young people. And we have safeguarded the credit of the country. Practically every measure of a constructive kind which this government has brought forward in the last four years, and particularly during the last year, has met with fault finding and destructive criticism on the other side:-in other words, party politics. That is what we have been receiving from the other side. They have been sitting by hoping that something would turn up to keep the depression going until an election came around, hoping that they would float into power on a tide of discontent.


William Duff: What about the Prime Minister, in his radio speech, priming the pumps?


Robert James Manion: So far as that goes, the reform measures will prime the pumps of progress and prosperity. I admit that my hon. friends opposite, and I say this as one Canadian to other Canadians-
Some hon. MDMBEiRS: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I say that they are just as good Canadians as I am; I do not question that.


William Duff: Y'ou didn't say that a minute ago.


Robert James Manion: Politically you are not. As Canadians my hon. friends are just as good as I am-


William Duff: Thank you.


Robert James Manion: -and I therefore appeal to them in this time of crisis not to talk cooperation and put up opposition, but to talk cooperation and carry it out. I admit that most hon. members really believe that it is time for them to get behind these progressive measures and to help us to put them into effect, instead of raising every objection, constitutional and otherwise, which they can
Government Business

think of, to delay and embarrass and obstruct the government at every possible turn. Instead of doing that I appeal to them to join with this government and assist us to put into effect legislation which will be beneficial to the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is obvious that I cannot reply to-night-


William Duff: Ten minutes yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am prepared to go on, but it will serve no useful purpose.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, February 15, 1935