[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. D. STANLEY (East Calgary) presented the first report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations, as follows:
That five hundred copies in English and two hundred copies in French of the minutes of its proceedings, and of the evidence to be taken before it, together with papers and records to be incorporated with such evidence, be printed from day to day; and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.
Mr. STANLEY moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
price spreads and mass buying
['1. (Soldier\tSettlement of\tCanada)-\nSoldier settlers\t\t\t.. .. 10,892\nCivilian purchasers.. .\t\t.. .. 5,783\nBritish\tfamily settlers.\t. .. 2,077\nRepaid loans\t\t\t.. .. 2,792\n\t\t21,544\n2. 25,000.\t\t\n\tInvestigations\t\nGeneral land\tfor other\tTotal\nsettlement\tdepts.\t\n$288,133 43\t\tSI.300,327 55\n213,000 00\t\t1,035,474 51\n213,000 00\t$18,000 00\t818,325 27243,000 00\t28,000 00\t740,692 80', 'Fraser River Salmon Fishery\n4.\nFiscal year\tAmount\n1930-\t31\t\n$2,379,845\t701931-\t32\t\n1,765,663\t691932-\t33\t\n1,338,725\t841933-\t34\t\n1,492,124\t36']
Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: Had the Prime Minister seen or was he aware of the contents of the pamphlet entitled "Price Spreads and Mass Buying" issued on July the 27th. 1934, by the Hon. H. H. Stevens, at the time Minister of Trade and Commerce, before it was released for distribution?


Mr. BENNETT:: The answer to this question is no, if the words "released for distribution" are used in their ordinary sense; that is, that there were copies of the pamphlet in question in circulation. If, therefore, the words "released for distribution" mean that copies were in circulation, I understand a limited number were, the answer is no.



Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: What is the amount of all charges collected by the government for assaying, refining or any other charge or fee collected from the producers of gold, during the calendar year 1934?


Mr. RHODES:: The amount collected to cover the cost of melting, assaying, refining and handling, was $337,53321.
3.
Fiscal	Soldier land
year	settlement
1930-31			 81,012,194 12
1931-32			 822,474 51
1932-33			 587,325 27
1933-34			 469,692 80
WHEAT SHIPMENTS VIA UNITED STATES PORTS*


Mr. BROWN:: Has there been any understanding arrived at between the governments of Great Britain and Canada, since the Ottawa conference, to the effect that wheat going via American ports should not be accorded the preference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This question as framed would seem to indicate that there was necessity for some understanding with reference to the matter referred to. The truth is that all that was necessary under the provisions of the British regulations was that there should be a through transit indicated by the documents accompanying shipments to show that the country of origin was Canada if the grain in question went through the port of New York or any other United States port. So that there is no question of understanding. But I make that statement in order that there may be no difficulty.


Albert Joseph Brown: If the Prime Minister reads the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) he will see the reason I asked the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I only answered the question according to the facts. I know of nothing else.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	How many soldier settlers remain in occupation of land's under the soldier settlement scheme as at January 1, 1935?
2.	What was the largest number of settlers occupying land under the scheme?
3.	What are the total expenses of the soldier settlement board for the years 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934?
4.	What are the total collections for the years 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934?


Mr. GORDON:: 1. (Soldier	Settlement of	Canada)-
Soldier settlers			.. .. 10,892
Civilian purchasers.. .		.. .. 5,783
British	family settlers.	. .. 2,077
Repaid loans			.. .. 2,792
		21,544
2. 25,000.		
	Investigations	
General land	for other	Total
settlement	depts.	
$288,133 43		SI.300,327 55
213,000 00		1,035,474 51
213,000 00	$18,000 00	818,325 27243,000 00	28,000 00	740,692 80

Fraser River Salmon Fishery
4.
Fiscal year	Amount
1930-	31	
$2,379,845	701931-	32	
1,765,663	691932-	33	
1,338,725	841933-	34	
1,492,124	36



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	What was the total number of relief camps in Canada and in each province on January 31, 1935?
2.	What was the total number of men employed in each of said camps by provinces, on January 31, 1935?


Mr. CAHAN:: Return tabled herewith.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-NOVA SCOTIA APPOINTMENTS
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Were any appointments made to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the province of Nova Scotia during the years 1933 and 1934?
2.	If so, what are the names of those appointed during each of the said years?



FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: What are the names and addresses of the registrars appointed by the federal government in the province of Alberta under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Return tabled herewith.



RADIO COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). It is based on a front page article which appeared on Tuesday in the Toronto Telegram, to the effect that the government proposes to abolish the radio commission and to abandon the field of radio broadcasting entirely to private enterprise. I should like to know whether there is any truth in the report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If one were called upon in this house to answer every statement made as to what is contemplated by the government one would be constantly engaged in answering questions, not transacting the business of parliament. As far as I know there is no warrant for the statement in question.


William Daum Euler: You ought to know.



FRASER RIVER-SALMON FISHERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I have a question to direct to the Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Stirling). Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the announcement made recently in the speech from the throne at Victoria that a reserve for power purposes has been placed on the waters of the Fraser river between Lytton and Ques-nel? If so, is the government taking steps to see that the salmon industry is protected, and that no rights are given that would interfere with the spawning of the fish in that river?


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice that he desired to ask a question of this nature. The attention of the department has not been particularly drawn to the matter to which he refers, but in November last the provincial Minister of Lands of British Columbia did write to the Acting Minister of Fisheries explaining that the portion of the Fraser river between Lillooet and Quesnel had been reserved by the lieutenant-governor in council for power purposes. It does not necessarily follow that a dam will be built there. But I draw his attention to the fact that authority for the building of dams across non-navigable waters comes within the purview of the province. The only authority we have under the Fisheries Act is when a dam is being built, or afterwards, to require the construction of a durable and efficient fishway which must be built and maintained by the owner or occupier, the place, form and capacity of which must be approved by the minister. If, however, the dam is of a character to make a fishway not feasible, then the minister may require the owner or occupier of such dam to pay him, from time to time, such sum or sums of money as may 'be required to construct, operate and maintain such complete hatchery establishment as will, in his opinion,, meet the requirements of maintaining the annual return of migratory fish.



EXPORT OF MEAT TO GREAT BRITAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) arising out of a report appearing in the newspapers the last day or two with regard to the bonus that is being given to cattle raisers in Great Britain. I see by the statement that the arrangement is to be continued limiting dominion shippers
Price Spreads

to no more than the average shipments for the corresponding quarter of the past three years. That I take it is the quarter commencing April 1. I would ask the minister what number has been shipped in each quarter commencing April 1, for the last three years, and to let us know whether this may mean a restriction this year below the number that were shipped last year?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: The hon. member was good enough to give notice that he was going to ask this question. We were unable to get the imports for the corresponding period without cabling to the old land. All we have is our exports. The information I have is this; the suggested quota covering imports of beef, veal and pork into the United Kingdom from Canada for the second quarter of 1935 is:
Pounds
Beef and veal	 504,000
Pork	 472,640



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: I
desire to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) a question. In view of the fact that last year the special committee on railways and shipping did not convene until very late in the session, can he give the house any information as to when that committee will start to sit this year?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) :: As a matter of fact I was speaking to
the whip yesterday in regard to the appointment of the committee. There is no use in the committee sitting until they have something with which to deal. The report of the Canadian National Railways never gets in until some time after the middle of March, and I have information that it will not be any earlier this year. There will be a bill shortly dealing with the estimates, and as soon as that is introduced probably we shall appoint the special committee; in other words as soon as it has something with which to deal.



PRICE SPREADS COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KINO (Leader of the Opposition):: I would ask
the Prime Minister if he happens to have seen what appear to be inspired statements that have been appearing from time to time in the press, concerning what we may expect in the report of the price spreads and mass 
buying commission, their recommendations and the like. I know that the commission is a law unto itself, but it does seem to me that the matter is one that sufficiently affects the privileges of parliament for the Prime Minister to say a word about it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only say to my right hon.
friend that the inspiration has not come from me. I have no knowledge of any terms of that report in any way. The commission is to report to the minister in charge of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the report to be laid before the governor ia council. It is not a parliamentary committee, although it was at first, and was continued by this parliament in the form of a commission. I suppose to that extent at Iea3t this parliament looks to it that the first knowledge that is given should at least come to the governor in council. In this case I am in exactly the same position as the right hon. gentleman; all I know of it is what I have seen in the press. As a matter of fact, when I was out of the city I picked up a newspaper and saw the statement as to what the recommendations were, and on inquiry upon my return I found that no report had been made, nor could I find the basis of the statements to which the right hon. gentleman has referred. I shall make further inquiry. But it is a commission reporting to the governor in council and not to this house or this parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assumed
that the Prime Minister would disapprove of the commission giving out any part of its report. Albeit it does not report to the house itself, it ought to make its report to the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wholly agree with what the right hon. gentleman has said, that any commission appointed by the governor in council should make its report to the governor in council and not give any public intimation of the contents of the report until the governor in council has had opportunity to release the report to the public.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. MelNTOSH (North Battleford):	I have a question to direct to
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). It bears on the future economic and financial welfare of the soldier settlers throughout Canada. Amending legislation was introduced

Unemployment Insurance
in August, 1931, May, 1932, May, 1933 and June, 1934. May I inquire whether or not any amending measure will be presented to parliament this session?
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Mr. Speaker, of course I cannot foretell what legislation may come before parliament. If necessity arises and it seems desirable I assume legislation will be introduced, but at the moment I think not.



BRITISH IMPORTS OF RUSSIAN TIMBER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: A Canadian press cable this morning states that the Hon. Mr. Runciman, president of the British Board of Trade, is to make a statement to the British house with regard to the agreement between Timber Distributors Limited and the Soviet government. It also indicates that the Canadian government has protested the agreement to the British government. Inasmuch as that statement will be made to the British house this afternoon could we also have some statement from the Prime Minister so that we can deal with the matter concurrently?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think on reflection the hon. gentleman will see that his question goes slightly too far. As I indicated the other day the position is that the Canadian government, through its high commissioner, had filed a protest against the inclusion of the fall clause in the contract between the Soviet union and Timber Distributors Limited. The result of that protest has not been made known to the government, and I am not in a position to make any further statement than that already made.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday. February 19, consideration in committee 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. Bennett-Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 27 (as printed; now section 26) -Determination of questions by commission concerning the rights of persons and appeals to the exchequer court.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps before we proceed with this section I should answer certain questions that were asked the other day by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guyshorough (Mr. Duff). I have checked with the department of statistics, and the information is that the number of persons over ten years of age gainfully employed in fishing and trapping, according to the actual census figures of June 1, 1931, was 47,917, and the number of persons over ten years of age employed as wage earners in 1931 was 10,421. The explanation given is that on the form of question put by the census enumerator the large number to which the hon. gentleman referred indicated that they had a share or interest in the enterprise.


Mr. VENIOT:: That is in fishing?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and they were not
employed in the sense in which that term was used by the census bureau. Therefoie the answer to the first question was that the total number of persons so emploj'ed was 47,917, according to the actual figures given on June 1, 1931, in answer to the request made by the census enumerators, but of those people only 10,421 were employed in the sense in which we have been using that term here.


Mr. DUFF:: Certainly there must be something wrong in the answers that have been supplied the Prime Minister by the census commissioner or the bureau of statistics. I hold in my hand the report of the Department of Fisheries for last year, signed by the acting minister, and on page 7 I read:
The total number of persons employed in the industry was 79,328, of whom 05,391 were engaged in catching the fish and 13,927 employed on shore in canneries and fish curing establishments.
The information given by the Prime Minister a moment ago differs from the information with which he was supplied previously.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is the same.


William Duff: It differs in one particular.
The only information he had previously was that there were only 10,421 people engaged in fishing and trapping. Now he gives us the figure of 47,917. I do not want to be critical because I realize that it is not the Prime Minister's mistake, hut I think what has happened is this. It will be noticed that
103S
Unemployment Insurance

the figure of 10,421 was for fishing and trapping. My belief is that the fishermen referred to here are those in connection with inland fisheries who are commonly known as the Izaak Waltons of the fishing industry; that is, the fishermen who fish by rod as compared with those who fish by net or line either in the great lakes or the ocean. It appears to me that they have classed them together; this number must refer to the men employed in trapping and in fishing by rod, not in the way we fish, by nets or lines, in the great lakes or in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. It does not make very much difference; I think there is a mistake, and I think that is proven by the report of the Department of Fisheries which gives the number as 79,328. From my own experience I should think that figure would be more correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I expressed the point that the hon. gentleman has referred to, that the report of the department showed nearly 80,000. As far as I could ascertain that included all persons who were in any way associated with the industry, including those who were concerned with canning, curing and matters of that sort in addition to those actually engaged in fishing. The figure 10,421 is repeated in the statement given to me as being a correct indication of the exact number of persons who, on the first day of June, 1931, reported that they were employed as wage earners in fishing. I think the difference lies in the fact that we are dealing only with wage earners as distinguished from those who had either a partnership or a participating interest in the industry itself.


William Duff: That is quite possible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister intimated that he hoped to be able to give me a statement as to the number of employees likely to be appointed under this measure, and also a more definite statement as to the cost. Has he been able to get any further particulars under those two heads?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That information is not
complete as yet. I do not propose to ask that the bill be taken out of committee until that information is available.
Paragraphs (a) to (d) inclusive agreed to.
On paragraph (e)-Proviso: appeal.


Mr. MITCHELL:: This is the section to
which I raised objection the other evening and the Prime Minister said he would permit it to stand so that both sides of the house could study it. I have not changed my opinion

in regard to submitting matters of this description to the courts. I believe that when questions of this character are taken to the courts invariably the workingman is at a distinct disadvantage, because the power and financial position of the employer permits him much easier access to the courts as well as the engagement of skilled counsel. I believe the commission itself should be the final court, but if an appeal is to be made to a court I believe that those making the appeal should appear in person rather than by counsel. I do not believe the employers should be placed in the position of being allowed to appeal from the decision of the commission, and to have counsel to represent them. I think they should be there personally to state their positions so that if necessary they might be cross-examined by the representatives of the workers. There have been many suggestions of appeal boards in connection with workmen's compensation, and t'he labourers of Canada have always opposed the institution of such boards because the worker would be at a distinct disadvantage and there would be brought into the administration of matters concerning workmen's compensation legal battles which in the judgment of the average working man would be to his distinct disadvantage. I should like to oppose sending appeals to the court, in the practical application of this measure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the hon. member
knows, in Great Britain it was thought desirable to provide for an appeal. His Majesty in council names a jmige who shall take the appeals under the employment insurance act. Usually, in practice, a member of the high court has been designated for that purpose. In this country however that would not be possible because it is not a unitary system of government, so far as the judges are concerned, and we might have varying decisions with respect to the same matter, a condition which would be unfortunate. Therefore we thought we were meeting the situation by providing for an appeal to the exchequer court.
A few days ago I listened with great interest to the statement made by the trades and labour council with respect to this matter, and I gathered that they were of the opinion that if the question of appeal were taken away under subsection (i) of the proviso, then the commission itself might refer to the court any question which was of sufficient importance to warrant a reference being made. I am rather inclined to think that that would meet the difficulty the hon. member has raised, and it seems to me it would be fair

Unemployment Insurance
to all parties. If that suggestion meets with his views we would accept an amendment to delete subparagraph (i) leaving it so that:
The commission may, if they think fit, instead of themselves deciding such question, refer the question for decision to the exchequer court.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would move, in amendment, that subparagraph (i) be deleted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the letters (ii) will be deleted, also.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: May I ask the Prime Minister if under the measure there is an appeal from a ruling or decision of a regional board? I understand there are provisions for a regional board. If there are appeals, do they appeal to the commission, and will the decision of the commission be final?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member has followed the provisions of the first part of section 27 he will observe that the first point to be determined is whether:
Any employment or any class of employment is or will be such employment as to make the person engaged therein an employed person within the meaning of this act, or whether a person is or was an employed person within the meaning of this act.
That goes to show whether or not the employed person is covered by the statute at all; the commission decides that. It is not a question for a regional board to decide or to deal with. Then we come to paragraph (b):
Whether a person or class of persons is or is not, or was or was not, a person or class of persons to whom a special or supplementary scheme under this act applies or applied.
I endeavoured to make clear the other day that that is one of the provisions that was found in section 20, and this is the section which confers upon the commission the exact power to deal with that point. Then we come to any question arising:
(c) As to who is or was the employer of any employed person.
The difficulty may arise when you have certain types of industry operating under the one roof. Then, subparagraph (d):
As to the rate of contribution payable under or in pursuance of this act by or in respect of any person or class of persons or as to the rates of contribution payable in respect of any employed person by the employer and that person respectively.
That is a question to be decided by the commission. So far as I am at present advised those are the only questions, except the matte '[DOT]s of operation and administration, with
which they have to deal-and not the appeals from regional bodies. The regional body determines with respect to some of the questions covered by regulations in a subsequent section, which probably the hon. member has read. But these questions are all to be settled by the commission. Then we have the question of appeal, which is now being deleted; but the commission may, if it is thought desirable, state a case. Then it will be observed that subsections 2, 3 and 4 determine the principles upon which the commission act. So that, so far as I can answer the question by memory, and having in mind my memory of the subsequent section, the answer would be no.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Would not the words "an appeal" in subsections 3 and 4 be deleted? I understand that the appeal provided in the former subparagraph (i) is being abolished. The Prime Minister will observe that in subsections 3 and 4 the expression "an appeal" appears. Strictly speaking, I believe if the appeal has been abolished, and there is only reference for a decision-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member is right.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
words I have mentioned in subsections 3 and 4 should, I believe, be deleted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the hon, member is quite right. We had not reached subsection (3), but we will deal with it. First, however, has the hon. member for Bow River any further questions?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes. The view expressed by the Prime Minister respecting paragraph (a), (b) and (c) of section 27 is very clear. Obviously the commission would decide in those, cases. I am not quite clear however as to the functions of the advisory board or the regional boards, if the commission itself is to set up the rate of contribution payable and to decide definitely in those matters. Further, I am not satisfied as to whether it will have the final say as to whether a worker was or was not employed. What are the functions of the regional boards? Are they simply to act as agents for the commission? Can an appeal be made to the commission from a decision of a regional board, in connection with these matters?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My answer to that was no, that the advisory board does not exist for the purpose of deciding in all these matters,
Unemployment Insurance

Its functions, as will be observed later, in the section establishing it, are entirely different. As to the regional board, it is what I might call a local or domestic body which exists for the purpose of dealing promptly with problem* arising within the region. So far as my memory goes there is no provision for appeal to the commission from a regional board. Rather, the regional board gives any information which may be obtained for the purpose of enabling a decision to be made on any local matters. The decisions are the decisions of the commission and not of the regional board. That is my recollection. However, as we proceed, if I find anything which will change my view I will point it out to the committee.
Then, with respect to subsection 3-


Mr. NEILL:: Before the Prime Minister proceeds to discuss that subsection I should like to make some observations. The Prime Minister proposes to strike out subparagraph (i), on the suggestion of the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell). The object the hon. member had in mind, as I understood it, was that of shortening the procedure and preventing undue expense. It seems to me however that the procedure suggested by the Prime Minister will not have the effect of shortening the procedure, but will take away from the worker the privilege of appealing, and will leave the factors of expense and delay. The commission may refer questions for decision to the exchequer court, involving exactly the same delay as if the man himself had appealed. The exchequer court sits only at intervals, and it is 3,000 miles from the Pacific coast, there will be the same trouble and delay to the man, whether he or the commission appeals. I would respectfully suggest that the commission's decision in these matters-matters which after all are mostly of a personal nature, such as that of deciding whom a man's employer may be-[DOT] should be final. I would suggest that instead of saying as it does in paragraph (ii) that the commission may, instead of themselves deciding such question, refer it for decision to the exchequer court, it should be merely left in such a way that if there is any question of law on which the commission want guidance they can themselves refer it in a general way to the exchequer court. But questions of fact, such as whether Tom Jones is the employer of Bill Smith, should not be thrown into the delays of the exchequer court.

I would also point out that section 28 seems to provide a ready procedure for having any appeal and also what I would call a regulated sequence from one body to the other. So why is it necessary to have a sort of parallel procedure under section 27?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question as to
whether or not under any circumstances there should be a judicial determination of any issue arising under this act is the question that has to be dealt with. I think it will probably be agreed by all the members of the committee that it is desirable for the purpose of removing doubt and maintaining uniformity that there should be a provision for a judicial determination of certain questions that create difficulties and sometimes are of great moment to the insured. We say that there shall be no appeal from the commission against any of its decisions, thereby meeting I thought the views which were expressed by the trades and labour council and the fears expressed by the hon. member for East Hamilton; that is, that the insured should not be put to the trouble and expense of having to deal with questions of litigation and the employment of counsel. But we do provide that the commission may, if they think fit, instead of themselves deciding such question, refer it for decision to the exchequer court.


Alan Webster Neill: That will put the man to the same expense as before in presenting his case before the exchequer court. It makes no difference whether the man initiates the appeal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very much difference, because in that case the commission would assign counsel, if they follow the usual practice, to argue the point, not on behalf of the commission, because the commission has not arrived at any decision, but the question to be decided is how the matter shall be decided. That is a question of law, not of fact.
Under clause 4 we provide that the governor in council may make regulations prescribing the procedure governing appeals under this section and those regulations should provide for limiting the time within which appeal or reference may be brought, and for the determination in a summary manner of any such appeals or references and for requiring notice of any such appeals to be given to the commission. The commission merely makes a reference and I would assume that the course usually followed would be followed in this case; that is, that counsel would argue, not on behalf of one class or the other but as to what should be the interpretation of the law.

Unemployment Insurance


Alan Webster Neill: That would entirely meet my ideas if it were on a question of law, but when it is a question as who is or was the employer of such and such an employee, is not that a question of fact?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry it is not. It is a question of law.


Alan Webster Neill: As to whether I employed Bill Jones on a certain day or at a certain period?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be a mixed question of law and of fact, but ultimately on the facts it would be a question of law.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It might be either.


Mr. HEAPS:: In a bill of this kind I think it is desirable to get away from the court if we possibly can. I think that in a large number of years of experience in the administration of workmen's compensation law it has been found on all sides that it is a desirable thing that the board in charge of the administration of workmen's compensation legislation should always give the final decision, and the board's decisions have usually been accepted by all parties to the case. Now if we are going to appoint a commission which I presume will be comprised of very capable men, I myself would be quite content to allow the commission to be appointed to take full responsibility for the administration of the act, for if we are going to have beyond this proposed commission the exchequer court which is going to give interpretations of law, and possibly decide questions of fact as well, I can see that it is quite possible that the commission as a matter of shelving their responsibility may be only too anxious to pass it on to the exchequer court. So if it were possible I would far sooner see the principle adopted in this act that has been adopted in practically all workmen's compensation acts, and make the commission entirely responsible for the whole administration of this act.
Mr. MacINNIlS: I wish to concur in everything that has 'been said by my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). One member of the commission is to be appointed after consultation with the employers, and another member after consultation with employees or employee organizations. That being the case, the point of view of the two classes is represented. But if there is to be an appeal to the court, although it is generally accepted that the courts of this country are eminently fair, yet after all the employees will feel that they have no particular representative in the courts, and for that 92582-66
reason I am sure it would be much better to leave the final decision except on points of law with the commission. I am sure that that would be much more satisfactory to the employees. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for North Winnipeg many attempts have been made in the past to secure appeals from decisions of workmen's compensation boards, and these have always been opposed by the workers. They have been willing rather to have the compensation board, whether they are composed of men with or without legal training, make the final decision in every case.


Edward Joseph Garland: Paragraph
(ii) which still remains in the bill reads:
The commission may, if they think fit, instead of themselves deciding such question, refer the question for decision to the exchequer court.
Since we have deleted paragraph (i) it is very clear that the only appellants to the exchequer court under the provisions of this bill will now be the commission itself, and there is a danger that that provision may be misunderstood or misrepresented. I think for the sake of the commission, as well as for the sake of the operation of the act it would be just as well if there were no appeal rather than leave it on a one-sided basis like this because the power of the commission to refer the question for decision to the exchequer murt really means that they have power to pass the buck to the exchequer court, and there is no doubt whatever that there will be the greatest temptation in the event of conflict between employer and employee to do just that very thing and escape responsibility. I believe that hon. members who represent labour distinctly in this house have raised a mighty good point, and that all appeals to the exchequer court should be eliminated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the act as printed came to the house it provided that either party aggrieved might make an appeal. The hon. member for Bow River is in error in suggesting that as it n-ow stands, the committee having deleted paragraph (i), the commission would 'be the appellant. It is to prevent that, that the section reads as it does. It is not an appeal that is taken; it is the statement of a case for the opinion of the court. Under our Summary Jurisdiction Act magistrates have the right to state a case of law for the opinion of the court, and that is frequently done.



Unemployment Insurance


Alan Webster Neill: On request, is it not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, on request, and sometimes I think they have the right to exercise their own judgment in the matter. But the question that is at issue is whether there shall be a judicial interpretation of the legal implications of this act. To say that there should not be because there is not in the workmen's compensation acts is to overlook the fact that in many cases actions may be brought for damages regardless of the workmen's compensation act, and in that connection you still have litigation against corporations carried in many instances to the court of last resort to have determination of the law. It would seem to me, if there is any doubt about this provision being against the interests of the workmen, that we might do this. In paragraph (ii) we say that the commission may, if they think fit, instead Of themselves deciding such question, refer the question for decision to the exchequer court. He might rewrite that and provide that the commission may refer any question of law for the decision of the exchequer court. That would obviate any difficulty such as that to which the hon. gentlemen have referred. I think the commission should be able to determine any question of fact as well as any other body in the world. If the hon. gentleman will let the rest of that subsection stand I will redraft it and provide that it shall apply only to a question of law, and then the commission themselves will decide whether or not that question of law is of sufficient importance to be referred' to the exchequer court for an opinion. That will relieve the workman of having to argue the case either as appellant or as respondent, placing the onus on the commission of bringing to the attention of the exchequer court the point of law at issue, and leaving it to the court to decide what it may be. There is no appellant involved when there is a reference to the court.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I suggest that subsections 3 and 4 stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: Has the Prime Minister
considered the question of costs before the exchequer court? I know it is a somewhat luxurious court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In fact, the hon. gentleman knows it indicates that.


Samuel William Jacobs: Well, that is a euphemistic
way of putting it. If the question arose as to thp payment of costs by the insured it

would be a case of the game not being worth the candle, because the amount involved in these insurance matters is usually small compared to the costs in a court of that kind, which usually sits in Ottawa where expensive counsel are engaged as a rule, and so on. It does seem to me that if the case is to go to the exchequer court some provision should be made whereby the commission in its quality as such should bear the costs, and not the parties involved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly the position in which it stands at the moment. The hon. gentleman did not perhaps follow the discussion that has taken place. We have eliminated the appeal of either party and have provided that the commission may state a case in law, if there is such, for determination by the court, which of course involves the commission presenting a case to the court. No costs can, be awarded against anyone, and if it is thought desirable by any body of employees that they should be represented, of course the court always provides that they can be heard. As it stands, the very difficulty *which the hon. gentleman properly points out will be met. I agree with him, although I have not had the same experience in the luxury of that court which the hon. gentleman has had.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I suggest that when the
Prime Minister reconsiders these clauses the question should be considered whether it would not be wise to abolish all appeals beyond the commission. I say that for this reason. The moment you start to refer questions of law to the exchequer court and questions of fact to the commission there will arise a fine distinction as to what is law and what is fact, and sometimes the line of demarcation is so thin that it is hard to determine which is the one and which the other. There is one other question I would refer to and that is as regards the workmen's compensation act where individuals still have the right to resort to the common law. But it is also a fact that when a person entitled to compensation for injuries sustained resorts to the common law he forfeits all rights through the workmen's compensation act. That is embodied in all the acts. What I wish to impress upon the Prime Minister however is the desirability, when he reconsiders these clauses, of considering the question, after consultation with those who are responsible for the drafting of the bill, of abolishing all appeals beyond the proposed commission.

Unemployment Insurance


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry I cannot
adopt that view. There are three parties to the creation of this fund. It is a national fund created by contributions, enforced by this statute, from the employer, the employee and the- state; and on a question of law, involving the question of liability, it is desirable that there should be a determination of that question of law in some instances by a judicial tribunal. In England there has been no modification of that feature since 1920, so far as I can find, and I speak subject to correction; I see no notice given in any of the books of any complaints made with respect thereto. The provision in England is that the question may be decided on appeal by the high court, or that the minister may refer it to the high court, and the other subsections in the English act are provisions that are incorporated in our act except with respect to the terminology that is to be used in dealing with the question of jurisdiction in England as compared with Canada. I cannot conceive that any difficulty could arise or any injustice be done to those- who are interested in the proper administration of the act; and now, having removed the possibility of appeal, it seems to me that we have placed the matter on a basis on which every citizen has a right and the state has a right to have the words that are used in the statute judicially interpreted for the purpose of determining exactly what they mean in their context and with relation to other parts of the bill. I am sorry I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. gentleman, but I think I have gone a very long way in meeting his views by limiting it to a stated case on a point of law.
Section stands.
On section 28 (as printed; now section 27)- Insurance officers.


Alan Webster Neill: It seems to me there is no
provision made for paying the insurance officers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is covered.


Alan Webster Neill: Section 29, subsection 5,
provides that the commission may pay such remuneration to the chairman and other members of a court of referees, and such other expenses, and so on; but I see nowhere any provision that the insurance officers shall be paid. These people are not appointed by the civil service commission and they do not come under section 8.
925S2-661


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has overlooked the provision that the commission may employ such officers and clerks as may be necessary.


Alan Webster Neill: That is section 8, which
provides that such persons shall be under the civil service commission, but these men are not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They do not all have
to be under the civil service commission. Section 8, subsection (2) provides:
For the purposes of any investigation, or for any other purpose of this act, the commission may, subject to the approval of the governor in council, from time to time temporarily employ such persons of technical and professional attainments as the commission may deem necessary.


Alan Webster Neill: But these insurance officers
,vill not be temporary. They will not be employed by the commission. This section which we are now considering provides that the commission may in each regional division employ such number of persons as the governor in council may approve, to be insurance officers for such division. I submit that they do not come under section 8.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would not be necessary to provide specifically for their being paid because the act makes such provision, however, if there is any doubt we can look into it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has any estimate been made of the number of insurance officers that will be required?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has not been done
yet.
Subsection (1) agreed to.
Subsection (2) agreed to.
On subsection (3)-Umpires, and deputy umpires.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Is there one umpire or
more than one?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is provided in subsection (3) that the governor in council may, from amongst the judges of the exchequer court of Canada and of the superior courts of the provinces, designate an umpire and such number of deputy umpires as may be deemed necessary. There will be one umpire and such deputy umpires as may be necessary for the purposes of the act. This is taken largely from section 12 of the English act of 1920.
Unemployment Insurance

Mr. MeINTOSH:	Will there be one umpire for each regional section or for the whole of Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: One for each regional
section.


Alan Webster Neill: Is it necessary to have a
distinction made between umpire and deputy umpire? There does not seem to be a distinction between the duties of the umpire and the deputies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the hon. gentleman
knows, the precaution is taken to provide that in case an umpire is ill he may remain an umpire and a deputy umpire would act. We have such a provision in every office from the highest down to offices of much less distinction in the state. It is always desirable to make provision for maintenance of continuity. A man might not be so ill as to necessitate the relinquishment of his duties, but on the other hand it is desirable to have someone act as deputy during the time he is temporarily incapacitated. That is the general rule.


Alan Webster Neill: I could understand that, if
the provision were for appointing a number of umpires. But the governor in council is to designate an umpire-that means one- and such number of deputy umpires as may be deemed necessary, if the deputy umpires have to do certain duties and then a report lies from them to the umpire, I could understand the situation, but there is no provision for the umpire doing anything different from the ordinary duties of the deputy umpires. It would seem that the office of the deputy umpire is not necessary. Why not say:
Designate such number of umpires.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only explanation I can give, having reference to the English act, is that this is done for the purposes indicated:
The governor in council may, from amongst the judges of the exchequer court of Canada and of the superior courts of the provinces of Canada, designate an umpire and such number of deputy umpires as the governor in council may deem necessary for the purposes of this act, and, subject to the provisions of this act, may prescribe their jurisdiction.
This bill as it stands at the moment, copied from the provisions of the English act, provides for three separate estates in considering claims: the insurance officers; the courts of referees and the umpire. To that extent it follows the general provision of the English act. The number of insurance officers rests with the governor in council depending upon the necessities of the case, and the appointments rest with the commission. That is
CMr. Bennett.l
a case in which the commission makes the appointments. It is the intention that there should be at least one insurance officer at each employment office, one or more at each divisional office, with of course the staff that has to be maintained at the capital where the commission will reside.	This staff and
machinery we confidently believe will provide uniformity of practice and procedure in dealing with cases and claims that may come, so that we may have the same sort of practice in British Columbia as we have in Nova Scotia. If there is any doubt about the matter-I have looked at the English act and I have looked at my own notes with respect to it-the clause may stand, and if on looking into the matter further there seems to be any necessity for clarification, I shall see that the necessary steps are taken.


John Campbell Elliott: What is the difference
between the duties of the umpire and those of the deputy umpire?


Richard Bedford Bennett: None whatever.


John Campbell Elliott: Then, why would it not
do just to say:
Designate such number of umpires.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the hon.
member for Comox-Alberni has just been saying, and I said that it follows the English act of 1920, section 12, which provides for the appointment of one or more deputy umpires. Presumably the draftsman has taken that from that section, as my notes indicate. The clause may stand and if there is any reason for change that I have not seen, I will redraft the clause.
Section 28 (now section 27) subsection 3 stands; remainder of section agreed to.
On section 29 (as printed; now section 28) subsection (1)-Court of referees.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How
many courts will there be? Will there be one in each divisional area or one central court?
Mr. BEN'NETT:	Necessity is usually the
governing factor with respect to that. The provisions of the measure are broad enough to permit of the widest possible establishment of courts to enable claims to be dealt with without delay and on the spot so to speak. I use the term "on the spot" in its proper sense.


Abraham Albert Heaps: These courts of referees will not be a permanent body; they will be appointed from time to time as the occasion warrants. Am I correct in that interpretation?

Unemployment Insurance


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would think the bill as it now stands does not contemplate the changing of the courts of referees as one proceeds; they will have to deal only with cases as they arise. The clause reads:
A court of referees for the purposes of this act shall consist of one or more members chosen to represent employers, with an equal number of members chosen to represent insured contributors, and a chairman appointed as provided in the next preceding section of this act.
That is to enable them to deal with cases that may come before them under the provisions of the measure. I do not think their duties will cease when they have dealt with the number of cases immediately before them, but they will be a continuing body.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Will it be a travelling court that will move around from point to point?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I explained some days
ago that the bill contemplated dividing the country into districts and within the districts are established facilities to enable cases to be handled with the greatest promptitude and the least possible delay. If it were less expensive for the court to go to a point where there was a considerable number of cases, the court could do so. There is no limitation on their doing so. That is the shortest way to put the matter.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Am I right in assuming that under the clause there would be a chairman of the court of reference for each divisional district, but there may be as many courts set up in various districts as circumstances require?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I was trying to say.
Subsection (1), agreed to.
On subsection (2)-Panels of members of courts of referees.


Alan Webster Neill: What will be the procedure for selecting the panels?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Once more I would say, having regard to the practice in Great Britain, if a court of referees were fully engaged at one spot, the procedure would be that you would take from the panel an additional number for the purpose of setting up another court to deal with problems that might arise there.


Alan Webster Neill: But as to the constitution of
the panels themselves?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a matter, as will be seen, between the employers and the insured contributors. The commission sets up the panels after they have arrived, I take it, at conclusions as to those who suitably represent employers on the one hand and insured contributors on the other. That was the purpose as will be observed in every part of this measure. Outside the appeal to which I have referred and which is no longer an appeal but merely a reference to an exchequer court, this measure is simply one administered by the employers and employees, and they themselves determine who shall be their representatives for the purpose of seeing that it is properly administered, the commission of course being the governing body. The duty is thrust upon the commission of seeing that "the panels of persons chosen to represent employers and insured contributors respectively shall be constituted by the commission for such districts," just as the hon member for Swift Current said a minute ago, "for such trades or groups of trades as the commission may think fit, and the members of a court of referees to be chosen to represent employers and insured contributors shall be selected from those panels in the prescribed manner."
The next clause reads:
Subject as aforesaid, the constitution of courts of referees shall be determined by regulations under this act.
That is the next branch. That is where the regulations come in. The provisions as to procedure are only a matter of detail.


Alan Webster Neill: I cannot say that I like that system. It seems to lend itself to political influence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How?


Alan Webster Neill: Because the commission which is a politically appointed body may, to come right down to it, nominate these people. It is all very well to say that they shall represent the employers, but it is not the employers or the contributors who are to do the choosing; it is the commission. The panels are to be constituted by the commission not by the employers and the insured contributors. They are merely some persons who in the opinion of the commission suitably represent the employers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true.


Alan Webster Neill: This seems to me to lend itself to a selection by the commission of such persons as suit them. This may not be on a political basis; it may be simply the class of people
Unemployment Insurance

who will suit them and still be all right, but it is not left to the employers and the insured contributors to make their choice. If it were left to them, I would be quite satisfied, but it is not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I tried to explain a moment ago that the responsibility rests with the commission for the administration of the legislation. If the hon. gentleman approaches the question from the standpoint of assuming that it is a political commission, obviously his conclusions are warranted. If, on the other hand, he concludes, as I think he should, that the commission is appointed by employers on the one hand and employees on the other and just as the representatives that go to the international labour organization, represent employers and employees and the question of politics obviously cannot be a governing factor in the matter, then I submit the commission cannot, with the conditions imposed, make selections for political or any other reasons than that the people selected represent on the one hand employers and on the other employees, called in this measure contributors.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If I understand this correctly, it would appear employees and employers would both give to the commission a number of names for the regional board and those names so submitted would be called a panel. From this panel the names would be chosen by the proper authorities. Under those circumstances I am not afraid of any political considerations creeping into the appointments of the referees.


Alan Webster Neill: But the trouble is that the hon. member is assuming something that is not in the bill.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think there will be any danger of any political interference, because the matter rests squarely on the people involved in the legislation, that is the employers on the one hand and the employees on the other. If I know the employers and the workmen of this country, they will see to it that there is no politics in the administration of this measure, because if politics gets into it, good-night to actuarial soundness. That is so obvious. I think it is one of the most important features of the bill that the employers and employed are given respons-iibility for its successful administration.


Alan Webster Neill: I admire my hon. friend's confidence.
Subsection 2 agreed to.
Subsections 3 and 4 agreed to.

On subsection 6

Remuneration of chairman and members; expenses of persons required to attend.


Mr. DUPUIS:: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he has in mind or if the experts of his department have figured the approximate cost of administration of this act. I understand there will be districts; I do not know if they will correspond to our judicial districts or if they will be smaller. We do not know what will be the salary or indemnity of the insurance officer, referee or umpire. I think it is most important to know what the salaries of all these officers will be, and what the administration of this act will cost.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. member was not in his seat on the occasion when I explained that the English act had involved an expenditure for administration of substantially 12i per cent of its revenue. They have a population of 40,000,000, and a very large proportion, numbering millions, come within the operation of their act. I indicated that if the sum total of the fund in any one year amounted to $42,000,000, which might be a proper estimate, the administration cost might be as high as 15 per cent in the first years. But as it is now framed it is clear that it will be very much less, because it will take nearly two years for the act to become effectively efficient, if I might use that term. So it is impossible to state with any degree of certainty what the cost of administration will be. It is not intended to indicate in the act what the commission should pay in the discharge of its functions. The amount that might be expended for witnesses, for instance, would be presumably what the witness would usually earn in the day he had to attend this tribunal. That must be left to the commission to determine by regulation. It would be idle for parliament to endeavour to deal with a matter of that kind relating to all parts of Canada, because conditions vary and would affect the terms of the regulation. Obviously there must be a large measure of discretion left with the commission in such matters.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Perhaps the Prime Minister could say whether the 12J per cent in Great Britain relates specifically to that part of the act dealing with unemployment insurance alone, or whether it includes the other forms of insurance in Great Britain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the hon. gentleman directed attention to that feature, because the act dealing with unemployment insurance in Great Britain deals also with the matter of assistance. The figure I have given covered broadly and generally the cost of

Unemployment Insurance
administration of the act before it was amended in 1934. That is my information. It will be recalled that there are special provisions with respect to the expense of administration of other parts of the act down to the first unit and the individual in the parish. From that up there are special provisions in the act. I am talking now of the broad general cost of administration.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then I am correct in assuming that the cost of administering the act by itself in Great Britain, apart from any other insurance in Great Britain, was approximately 124 per cent over the period of five years prior to the amendment of the act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is my information. Has the hon. gentleman any reason to think that the figure is placed too low or too high?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, I was asking as a matter of information.


Vincent Dupuis: Perhaps I might cause the Prime Minister to repeat himself, but is it understood now what the limitation of these districts throughout the country will be? Are they to be the same as the judicial districts? Of course, as I might say before a court of justice, I am asking these questions without prejudice to my belief that this legislation will be of no avail. I discuss it now perhaps in the same spirit as that in which the Prime Minister brings in the legislation, with the thought in the back of my mind that it is unconstitutional, that it will never be put into effect, and that it is only for political purposes. Nevertheless as we have to discuss it, and as we Liberals are ready to let the right hon. gentleman and his followers get out of the difficult situation in which they find themselves, it is proper for us to know in what way such legislation will foe applied in the country. The right hon. gentleman said the cost of witnesses could not be dealt with here but should be left to the commission. First, who will appoint the commission? Of course it will be the governor in council, so we might have a suspicion that it will be a little bit partisan. We cannot criticize the government for doing that, it is only human nature and especially the nature of the right hon. Prime Minister. I heard him last year-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Morand):: We are on clause 5. will the hon. member confine himself to that.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I am discussing it very properly I submit. I just want to come to the point. Sometimes it takes a little while to come to the point, especially when
we are not as clever as some of those on the other side. Last year, speaking in connection with redistribution, the right hon. gentleman said, "Do you believe, Mr. Speaker, that we the Conservatives, are going to make those electoral divisions safe for the Liberals."


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Surely the hon. gentleman knows that has nothing to do with this bill.


Vincent Dupuis: So I believe-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Vincent Dupuis: I am quite in order. I believe and I submit that the commission, being named by the governor in council, naturally will be induced to name partisans of the present government to these positions, and decide what salary will be paid. Surely we ought to know from the Prime Minister, who is one of the members of the privy council, what the salaries of these officers will be. I think he should have a word to say about that; I think the country has a right to know the approximate cost of administration. I do not think that should be given in a lump sum 'because, as one of the hon. gentlemen to my left has said, the 124 per cent in England included some other costs with regard to the administration of insurance in general. To say the cost will be 124 per cent does not give a very definite picture to the house and the country as to the cost of administration. We do not know the total, so we cannot know the percentage. I submit that we should know approximately the cost of administration so far as the wages of these officers are concerned.
Mr. MaoINNIS:	Mr. Chairman-


Vincent Dupuis: The first thing I want to
know is what will be the limits of the districts, and the second is what will be the approximate wages of the insurance officers, referees and so on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be within the
memory of those members of the committee who were present when the matter was discussed that this question already has been considered.


Vincent Dupuis: And decided?


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the leaders of
the hon. gentleman who has just spoken- apparently he has many-asked whether or not we had formed any estimate as to what might be regarded as a reasonable salary, and I answered that question. There is no salary provided in the bill; such salary will be paid as may be necessary to ensure a competent
Unemployment Insurance

person, for the position of commissioner. Of course I cannot hope to argue the hon. gentleman into a state of mind at variance with his present expressed convictions, but if he will do me shall I say the honour of reading the section of the act he will find that provision is made as to the selection of the commissioners. Whatever may be the rights of the governor in council with respect to the appointment of most commissioners, there is a distinct limitation upon the power of the governor general in council in this statute, a limitation that it seems to me is a very important one, for the two contributing parties, the employer and the employee, are to have representatives on the commission. It is the function or duty of the governor general in council to ascertain from the representatives of those bodies, called the employers on the one hand and the employees on the other, as to who shall be their representatives on the commission. The governor general in council, as representing the state in this instance, will be responsible for the selection of the chairman, or the third member of the commission.
So I have answered this question I think for the fourth time. I am not at all impatient about it, but if hon. gentlemen stay away and after sections have been passed come back and ask that we should review all that has gone before it makes it difficult to transact the business of the house. The other day I pointed out that such numbers of districts would be created as might be necessary for the purpose of administering the act. It would be perfectly useless to create districts in communities where there was no industrial life and no insurance. Equally it becomes necessary to create such numbers of districts in industrial commodities as will serve the interests of those who may be concerned, with the least inconvenience. As to the number of insurance officers, referees, umpires and others who may be necessary efficiently, effectively and promptly to administer the act, to-day no man can ansiweT that question. That must depend upon circumstances such as geography, location, ease of communication and matters of that kind. All these must be taken into consideration, just as in connection with old age pensions it was quite impossible to lay down in detail the method or manner in which an individual living at this point, that point or another point might be dealt with. Those charged with responsibility must be taken as capable of exercising that responsibility in the manner and form by the statute provided. That is all I can say. I have already promised the right hon. leader of the opposition that before the bill 
is taken out of committee I shall endeavour to give some estimate of the number of employees that might be necessary for the purpose of administering the act, including the labour exchanges to which we attach very considerable importance. Some effort has been made in that direction already and, as I say, before the bill is moved out of committee I trust that I shall be able to furnish that information.
I believe that answers all but one of the questions asked by the hon. gentleman. His other question was whether the boundaries of the districts would coincide with those of the judicial districts. The answer would be that they might or they might not. There is nothing in the act to impose uipon the commission the necessity of making the boundaries coincide with those of judicial districts, and on the other hand there is no reason why they might not.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Some of us in this corner of the house would like to know if the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville was speaking officially when he said the Liberal party were supporting this act just because they thought it was unconstitutional.


Vincent Dupuis: I am ready to answer the
hon. gentleman. I did not make any such statement. I am speaking for myself, and in doing that I believe I have enough to do.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Vincent Dupuis: I believe hon. gentlemen on the other side who laugh have too much to do to speak for themselves. But it is my own conviction that the right hon. gentleman is doing this because he knows that the law is unconstitutional.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
gentleman is compelled to withdraw that observation. I am a very patient person when I am dealing with a bill in committee, but under the rules of this house he is not permitted to say that I know this bill is unconstitutional.


Vincent Dupuis: That is the opinion the
Prime Minister has already stated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have already stated that I believe it to foe constitutional; if it were not that I so believe it would not have been submitted to this house. The act does not wait to come into operation; it comes into operation at once, when it is assented to. Therefore I should like the hon. gentleman to conform to the rules of this house and withdraw that observation.

Unemployment Insurance


Vincent Dupuis: I am ready, Mr. Chairman,
to withdraw that statement. I submit myself to the rules of the house because I am in the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I should like to say that if the hon. gentleman feels that way about the bill he should have voted against the second reading of it. I shall endeavour to provide him with the opportunity, on the third reading of the bill, of recording his vote against it.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to ask just one further question with regard to subsection (5). Is the right hon. Prime Minister satisfied that it is wise to leave the remuneration of these subordinate officers to the commission? Would it not be well to retain some control by .approval of the governor general in council? Commissions have sometimes been known to get the bit between their teeth and run away with themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a fair question,
but it is one that is difficult to resolve in the manner the hon. member indicates. I think he will agree that if we have confidence enough in the commission and place upon them these great responsibilities they must be left with minor responsibilities, under regulations. I think there is power in the regulation clause to limit any possible extravagant exercise of power.


John Campbell Elliott: Does the Prime Minister
consider that subsection 3 of section 29 would give the commission power to make regulations regarding the remuneration to be given to employees? I would not understand that to be so. If not, is there any supervisory power over the commission? Should there not be some approval given by the governor in council to the scale of remuneration?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will observe the measure provides that the widest possible powers, in the matter of making regulations, shall rest with the commission. The governor in council must approve of such regulations before they become effective. Therefore I take it any government will see to it that the very difficulty to which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has directed attention and about which the hon. member for West Middlesex has now spoken will be met and provided for. That is at least the purpose of the broad provisions made with respect to regulations, namely that the power of the commission to exercise the administrative functions for which it is created shall be exercised with the least possible restraint,
and that there shall be restraint with respect to expenditures beyond which they should not go as provided by regulations passed by the governor in council.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the point. I
have read carefully the power given to make regulations, and I question very much if the fixing of the fees to be paid to these various officers coming under the subsection would properly come under the heading of regulations. I do not wish to labour the point but it does seem to me that whatever fees are paid should be approved by the governor in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In his last observation
the hon. member directed attention to a matter of some importance. It would be quite impossible to administer the measure effectively if one had to send to Ottawa to get the approval of the governor in council for everything done. Paragraph (j) of section 38 states that the commission may also make regulations "generally for carrying this act into effect." I think the hon. member will agree that the construction placed upon words as broad as those is perfectly clear. I believe we could use the words "anything that may be necessary for the purpose of making the act effective." I have referred to page 28 in the bill, paragraph (j).


John Campbell Elliott: I understand that, but
I would call the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that that does not alter the situation, unless the power to make regulations includes the power to fix the scheduled fees or to pass upon the salaries which will be fixed under subsection 5. I would call the Prime Minister's attention to these words appearing in section 38:
In addition to the authority otherwise conferred upon the commission to make regulations under this act, the commission may also make regulations;
(j) generally for carrying this act into effect.
Those are the regulations. But if it is intended to include the power to fix the fees or salaries paid under subsection 5 of section 29 I would suggest that those powers be made subject to the approval of some body, either the governor in council or some other body.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I cannot add anything to what I have said. If this commission is fit to exercise the great powers conferred upon it by this measure, then it surely must be fit to exercise the power conferred upon it by subsection 5 of section 29,
Unemployment Insurance

and to determine the reasonable fee to be paid in a particular case which may come before it.
Subsection 5 agreed to.
Section 29 agreed to.
On section 30-Claim procedure.
Subsections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On subsection 3-Insurance officer may disallow claim or refer to court of referees.


John Campbell Elliott: I assume that when an officer allows a claim, that is final.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections 4 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On subsection 10-Decisions of umpire final.
Vincent Dupuis: Since under the amendment to which the right hon. gentleman agreed there will not be any appeal to the exchequer court therefore there will be no right of appeal, except by the commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; the hon. member has not quite followed. Perhaps owing to a noise in the chamber he has been unable to hear. The appeal with which I dealt was an appeal to the exchequer court which would be limited to questions of law, arising under the provisions of the section to which we were referring earlier in the afternoon, namely, section 27. As it now stands the limitation is provided that the commission may, if it thinks fit, instead of deciding such a question, refer it to the exchequer court for decision. That however has nothing to do with the provisions of this section which deals entirely with claim procedure. I may say the experience in Great Britain has been that there are now fewer appeals in matters of this kind, because the insurance officers are more familiar with the situation. I do not say they claim as a matter of course, but when conditions are complied with the claim is allowed. If .however there is difficulty in allowing the claim it may reach the umpire, and when it reaches the umpire there is no further appeal. That is final. That is not an appeal such as was provided for in section 27, which was an appeal with respect to matters distinctly limited under that section. This section deals only with procedure in connection with the adjustment of claims.
As the hon. gentleman is a member of the legal profession, I shall put it to him this way: If a client came to him with an accident insurance policy containing the usual

provision that under a certain arbitral clause that would be a final adjudication, he might avail himself of that clause and dispose of the matter. But on the other hand there might be a question of law as to whether or not the accident in question was an accident contemplated within the provisions of the policy. In such an event, and applying the principle to this measure, we made the provision originally that there should be an appeal. That is now taken away however, and if the commission decides that-going back to the hypothetical case-as a matter of fact the accident in question was an accident contemplated within the terms of the policy, that settles the matter, there is no appeal and the adjustment is complete. But if on the other hand the commission is doubtful as to whether or not this accident- I shall call it an accident-this circumstance did or did not constitute an accident within the policy, then they have a right to submit the question to a judge of the exchequer court for determination of that question of law. That is an analogy, I submit to the hon. gentleman, of what happens in his practice frequently. The question of the adjustment of the amount of loss even under a fire policy is a matter to be settled partly by arbitration, and the question whether or not liability attaches under the policy is a matter of law. In this case, it is not a question to be settled by the commission, it is not a question of appellant or respondent, but it is a question of reference to the court by the commission itself because of uncertainty. This section deals with the procedure necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the amount to be paid to the claimant under the provisions of the statute itself. There are some detailed modifications of the general principle I have indicated, but that is the general view.


Vincent Dupuis: I thank the right hon.
gentleman for his explanation. I understand that all these appeals to the exchequer court will come generally speaking from the commission. The right hon. gentleman may be surprised that I put the question, and perhaps he may come back and say that if I had been here earlier I would not have asked the question, but I do not think it would be proper or right for the hon. gentleman to say that. Another reason why I was led to ask the question was that he speaks so low that sometimes we cannot hear him. It is not one's fault if one is a back bencher, and I had quite a hard time to hear the hon. gentleman's remarks just before he took his seat.

Unemployment Insurance


Mr. POULIOT:: He swallows his words.


Vincent Dupuis: I am serious. If I am
wrong in my understanding of this question I want the right hon. gentleman to say so, and I believe I am wrong because he laughed when I put the question again. I infer therefore that an appeal will lie not only for the commission but for the insured. If that is so, it will not be very encouraging for an employee who is going to get from six to eleven dollars a week indemnity to have to go as high as to the exchequer court and take the risk of paying the costs of such an appeal. I understand that it is within the competence of the court to decide.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I do not
desire the hon. gentleman for one moment to labour under a misapprehension. I only regret that I was unable to make my explanation clear to him. It was when he rose in his place and said, after my explanation, that he understood an appeal could only be taken by the government-


Vincent Dupuis: By the commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -by the commission, that I realized that I had failed to make clear to him what the explanation was. I was a back bencher myself once, so I sympathize with the hon. gentleman.


Vincent Dupuis: It might be the last chance he has, Mr. Chairman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only assure the hon. gentleman that my progress forward was never accomplished in the manner he has used today; I can assure him of that. If he did not hear me I desire to make perfectly clear to him what the provisions of the act are. The act deals with the procedure for the purpose of collecting benefits. That section is the section now under consideration. That section provides that the decision of the umpire shall be final, and there is no appeal to the exchequer court or any other court. That is number 1.
Number 2. Section 27, which we were discussing earlier this afternoon, as originally drafted provided for an appeal upon the matters distinctly mentioned in that section, and that appeal was available to the insured or contributor. We have eliminated that, and what is left is not an appeal at all but the right of the commission, if uncertain on a point of law, to refer that matter to the court. I endeavoured by illustration, and I see that I failed in my illustration as well as in my explanation, to make clear to the hon. gentleman, who is a member of the legal profession, that if a client comes to him with a
fire policy alleging that his property has been destroyed, the determination of the amount that shall be paid may be done by arbitration without in any sense admitting liability on the part of the company. Then the company has, or I will say it may have, the right to say: We deny liability, and we desire that a case be stated for the opinion of the court as to whether or not under the facts agreed upon there is any liability under this policy in law.
This provision before us enables a reference to be made to a judge of the exchequer court by the commission to settle a point of law by stating that point and referring it to the exchequer court. There is no relation between section 27 and the section we are now dealing with, namely, section 30, which has to do with procedural matters in connection with claims. It will be found that the next section, 31, deals with legal proceedings. I trust that I have made the matter clear to the hon. gentleman.
Subsection 9 agreed to.
Subsections 10 to 13 inclusive, section 30, agreed to.
On subsection 14-References to claims for benefit; construction.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Surely this clause is not necessary at all. It reads:
In this section references to claims for benefit shall be construed as including references to questions arising in relation to such claims-
Surely that is understood from the previous sections that we have gone over. It continues.
-and references to allowing or disallowing a claim shall be construed as including references to determining a question in favour of or adversely to a claimant.
It seems to me that that is just a repetition.


Vincent Dupuis: It would take some effort to explain that clause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is taken from section 22, subsection 2, of the British act of 1920. It may have been that in the early days they were anxious to express themselves with great clearness with respect to these matters. In the British act it is in somewhat vaguer terms than are used in our statute. I will let the clause stand in order to look further into it. I cannot see that it serves any particularly useful purpose, but there may be some purpose in it, and I will look into it and let the hon. gentleman know.
Subsection stands.
Unemployment Insurance


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Shall section 30, with the exception of clause 14, carry? Carried.
On section 31-Penalty for obtaining benefit or avoiding any payment through misrepresentation.
Subsection 1 agreed to.
On subsection 2-Penalty for failure to pay contributions or for contravention of act or regulations.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Where there is a penalty involving the alternatives of fine and imprisonment the poorer person is at a disadvantage; he finds it impossible to pay the fine and in consequence is sent to gaol while the person who is better off, who can afford to pay the fine, escapes imprisonment. There are many instances where people who have been sent to gaol under such circumstances would have avoided imprisonment had they been fortunate enough to have the money to pay the fine. Would it not be possible to do away with this discrepancy? It discriminates against the poor man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before proceeding to discuss the point raised by the hon. gentleman, may I refer the hon. member for Swift Current to the provision contained in subsection 11 of section 8 of the English act of 1930, which reads:
In this section references to claims for benefit shall be construed as including references to questions arising in connection with such claims, and references to allowing or disallowing a claim shall be construed as including references to determining a question in favour of or adversely to a claimant.


Charles Edward Bothwell: It is exactly the same, except as regards the words "in relation to."


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was as late as 1930 that they put that provision in. I fancy that some very enterprising lawyer raised the question as to jurisdiction of the authorities to inquire into a collateral circumstance in connection with a claim, and this removes doubt in that regard. That is the only explanation I can think of.


Charles Edward Bothwell: It seems to me that this bill is involved enough without adding unnecessary clauses.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree, and that is why I take it that this subsection is inserted, because the hon. gentleman knows how technical lawyers have sometimes become with respect to these matters, and the court feels bound by the exact terms of the statute. This removes doubt. I trust my hon. friend sees no reason why the provision should not stand.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I take no exception.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Shall subection 14 of section 30 carry? Carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps it will be within the recollection of some members of the committee, of one at least, that there was a statutory inquiry with respect to abuses under the original act passed in England and it became necessary to have very stringent regulations and in some instances severe penalties imposed for the purpose of preventing frauds under the act. This section, which is taken largely from the English act of 1920 and other provisions of it, as late as 1927 and 1934, contemplates imprisonment not beyond a given number of months. That leaves it open for the magistrate to impose a single day; or he may decide to follow the example of a very distinguished English judge and say to the defendant, "You have been in this court since morning, have served your sentence, and are now discharged." That may be the case, but this is put in as a deterrent rather than as a punishment; this provision is intended to deter rather than to punish. That is the purpose of it, and I think that on reflection the hon. gentleman will see that perhaps in an act of this sort it is desirable to follow that course.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I readily understand the argument of the Prime Minister, but every hon. member will realize the discrepancy between a fine of $50 and imprisonment for three months. The Prime Minister knows that it is within the jurisdiction of any judge to impose the full penalty and my greatest objection is the fact that while some people may be in a position to pay the fine and escape imprisonment the poor man will have to go to gaol. The Prime Minister must realize that great injustice might be done.
I fully appreciate what he has said, and no doubt if he were administering the act himself the same arguments that he has used would appeal to him. But the fact remains that we are arming a judge or a justice of the peace with what might prove to be a dangerous weapon. Everyone knows that very often it is easy to pay a fine of $50 and escape three months' imprisonment. There is no equilibrium between the two penalties and a great danger lies in this provision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say I appreciate the observations of the hon. gentleman; but may I refer him to the experience of this country during the last two or three' years in the matter of relief. The only way in which an adequate deterrent could be exercised was to bring home to those who endeavoured to defraud the country the

Unemployment Insurance
seriousness of the situation. It is most likely -I think highly probable-that any magistrate or justice of the peace would be particularly anxious not to deal harshly with any person under the act; but the fact that an offender might find himself faced with the punishment of a fine of only $5 or $2 would be to create a very great wrong against his fellows. And it is to deter him from that that this provision is inserted. The very observations made by the hon. gentleman support the view I have expressed, because he himself says that it is a very severe penalty. Now, the whole purpose of the act is not to punish but to deter, and if the hon. gentleman keeps that fact in mind he will have no difficulty, I think, in reconciling this section with his views.
Subsection 2 agreed to.
Subsection 3 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 32-Power to take and conduct proceedings.
Section agreed to.
On section 33-Civil proceedings by employee against employer for neglect to comply with act.
Alan Webster Neill: I would direct attention to the latter part of subsection (1), in which it is provided that if an employer has neglected to pay the sums he collected from his employee, and the employee in consequence thereof loses the benefits for which he paid and to which he is entitled, the employee shall be entitled to recover from the employer as a civil debt a sum equal to the amount of unemployment benefit so lost. That would arise only where an employer deducted the money properly from his employee and failed to hand it over, and it would be a rare occurrence; it would almost always happen in some fly by night company on the eve of bankruptcy. In that event liability for a civil debt to the employee would be of no use at all to the employee, and an injustice would be done which would make the act very unpopular among a large section of people to whom it had been heralded. I hesitate to venture into the realm of law, but is there not some provision in connection with chattel mortgages and also the transfer of notes, providing for what is known as the protection of an innocent purchaser? Could not the employee be held to be in the same position, in which event
his remedy would not lie in a civil debt against the delinquent employer but he would collect the benefit for which he himself had actually paid, and the commission would either stand the loss or proceed against the defaulting employer? I submit that question to the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact, this does not lessen or abrogate the right to proceed criminally against the employer if he has wrongfully converted to his own use moneys collected. This deals with the case of default that is short of criminality and at the same time lays the foundation for an action to recover the amount. The point made by the hon. gentleman is a technical question, but it would disturb the actuarial basis of the fund if to any substantial extent moneys were paid to a claimant when contributions had been made only by one party, the state, and none by either the employer or the employee. The fact that the employer has stolen the proceeds shall not operate against the employee's recovering them. The commission, I fancy, will exercise under its powers extreme care with respect to matters of that kind. You cannot always guard against the weaknesses of the human element in any of these matters. I think the hon. gentleman has had experience enough to know how extremely difficult if not impossible it is to guard against every contingency of that nature. I think the measure contemplates that the greatest promptness shall be exercised, because we are down to the weekly benefit, the lowest unit which could be used. I quite appreciate the point raised by the hon. member, but I do not think it can be dealt with in the way he suggests.


Alan Webster Neill: I was not worrying about
the legal aspect or the liability for a criminal offence. It simply means that this man after paying, for months, perhaps for years, believing in the integrity of his employer, claims the benefit and is refused with the statement that he should sue somebody who is a thousand miles away and has disappeared. Such a thing will make the act seem horribly unfair to the people it is supposed to benefit. The Prime Minister says that the actuarial basis of the measure might be disturbed, but such a thing will happen very seldom and it will be quite easy to take that into consideration' in drawing up the basis. It is one of those things that will be regarded as grossly unfair to the employee, and it is not going to affect to any substantial extent the financial element in the fund itself.
Unemployment Insurance


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman by the statement he made just now has answered his difficulty. He said that the man might find, after having paid for months, that his employer had converted the funds to his own use. That could not happen beyond a few weeks because the function of collecting with the lowest unit of time, namely a week, is covered by the bill, and when the assessments are made they must be paid within a reasonable time after that or else the commission is at once after the delinquent for the purpose of finding out why the assessments have not been paid. That is the answer.


Alan Webster Neill: But the Prime Minister must admit that this legislation will deal with industries in remote places. The employer has, I understand, to send the payments in weekly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the unit.


Alan Webster Neill: Suppose it is discovered at
Ottawa that Bill Jones has not sent in his payments for a certain period; the civil service here does not move very rapidly. It would be a week or two before they would get round to notifying him. The mail service where he lives is only three times a month. In that case months might pass before he was stirred up and by that time it might be found that the man had left the country. I admit this might not go on for years, but it might go on for months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the hon. member said months.


Edward Joseph Garland: There is
this point which the Prime Minister might consider when he is answering the hon. member for Comox-Alberni: why should the employee be obligated to take the civil action? These moneys are due to the commission, to the trust fund, and in my opinion it is the commission that should take the civil action. The employee should not be under any liability in connection with the case at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is much force in what both the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni have said in that regard, but the reason is obvious. It may be we can overcome the difficulty. The reason is that the person who has suffered by default on the part of the employer is entitled to bring the action because he has actually lost the benefit. If the commission does this, of course it does it not as the loser of the benefit, but as the organization supposed to collect the benefit. I may say to the hon. member for fMr. Neill.]
Comox-Alberni that the reason why provision is made in this legislation for stamps is to deal with those cases so far remote that it is difficult to keep closely in touch with them quickly. I do not think under the regulations as framed under the bill there will be the slightest difficulty, because they will provide that there shall be some evidence forthcoming to the employee that the employer has made the payment for the week, in remote communities by stamps purchased from the post office. There is always a post office even in the remote sections. That is the safeguard. But I am quite willing that the subclause should stand and I shall look further into the question whether the commission might not bring the action, although it is purely a technical matter in connection with the right of a person to bring the action other than the person who has suffered the loss and is entitled to the benefit. That is purely a matter of law.


Alan Webster Neill: To follow up what the hon. member for Bow River has said: would a comparable case not be if I had paid my taxes and the government official who had collected them had absconded with them? I would not be told to go and sue that official.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a great difference between paying taxes to a government official and a contribution to a fund. The question is purely a technical one. If there is any way to overcome the technical difficulty, it will be done.
Subsection 1 stands.
Subsections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 34-Inspection.
Subsections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On subsection 3-Penalty for delay or obstruction of inspection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hear an hon. member say, "severe." This is rather severe. The provisions are drastic, but the committee will recall that in connection with inspection, the international labour organization has expressed the strongest possible opinion, and if we aTe to make effective the legislation we must clothe the officials with extraordinarily great powers to do so. This follows the provisions of the last modification of the English act so far as may be necessary for that purpose, but there has been little or no change in the English act since 1920.

Unemployment Insurance


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I see in the English act they have a provision that no one is supposed to give up or submit any documents that might incriminate him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think our act is sufficiently broad without that.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsection 4 agreed to.
Section 34 agreed to.
On section 35, subsection 1-Unemployment insurance fund.
Peter John Veniot: I suppose it would not be in order under this clause to discuss the matter of the actuarial computation. Is there not another section held over?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I held the section over for the hon. gentleman.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 2-Contributions out of moneys provided by parliament.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If the fund to be created under this act had a deficit would the deficit be made good by vote of parliament in a subsequent year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is of course touching upon the vital point that gave so much concern in England, and which still is doing so. This act does not contemplate a deficit: that is all I can usefully say. I can answer his question purely as a lawyer by saying that parliament can of course cure any defect in respect to it, and make good any deficit that might arise, whether after or before the fact. Parliament's power would extend that far. But the act is based on the assumption that there will not be a deficit.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is also based on certain insurable employments and certain excepted employments. We had a general discussion the other evening as to whether the commission as such could take any excepted employments and make them insurable. Naturally if that were done it would alter the actuarial basis of this bill. Does the Prime Minister mean to convey that the actuarial basis is sound enough to make the scheme carry itself even if any of the excepted employments were taken in?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If they were analogous employments that would be so; and it is in the power of the commission to deal with anomalies under the act. If for instance the British Columbia loggers were brought under the act it could not interfere with the solvency of the fund.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: After the discussion the other evening I looked up the anomalies sections of the British act. There I think they are very much restricted as to how far they can add employments. Of course under the 1934 act practically everyone is included, but before that it was limited. Unless there is some direction from this committee to the commission I am afraid the commission are going to be very much restricted in their power to transfer any employment from the excepted class to the insurable employments. I still think that would affect to a certain extent the financial basis of the fund. The point I want to establish is that if such took place, would application have to be made by the minister to parliament for further funds, in case the present basis were not enough to carry the scheme?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is quite obvious that under the terms of this statute as printed the payment into the fund of moneys other than those received from sources one, two and three, the latter being the state itself, is not contemplated. And the limitation imposed in the section now under consideration upon the payments to be made by the state does not of course deal with the costs of administration. There is power to make payments under governor general's warrant, but as the hon. gentleman knows as a former minister, no governor general's warrant can be permitted to stand without having an estimate placed before the house to cover the amount mentioned in the warrant. So I think I must answer his question in the negative.
With respect to the anomalies clause I also looked into it since we were last discussing it. Under the English act the provisions were rather restrictive, and if there is any doubt with respect to some of these matters I propose to make it clear. But it is not contemplated that the commission as such can enlarge the scope of the act except with respect to matters that will not change the actuarial basis. I am advised that the introduction of additional numbers of substantially the same class would have no other effect than that of increasing the number participating.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So that generally speaking any of the excepted classes cannot be brought under the insurable employments clause except by action of some future parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the general
principle, yes.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) I think yesterday cited a class of individuals that he said investigation
Unemployment Insurance

had shown would very seldom ask for any benefits. Consequently I judge that they would be a very desirable class, from the actuarial standpoint, to have in the scheme. The Prime Minister said in that case they could be taken out under the anomalies clause. Would not that upset the actuarial basis?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it was not the
anomalies clause, if the hon. gentleman will pardon me. There is a special provision to deal with that particular matter. That is the reason that we have had to say firmly that we will not agree to take particular people out of this act, the very reason the hon. gentleman has mentioned. The class that it is desirable to have within the act is the class that will make the fewest claims. Life insurance companies are always anxious to have good risks, with whom the actual length of life far exceeds the expectation on which the computation of premiums is based. That is so in the case of this act as well.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think the Prime Minister has stated on several occasions that this bill essentially follows the English act. I find that under the English act the contributions by the employer, the employee and the state are approximately the same. I believe under the last amended act of 1934 contributions by the state, the employer and the employee are ten pence each. Prior to that they were eight pence by the employer, seven pence for the employee, and seven pence by the state. Now according to this clause the government are to pay one-fifth of fifty cents, which is ten cents, and in addition are to assume the total cost of administration. It is true, as pointed out on several occasions, that under the English act the cost of administration is borne out of the total contributions to the fund. If I am right, twelve and a half per cent of fifty cents works out at about six and a half cents which the government will have to contribute as cost of administration. If I take then the ten cents that they are going to contribute plus six and a half cents as the cost of administration, the government's contribution to the scheme will be sixteen and a half cents, or about two-thirds of what employer and employee together are to contribute. If in the main this bill follows the British act, I feel that the government should be just as generous or ready to support the fund in the same ratio as do the government of Great Britain. Their contribution should be equal to that of employer and employee; it should be twenty-five cents at least for persons over the age of twenty-one. I should like to know why, if the British act is to be followed all through, IMr. Neill.]
it is not followed in this regard, and the contribution by the state made the same as that of employer and employee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I explained a few days ago to the hon. gentleman that the cost of administration that is to be paid by the state comes not out of the fund at all but from money provided by parliament for that purpose. The uncertainty as to the cost of administration governed the determination as to the amount to be paid into the fund by the state. That has been settled at one-fifth of the contribution, and if later experience warrants of course there can be such change as may be necessary, but we must proceed upon the assumption that we are conducting a solvent and safe undertaking. For that reason this has been thought desirable. It cannot be argued that because we have followed the English act in most particulars we should follow it in every particular, because the sums payaible here are not the sums payable in England. As I have said, however, in a broad and general sense this statute is founded upon the English act, and whenever I was asked I gave the sections of the English acts from which this act has been drawn. This section, dealing with financial provisions, has engaged very closely the attention of the government, and after very much consideration it has been thought that at the present time it would be undesirable to go beyond what is provided in the act. That is the arbitrary determination of the issue in the experience in Great Britain and our knowledge of conditions in this country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A few moments ago the Prime Minister said that naturally it was desired to get the best risks. In that connection I desire to read a telegram which I received only to-day:
Be unemployment insurance we emphatically suggest that such good risks as banking, insurance and financial businesses be included as see no reason why they should not help lighten the burden by contributing to fund. Suggest also that if lumber and fishing are exempt construction industry being equally seasonal should also be exempt otherwise fund would be unfairly burdened.
That is from the Pacific Lime Company of Vancouver. I think there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction that some of these good risks are not included and also that some of the bad risks are.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think upon analysis it will be found that the reasons for the noninclusion of banking and financial institutions are most excellent. According to the investigations made in Great Britain, referred to in the report of the last royal commission,

Unemployment Insurance
there were no claims against the fund at all from those sources. They had their own scheme on a very large scale, and it was not thought desirable to have two. We are being pressed very strongly every day not to include in these schemes some of those already included on the ground that they have their own arrangements in matters of this kind. We have taken the position that we cannot do that in fairness to the fund itself and those who will receive benefits under it. The position of the financial institutions is different; it was never intended to cover them. They are not industrialists in that sense, and to bring them in just for the purpose of taking money which they are already paying to someone else is not the purpose of the statute. This measure is just what its title indicates; it is created for the purpose of dealing largely with industrial undertakings. That is the whole idea; it is intended to include shops, industries, railway companies and undertakings of that kind. Many of these people press very strongly that they should not be included, and they put their case on the very basis that was outlined by the hon. member for North Waterloo. There must be a determination of this issue, and we have accepted the principle that was adopted in Great Britain.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Do all the banks in Canada provide schemes for the insurance of their employees?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a question I am not in a position to answer, but I can say that I have knowledge of at least four or five Schemes of this kind.


Peter John Veniot: Some do not.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 3-Withdrawals.
Alan Webster Neill: Is it proposed that these moneys will be paid weekly or monthly to the beneficiaries?
Mr. BENNETT1: Weekly.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
On subsection 7-Deposits in chartered banks.
Edward Joseph Garland: Is there any provision in the Bank of Canada Act that prevents deposits being made with the Bank of Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will perhaps remember that the Bank of Canada does not contemplate checking accounts by 92582-67
anyone. In order to overcome that difficulty and permit the Bank of Canada to be the depository of the fund, subsection 3 of section 35 enables two commissioners to withdraw the money from chartered banks. In order that there may be no question as to the earmarking of the fund that may be credited or deposited in a chartered bank it is provided that, although it is away from the original depository, it still shall be regarded as part of that fund.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 8-Pledging of securities to procure loans.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: What is the meaning of the words, "any of the securities of the fund"? Would that be actual cash? There would be no notes receivable or things of that kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is contemplated that there may be a fund as large as $40,000,000 in a year. Therefore it is possible that investments may have to be made at one time and that at a later period instead of selling the investments it may be desirable to borrow, pledging with the Bank of Canada any of the securities of the fund. That is the reason for this section.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 9-Extension of powers of Bank of Canada.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is it the usual practice to amend one act by the insertion of a clause in another? We are really amending the Bank of Canada Act by this subsection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is quite correct, and it is not the usual practice to amend one statute by the provisions contained in another. But where the amendment is so slight as merely to permit money to be deposited and withdrawn, it was thought undesirable to amend the Bank of Canada Act to that extent. I think the hon. gentleman will agree that with an amendment so slight as that indicated here it serves a useful purpose to do it in this way rather than to amend the other act.


Mr. POWER:: May I point out that the Bank of Canada is authorized to do two things? I believe that under subsections 4 and 5 it is really authorized to make the investments. Is that not so?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.

Unemployment Insurance


Charles Gavan Power: It is not only authorized to accept deposits, but I understand that it is also to have a sort of general supervision of the investment fund.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will observe that under subsection 6 the Bank of Canada shall be employed to carry out transactions authorized by the said committee under the last preceding subsection of this section; in other words they become the fiscal agent of the commission, and the sum standing to the credit of the fund which is not required to meet current expenditure may be invested in obligations, payable in Canadian currency, of or guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada or any province of Canada, and investments so made may be sold or exchanged. These transactions may be carried on in the manner indicated under subsection 5, and to the extent to which it is possible to utilize the existing machinery-


Charles Gavan Power: It is not the bank as such; it is the governor?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section agreed to.
On section 36-Establishment of unemployment insurance advisory committee.
On subsection 1.
HEAPS:	As I read this clause I am
just wondering whether it is necessary to have such an advisory committee. There may be good reasons for this provision, but I am afraid that if we have too many organizations under the act we are apt to have a division of authority which may militate against its successful operation. Personally I think the powers that are to be vested in the advisory committee might be very easily assumed by the commission that is to be appointed. Let them have the authority. I think the commission will be very able, and it does not appear that the duties of this advisory committee will be arduous. Having in mind the other committees to be appointed under the measure I have the impression that the measure may work considerably better without the committee in question.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, for the
purposes of this measure there is no more important section than the one now under consideration. The maintenance of the solvency of the undertaking is of paramount importance. Supervision of the commission IMr. Bennett.]
is desirable. The method of supervision is a matter for parliament to determine. In Great Britain last year they decided to enact section 17 of their measure to meet the difficulty I have mentioned, and they have provided for the appointment of a committee. Although I have not up to the present been in a position to give the names of the members of the committee, the general idea is that citizens who are interested in the welfare of the country, who are willing to give some little public service, and who have some interest in the maintenance on a proper basis of the undertaking, would constitute an advisory committee so that the solvency might be maintained, so that the functioning of the measure may be assured and the purposes for which it has been created accomplished. I need not say to this committee that the experience in Great Britain in connection with unemployment insurance warranted their taking the steps I have indicated. We are desirous of beginning under such conditions as will ensure the maintenance of the conditions at which we aim, and the advisory committee is to be set up with that in mind. I do not know whether or not the house would be interested in hearing the provisions of the English act in that regard. Some considerable time would be involved in reading it, but for the information of hon. members I shall do so:
17. Establishment of unemployment insurance statutory committee and duties of committee as respects unemployment fund.
(1)	There shall be constituted a committee, to be called "the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee," to give advice and assistance to the minister in connection with the discharge of his functions under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and to perform the duties hereafter specified in this part of this act; and the provisions of part I of the third schedule to this act shall have effect with respect to the constitution and proceedings of the committee.
(2)	The committee shall, not later than the end of February in every year, make a report to the minister on the financial condition of the unemployment fund on the 31st day of December last preceding, and shall also make a report to the minister on the financial condition of the fund whenever they consider that the fund is or is likely to become, and is likely to continue to be, insufficient to discharge its liabilities, and may make a report on the financial condition of the fund at such other times a9 they think fit.
(3)	If the committee at any time report that the unemployment fund is or is likely to become, and is likely to continue to be, insufficient to discharge its liabilities, or is and is likely to continue to be more than reasonably sufficient to discharge its liabilities, the report shall contain-

Unemployment Insurance
(a)	recommendations for the amendment either generally or in relation to special classes of insured contributors, of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts referred to in part II of the third schedule to this act or of the provisions of any previous order made under this section, being such amendments as in the opinion of the committee are required in order to make the fund, as the case may he, sufficient or no more than reasonably sufficient to discharge its liabilities; and
(b)	an estimate of the effect which the amendments recommended will have on the financial conditions of the fund; and, where the committee report that the fund is and is likely to continue to be more than reasonably sufficient to discharge its liabilities, the report may contain recommendations for the application of any sum towards the discharge of the liabilities mentioned in subsection (2) of the section of this act next following.
(4)	The committee shall give such notice as they consider sufficient of their intention to make a report under this section and shall take into consideration any representations which may be made to them with respect thereto.
(5)	Within the period of two months after the receipt by the minister of any report under this section or, if parliament is not sitting, at the expiration of that period, then, as soon after the expiration thereof as parliament sits, the minister shall lay the report before parliament, and in a case where the report contains recommendations for the amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Acts or of any previous order made under this section, shall after consultation with the treasury lay before parliament-
(a)	the draft of an order making such amendments as are duly recommended by the report, or, if and so far as any amendment so recommended is not adopted' by the minister, making such amendments (being amendments which the committee had power to recommend) as will in his opinion have substantially the same effect on the financial condition of the unemployment fund as that estimated by the report as being the effect of the amendments recommended; and
(b)	if and in so far as the amendments proposed by the draft order differ from the amendments recommended my the report, a statement of the reasons for the difference.
(6)	If each house resolves that the draft of an order laid before it under this section be approved, the minister shall make an order in the terms of the draft to take effect on such date as may be specified in the order, and as from that date the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts and of any such previous order as aforesaid shall have effect subject to the provisions of the order.
(7)	So much of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1933, as provides for the variation, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this section, of the rates of contributions in force at the commencement of this act shall cease to have effect.
(8)	This section shall come ito operation on the passing of this act.


Alan Webster Neill: I fully appreciate what the
Prime Minister has read, but are not the duties and responsibilities he has mentioned those of the commission? In Great Britain the committee were to advise the minister, who operates the act, but we have in Canada a commission to operate our act. By naming a committee we would be putting such committee over the commission, and would be placing them in a position of supervising everything. To me it seems like painting the lily and adorning the rose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Alan Webster Neill: Is that not a duty of the
commission?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is true.


Alan Webster Neill: Are we not reflecting upon
their ability?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I think not.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Listening to the
Prime Minister I fail to see how the committee would act as a safeguard to any greater extent than the commission would.
Unemployment Insurance


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point is this: Some of the old banking institutions have a committee composed of high minded and public spirited citizens who pass upon certain matters for the purpose of ensuring, shall I say, the disposition of some of the banks' moneys. In the olden days that used to be a factor with respect to the charitable funds of banks. Hon. members will observe that the section is designed to secure the good will and active participation of people who will give of their wide experience and great knowledge-financial, industrial, social or commercial-to assist the state, through the commission, in the administration of the act. If to-day they had a commission in England, and were not bound by certain conditions, I think I could say that in all probability they would not administer the act through the ministry, the reasons having been given on more than one occasion as to why that would be so. We are endeavouring to divorce this measure (1) from politics and (2) from the pressure which has always been exercised in connection with legislation of this kind, very often rendering it ineffective because of an unfair drain being made upon the resources of the fund through hasty and ill advised action and through a desire to secure a temporary measure of popularity for those charged with responsibility of a political character. This commission is, we think, divorced from that so far as may be humanly possible.
I am not unmindful of my own experience in connection with another commission. Despite the fact that the government selected a commission and left to it the working out of the public ownership of radio, the fact is, and a very evident fact too, that the government is blamed for its administration, and political capital is made of the manner in which it is administered. Now all that a government can do is to endeavour to secure a commission that will administer any public utility or any public act subject to the provisions of the act. When it fails to do so it supplies, shall I say, aid and succour and support to those who are opposed to what has been so often designated as public ownership. For my own part what I said with respect to the public continuing to own the radio I still feel, although I am not unmindful that a very great body of public opinion has grown up in this country entirely at variance with my own opinion.
The question of the administration of this act gave the government a great deal of concern. It had to consider what several hon. gentlemen have suggested: Why not take it over as a department of government and
Uir. Woodsworth.}
administer it? Well, my reading, scanty as it is, with respect to this has been sufficient to indicate to me clearly that in one country the immediate effort of one party was to secure popular support by promising that they would raise the benefits under the act at the next election, and the other party said: We will go you one better. That position with respect to a fund such as this is deplorable and it cannot but result in disaster. We know the pros and cons, the advantages and the disadvantages, the benefits and drawbacks- although that is hardly the word-that would result from the administration of this act as a branch of the public service, and we came to the conclusion that it was best to create a commission. Having resolved to do so we then looked about for a method to create it that would so far as possible remove it from politics. I had recourse to the provisions of the international labour organization's regulations, and so we dealt with it in that way, the employees, being represented through the best means they had of expressing themselves to the government of the day, the employers being represented, and the state making a contribution.
I earnestly ask the committee to think over very carefully the section in question, because I believe that if we can only make these sections really effective it may do much to induce people to take a voluntary interest in public service of the state, which is so characteristic and perhaps reaches its highest development in Great Britain. When I think of the reservoir from which they have to draw, the trained minds of men and women who are always ready and willing to give voluntary service to enable the state the more readily to discharge its duties-and I am amazed at times at the number of such committees and the number of men and women who are always prepared to assist the government of the day, and continuing to function even although there is a change of government-I am hopeful that this may be the beginning of some such attitude on the part of public spirited citizens in this country, and I know of no place in which public service could be better rendered than in giving effect to the provisions of these sections for the administration of this act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How does the type of person likely to be appointed to the advisory committee differ from the type of person to be appointed to the commission? As far as I can see, the only difference is that one set is paid and the other is not paid.

Unemployment Insurance


Richard Bedford Bennett: One is a commission responsible for the administration of the act, and the other is a committee discharging the duties of a critic and endeavouring to assist the commission in the operation of the statute. Such a committee can do a great deal.
I know whereof I speak, for I haye seen it in actual practice-good will; the desire to help; the desire to make something effective; the desire to offer criticism, not in any carping spirit for the purpose of destroying, but with a view to enabling the thing to be done better than it has been done. Who will deny the value of such a committee?
The selection of this group of men and women is a grave responsibility. Wherein the commission and the committee differ is that in the one case you have responsibility for administration; in the other you have responsibility for observation, analysis, and criticism, for the purpose of promoting the administrative functions and powers of the commission, and above all to see that this fund, which after all is a great national trust fund, is administered so as to prevent it becoming insolvent and thereby bringing sorrow to those who should benefit from it. There is a very clear distinction between the two, and I think upon reflection the hon. gentleman will agree that that is so. A voluntary committee of able men and women is very desirable in checking over the administration of any of the functions of a commission if with good will they desire to assist them in attaining the ends and objects sought by the statute.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In England one member of the advisory committee must be a woman. Has the Prime Minister given consideration to that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have, and the hon.
gentleman may have noticed that I twice, in speaking of the committee, said able men and women.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is nothing in this act to make the selection of a woman compulsory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it is thought desirable, that can be done, but I contemplate that one of the members of the committee shall be a woman. It must be remembered that the situation is somewhat different in Great Britain from what it is here, but a provision can be inserted in the measure if it is thought desirable.


Edward Joseph Garland: Far be it from me to deprive the Prime Minister, the government or the commission of the opportunity of salutary and helpful advice. Personally I am not particularly interested in this clause. I have no objection to it, but it is an extraordinary clause, almost as extraordinary as the speech the Prime Minister has just made about it. If there should be an advisory committee in the case of this commission, why not in the case of the radio commission, which also expends a very large sum of money? Why not in the case of the railway commission? Why not in the case of the civil service commission, involving as it does the welfare of human beings and their appointment to office? Why stop at one commission? The argument made by the Prime Minister in an attempt to make this appear to be similar to the British provision does not upon examination hold water, because everything that this new statutory committee in England has to do now falls within the ambit of the functions of the commission to be appointed under this act. In England they advise the minister, and the minister surely needs advice in the administration of a scheme of this magnitude. If this bill set up only a minister, then certainly there could be no argument against providing an advisory committee to assist him in carrying on his functions. But this advisory committee which the Prime Minister proposes, and the statutory committee in England, are two very different things indeed. This advisory committee is to protect the fund and see that it is not invaded, that sums are not overspent and all the rest of it. And yet we have on the preceding, page the provision for an investment committee. While the investment committee's powers under that section would seem to be for the purpose of designating the type of investment for which the fund may be used, surely its powers might properly be enlarged by giving them the right to investigate from time to time the condition of the fund. While I have no objection to the appointment of the advisory committee-not the slightest-on the other hand, if I were on the commission or if I were chairman of the commission, I should feel that the Prime Minister was hardly paying me a very high compliment. There are doubtless many men who would be glad to accept a position on the commission, but anyone who does so now knows that this body of courteous and kindly persons will investigate the daily operations of the commission; otherwise of what value is it if this body is not to watch the operations from day to day? It is a very pleasant
Unemployment Insurance

thing and I hope the Prime Minister is right when he hopes that the chief purpose will be achieved, namely, the inculcation in some people of a true spirit of public service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman suggests that the chairman of the commission might feel that he was not being placed in a very sound position because someone else would have the right to look into and investigate the operations of the statute. No judge of first instance ever hesitates to be appointed because he knows that his judgments will be subject to review in another court.


Alan Webster Neill: But the other judge does not give advice.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section 36 agreed to.
On section 37-Number of members.
Subsections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On subsection 3-Not eligible to sit in parliament.
Abraham Albert Heaps: If this committee is to be honorary, without pay, is there any reason why members of parliament should be debarred from giving their services?


Edward Joseph Garland: They ought to develop the sense of public service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is felt it would be unfair to overload them with a sense of public service.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 4-Members representative of employers and workers.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: What method will be followed in the choice of representatives of workers? It says, "after consultation with employers." In connection with the international labour organization there have always been difficulties in view of the provision of the labour part of the peace treaty that the employees' representative should be a member of the organization representing the largest number of workers in the country. The result is that the representative of the employees is always representing the same organization, and the technical adviser representing labour is also always selected by the same organization. Sometimes a representative of other labour organizations is selected to serve; it is a charitable deed: he comes as technical adviser for the government. But they resent it because they want 
someone to go there as representative of the employees. I want to know whether we shall have the same difficulties in this matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman knows that during his, term of office for nine years he had to meet exactly the same difficulty.


Ernest Lapointe: I know; that is why I want to avoid it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I quite agree with him as to the desirability of endeavouring to avoid it. He knows that we have both endeavoured to avoid the consequences of it, at least with respect to two other employee organizations, by appointing them in the manner he has indicated for the purposes stated. But as the arrangement stands, under the international labour organization, it says the largest number should be the determining, selecting body. We have nothing of that restriction here and-I speak only for myself -an endeavour will be made to see that it is not confined to one particular body. There are at least three large organizations in the country and the difficulty of appointing three is at once apparent, as the hon. gentleman knows. As regards the converse, with respect to the employers, if my memory serves me, the manufacturers association has submitted a list since 1919 or 1920, or whenever it was finally settled, and there has been no change. I am not unmindful of the point to which my hon. friend refers and an earnest effort will be made to try to secure a measure of equity that will be satisfactory all around.


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Raymond Ducharme Morand: We are
on section 37, subsection 5-Unfitness or incapacity of member.
Subsection 5 agreed to.
Subsections 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On subsection 10-Expenses.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where do these expenses come from-from the fund or from the government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not from the fund. Subsection 10 agreed to.
Section 37 agreed to.

Unemployment Insurance
On section 38-Regulations.
Paragraphs (a) to (c) Inclusive agreed to.
On paragraph (d)-Acting umpires.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We had some discussion this afternoon in regard to deputy umpires. Are the acting umpires not in the same category?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I promised the hon. member for West Middlesex that I would look into this matter and satisfy myself as to what the deputy umpires were. The provision in the English act is the same as ours, but it might be desirable to strike them out altogether.
Paragraph (d) agreed to.
Paragraphs (e) to (h) inclusive agreed to.
On paragraph (i)-Penalties.


Alan Webster Neill: I protest against the provision giving this commission power, as I said in speaking on the second reading, to start a little criminal code of their own. It is bad enough to give them power to make regulations which may have all the force of separate and distinct laws, but when we allow these people to prescribe penalties and terms of imprisonment, we are going too far. Surely it would be possible to limit them at least to financial penalties and, in default of payment, to terms of imprisonment. I had occasion not long ago to see some of the regulations proposed by one of these marketing boards; I forget the exact nature, but the power they gave to some official to send people to gaol was most extraordinary and unwarranted. People unfamiliar with making laws and who are not even lawyers are not qualified to have unlimited powers to make penalties for the violation of a regulation. If we could see the regulations, the matter would be different, but some of these regulations are very vague and a man might be sent to gaol for a violation of something that no reasonable person would expect him to live up to. I suggest to the Prime Minister that we should at least limit this to fines and, in default of payment, to a term of imprisonment. Under the wording of this provision it would appear that the commission could create an offence of their own and impose imprisonment for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The courts have settled the principle that no regulation is valid that is not based upon some statutory enactment. The power to make a regulation must be conferred by some statute in order that the regulation may be valid. If in the exercise of its power the commission passes regulations any one of which is in excess of the power conferred by the statute, such regulation falls and is not valid. Therefore it is desirable that there should be in the commission some power to deter those who contemplate violation of the regulations which are such an essential part of the legislation. The suggestion made this afternoon by the hon. member for West Middlesex I desire to consider as to whether there should be inserted in the statute itself a provision for regulations respecting the matters to which he called attention, and so this paragraph and paragraph (j) may stand.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In regard to a question I asked the Prime Minister a day or two ago, there is a provision for presenting reports to parliament within a specified period. Is there any provision for presenting to parliament all the regulations made by the commission?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have to be approved by the governor in council, as the hon. gentleman will remember, and published in the Gazette.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Every member would like to be acquainted with the tenor of the regulations made by the commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I appreciate what the hon. member says as to laying them on the table.
Paragraphs (i) and (j) stand.
(Section 38, now section 37) with the exception of paragraphs (i) and (j), agreed to.
On section 39.
-Cooperation in matters of health and health insurance.


Humphrey Mitchell: To what extent does this contemplate the provision of a health insurance scheme?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This clause and the succeeding one will indicate the extent to which it is intended that the commission shall obtain such information as will enable legislation, if thought desirable by parliament at another time, to be submitted for the purposes the hon. gentleman mentions. This does not in itself of course contemplate a scheme; it is only for the purpose of laying the foundations of one. The reason for that is this: it is well known that an earnest effort is being made to coordinate the services of the provinces and the dominion with respect to health matters to the extent that that may be possible, and the minister contemplates bringing together the ministers of health of the
Unemployment Insurance

provinces to discuss these matters so as to prevent overlapping. When that is done, it will be possible to develop further the scheme that has been put into force in some parts of the empire as well as in foreign countries. I would not undertake to be responsible for any scheme until far more complete information is made available than now exists, and the extent to which the provinces will cooperate and coordinate their efforts with those of the dominion must of course be determined. I can only say that the minister has already taken in hand the question of a conference for the purpose of trying to settle that. Vain efforts have been made to settle it; it is only fair to say that efforts have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite, but health policies seem to have an amazing attraction for provinces at one stage and to arouse an amazing dislike at another. If it is possible for provincial authorities to provide the policies and have the dominion provide the money, they are very popular, but if the order is reversed they are not so much in vogue. I agree with an observation made I think this session by the hon. gentleman from Edmonton in regard to efforts of what I describe as private agencies to secure grants from time to time for the purpose of promoting public health; unless there is a more definite relation of their activities to those of the federal authority from whom the money is obtained I have not observed very satisfactory results. Here the report of the actuaries upon the matter is perhaps responsible to some extent, but if the contemplated efforts as indicated by correspondence can be put in the form of a definite arrangement or agreement I think matters will be in a far more advanced position than they are now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do I understand then that this section does not in any way commit the government to the undertaking of a general health policy?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought I made it perfectly clear the other day that this is not an undertaking on behalf of the federal government to pay any sums of money. That is to be dealt with in another way. The section says:
The duties and powers of the commission under this part of this act shall be exercised, so far as may be found practicable and expedient, in cooperation with any department or departments of the government of Canada-
There being a health and pensions department to which that refers.
-with the dominion council of health, with any province or any number of provinces collectively, or with any municipality or any number

of municipalities collectively, or with associations or corporations.
This goes further than most of the provisions because of the relation between municipalities and industry, the employees of which are insured under the act. It is to relate the question of health to insurance under the act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the Prime
Minister's contention in regard to this measure of unemployment insurance is correct it is not necessary at all to confer with the provinces. Why may I ask should it be necessary to have these conferences with the provincial ministers in respect to national health? National health is a national subject, and, to use the words of the Prime Minister, the voice of Canada is not the collective voice of the provinces, but that of this parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If that is correct I do not see the necessity for any conference with the provinces. I must say that personally I favour the idea of conference, and I think that equally there should have been a conference with the provinces in regard to unemployment insurance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that on a
moment's reflection the right hon. gentleman will realize why we have dealt with it in this way. The provinces cannot under any statute that may be enacted by this dominion be released from their obligations with respect to the health of their people. They have their health departments, and expend large sums of money in clinical and other work, for instance dental services. W'hether men are insured or uninsured is not a matter of concern to them; their liabilities and obligations are there. That is one of the matters that has engaged the attention of successive governments, because the provinces in carrying on these health activities seek from the dominion sometimes special grants and sometimes merely what you might call propaganda effort. What I said with respect to insurance when I was moving the second reading of the bill had no reference to health, because that now rests with the provincial authority, and is an obligation which they are carrying out in a very clearcut manner. None of the provinces are undertaking responsibility with respect to the matter with which this bill deals. It is believed that this furnishes a unique opportunity to tie the efforts of the provinces and the dominion into one coordinated whole. I may be wrong; my hopes in that regard may be too great, but here you have the insurance officers, the inspectors and everyone
10G5

Unemployment Insurance
connected with the administration: of this act dealing with individuals-not all the individuals in a community but the major part of those who are wage earners. They therefore have first hand information with respect to the health of the workmen, questions of sanitation, and the surroundings of the individuals insured, under the inspection clause referred to this afternoon. If that can be correlated to the activities of the provincial health authorities I believe it would be a great step forward, and ensure to a large extent the attainment of the object which we have in mind. For instance it is well known that on this continent the first efforts made by private enterprise to assist the state authorities in connection with health was by life insurance companies which inserted in their policies a provision to enable them to inspect the homes of those who were insured, and see to their surroundings and provide if possible for improved health conditions. The result has been most remarkable. The coordination of these organizations with the governmental authorities has had most far-reaching and beneficial consequences. That is what is intended here.


Ernest Lapointe: Health is largely a provincial matter, I agree. When the federal Department of Health was created the act said that it was for the purpose of looking after the federal activities-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Propaganda largely.


Ernest Lapointe: -in quarantine and
such matters, and to cooperate with the provinces. As far as cooperating with the provinces is concerned this part of the present bill is not needed. The present Department of Health Act is sufficient to authorize any investigation of the kind suggested by this provision. But if the right hon. gentleman is correct as to the jurisdiction of this parliament in respect to unemployment insurance, the same view would apply to matters of health. Take the preamble of this bill. If the Prime Minister is right when he says:
Whereas the Dominion of Canada was a signatory, as part of the British Empire, to the treaty of peace

-and that is where he takes his power-
-and by article 427 of the said treaty declared that the well-being, physical, moral and intellectual, of industrial wage-earners is of supreme international importance-
-if that applies to a scheme of unemployment insurance surely it would apply as well to a scheme of health insurance. But it does not apply to either.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish
to endorse every word my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) has said. But I wish to discuss part IV of the bill from another angle. To my mind it is the most useless part of this bill. The powers would be equally strong if sections 39, 40 and 41 were not in the bill. We have here the powers given to the commission in the matter of national health-nothing but a glorified post office and secretarial bureau looking to consultation with provincial health authorities concerning health insurance in Canada. What is there in these sections that actually advances or promotes the cause of national health in Canada? Nothing.	The Prime
Minister knows as well as I do that certain provinces have at the present time well considered schemes of health insurance actually prepared for most comprehensive investigation. As to the duties and powers to be exercised by the commission through cooperation with the Dominion Council of Health and the various provinces, surely one would expect that to happen automatically. The commission is going to carry on this unemployment insurance scheme and in the main the provinces are charged with the administration of health, with the exceptions mentioned by my hon. friend from Quebec East.
Then section 40 states that it shall be the duty of the commission to collect information and data. I would suggest to my right hon. friend that in my own province we have been collecting information and data from every country in the world for the last two and a half years. We have all the necessary information and data now; we have legislation drafted as the result of a most comprehensive investigation. I really resent this section, because it is nothing but eyewash, the whole part IV of this bill. Here this commission are going to be set up, but they are not being instructed to proceed by way of cooperation with the various provincial health authorities in order to develop a real system of national medicine and health. The objectives of the commission are to become a post office, a secretarial bureau, to cooperate with the existing authorities and then to analyze and make available to any province, corporation or_ group of persons interested the information collected. It is not now a matter of not having the information; it is a matter of not being able to act upon the information at our disposal, largely through lack of financial resources. This is not what we were led to expect by the tremendous protestations of the Prime Minister in that first, fine fervour
Unemployment Insurance

of atmospheric grandiloquence in which he indulged during the Christmas festivities, when he promised the people of Canada not only insurance against unemployment but also health insurance, invalidity insurance and, insurance against old age. Here, if you please, is his glorious contribution; here is the contribution of his government to the great cause of health insurance in the Dominion of Canada. The Prime Minister knows that I have been very friendly to many of the sections in this bill. I have cooperated to my utmost, because I .believe in the principle of unemployment insurance, but when I see this thing, part IV of this bill, as the contribution of this government to the cause of health insurance in Canada, Mr. Chairman, it occasions me the most profound disappointment but very little surprise.
According to section 41 the commission from time to time may submit to the governor in council proposals for cooperation by the dominion in providing any of the benefits enumerated in paragraph (a) of the preceding section, for such action as the governor in council-just listen to this-is authorized to take. I think for the first time that is an admission by the Prime Minister of some other jurisdiction. The section goes on to provide that the commission may undertake special investigations in this regard, subject to the approval of the governor in council concerning the scope and nature of each such investigation. In my humble judgment part IV of the bill is completely useless with regard to the practical application of measures for the development of national health insurance in this dominion. The Prime Minister knows as well as I do that when the Liberal government of England passed that first great bill in 1911, the one scheme effected both national health insurance and unemployment insurance. That joint measure came into effect in England on the first day of July, 1912, with unemployment insurance affecting some 2,250,000 and health insurance affecting some 13,000,000. In 1920 or 1921 unemployment insurance was extended in the old land to cover practically the same number covered by health insurance. But honestly, Mr. Chairman, if there is any merit in this bill, with its limitations, its reservations and its uncertainties, so far as unemployment insurance is concerned, there is absolutely no merit in part IV, because it gives the commission that is to be set up nothing more than the power to consult, to confer, to cooperate, to become a glorified post office, a bureau of information-doing nothing constructive, nothing emphatic and nothing progressive to bring

about what we have wanted for years, and what my hon. friend from St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) has 'been advocating for the last four years, a real scheme of national health insurance in the Dominion of Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am rather disappointed in part IV of the bill, and I quite agree with some of the remarks made by the previous speaker (Mr. Mackenzie). I do not know why this part was included in the bill, unless it is simply a preface to something of greater importance. But if part IV is to remain in the act could we not amend it in such a way as to give far more power to the commission than they are to have under the present measure ?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver); They have none now.


Abraham Albert Heaps: They have none, as my hon. friend has remarked, but I think some provision should be inserted which would empower the commission to give grants in aid to the provinces or municipalities that have in force health insurance schemes. If British Columbia decided to inaugurate a scheme of health insurance then I think the commission ought to have power under this section to make a contribution to that province in order to further any such health insurance scheme. I think it would be entirely within the jurisdiction of the federal government to do so; I believe on several occasions the Prime Minister has stated in this house that the government have power to make grants to the province if they see fit so to do. As a matter of fact on previous occasions we have given grants to the provinces, I believe, in aid of certain health matters coming under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities. I understand that several provinces are considering certain matters pertaining to provincial health insurance measures. If the federal government, through the commission, could set up a standard of health insurance satisfactory to all parties, that might be adopted by the provinces in order to have such legislation as nearly uniform as possible throughout the length and breadth of the dominion, it would be a very great piece of work, and some provision should be placed in section 4 of thq act which would empower the commission to make the necessary grants out of the federal exchequer towards health insurance in the various provinces.


Ernest Lapointe: But what would be the use of this parliament if any commission is to have the right to grant the people's money as it pleases?

Unemployment Insurance


Abraham Albert Heaps: There may be something in what my hon. friend has said, but I presume these grants would come under the jurisdiction of this House of Commons.


Ernest Lapointe: We have a minister of
health.


Abraham Albert Heaps: We have a federal minister
of health, it is quite true, but he does not consider health the important part of the activities of the Department of Pensions and National Health; to-day he is most concerned with the question of pensions. So far as the grants are concerned, I think items could be put in the estimates each year, as items are put in at the present time for other purposes of national welfare and well being. Perhaps the Prime Minister might consider amending this part of the bill so that parliament or the commission would be able to make grants to such provinces as adopt provincial schemes of health insurance.


Mr.   BOWDEN@: I am afraid I fail to
appreciate the significance of part IV of the bill; certainly it seems to have no application to the health of the Canadian people. One would hardly think it was inserted in the bill for the purpose of leaving the impression that the measure embodies national health insurance, though it may be that this is leading up to that objective. What I should like to point out particularly is that the class of people who will be affected by this insurance are those who will be expected to pay their way, to pay their hospital bills and their medical fees. From the wages they earn, or from the insurance they will be paid, it will be impossible for these people to pay their way in the case of illness. The English act provides certain sickness benefits by way of the payment of the fees of medical men who make calls. Since people of this class are so helpless in a time of illness it seemed only reasonable that some provision should be made for them. It may be that the government has in mind a scheme of sickness insurance, but up to the present time we have heard nothing of it.
In the event of our not having any form of sickness insurance and not adopting any scheme of state medicine, or anything of the kind, it will be impossible for the men affected by this measure to pay their way and to meet their obligations during the .periods when they will be unemployed. It seems to me that hon. members who have preceded me have stated the fact when they said that part IV of the bill means nothing. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) said, a stenographer could do all the
commission is asked to do, namely gather in a few reports and certain information and pass it on to those who may desire it. It would be more reasonable to have a definite policy with regard to the care of the sick, and particularly those who will be affected by this measure.


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: In the preamble to the bill I notice the following:
And whereas it is essential for the peace, order and good government of Canada to provide for a national employment service and insurance against unemployment, and for other forms of social insurance-
And so on. I should like to know what other forms of social insurance are contemplated. So far we have had nothing but unemployment insurance, and yet the preamble to the bill suggests that there are other forms of insurance. The Prime Minister should tell us what the wording of the preamble means. If this section is to be worth anything we should give some meaning to section 40, subsection (a), subparagraph (ii), "compensation for loss of earnings arising out of ill health, accident or disease." If we had such provision in the bill it would be worth something and would be somewhat in harmony with the suggestions made in the radio speeches.


An hon. MEMBER:: Suggestions?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, if you wish to call them suggestions-adumbrations of something to come. But unless this provision is carried out I would feel like moving for the elimination of part IV, because, as other hon. members have said, as it stands it is useless and gives a false impression. It leaves the impression that something is being done in this field, where as as a matter of fact, as the Prime Minister has admitted, the government in this measure does not in any way commit itself to the type of insurance now under discussion. That impression ought not to go out in connection with the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A moment ago the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) referred to what he described as a sort of promise made by the Prime Minister in the radio speeches with respect to what was to be done in matters of national health. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has just referred to something respecting health in the preamble of this bill which would seem to amount to a promise. I happen to have in my hand the speech from the throne, and I should like to read therefrom what appears there also as a promise.
Vnemplo yme nt Jnsurance

Better provision will be made for the security of the worker during unemployment, in sickness, and in old' age.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether part IV of the measure covers that extra security for the worker in sickness, or if he intends to bring down during the present session other measures which will have the effect of implementing that part of the speech from the throne and if so, what they are?


Mr. SPENCER:: Before the Prime Minister speaks I should like to associate myself with other hon. members in criticizing the very small reference made in the bill to the matter of health. Probably-and I hope it is true-this is not the only reference to health the government intends to make. If it is the only health measure, then I am quite sure a large number of people throughout Canada will be very much disappointed in the government's action. Of course the government's program is not before us, and possibly at this time we are unjust in making any criticism with regard to what it may do in the matter of health measures. I am basing my present remarks on the fact that this is the only reference which has been made concerning national health, and it seems to me if no other reference is to be made the one now before us is, to place the best construction upon it, only a pious hope that the commission will cooperate with other institutions. I pointed out only a few weeks ago that the subject of health has been discussed in this house no less than seven times in only a few years. On three occasions resolutions on the subject have been agreed to. I trust this is not the only reference which will be made to health, and that in the near future the government will bring down a worth while plan for taking care of the health of our people.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Mr. Chairman, if
nothing more is to be added to part IV it would be better not to have it in the measure at all, because its high flown title, "national health," signifies nothing. When one reads the few sections in this part one may readily realize that it is only a data collecting agency. I am not so sure that that is going to help the people who are ill and need medical care. Unless something more is to be done-and we know that through the years the government has specialized in high flown titles, with little following after them-we might as well eliminate part IV altogether. In the Kingston Whig Standard of February 18 I read the other day about the system of socialized medicine or state medicine, whichever you

choose to call it, in Sweden. There are two or three points in the article I should like to place on Hansard. The article states:
The present form of socialized medicine in Sweden was established during the sixties and seventies. Of all the social legislation in Sweden, it is the earliest and grew naturally and painlessly out of the older system.
Here are some of the figures showing costs to people under medical care in Sweden:
_ A patient may lie in a ward at any hospital for as little as 2-50 crowns a day (70 cents), and receive the care of the best specialists without any further charge. This rate is unusually low compared to the private hospitals such as the Red Cross, which takes 20 crowns a day.
Then it goes on to say:
An operation for appendicitis in Sweden costs no more than $8. The clinics operating ;n connection with all the large hospitals are on the same basis, with a straight rate of 2 crowns or 30 cents for each visit.
Then follows the story of the county hospitals.
Sickness insurance has been established in Sweden since 1891. It is not the obligatory kind which began in Germany in 1883 and found its most inclusive organization in the English law of 1912.
It is clear to any person following the subject that Canada is far behind many other countries in the care we give to the sick. I feel so strongly on the subject that I believe, in the present measure, it would be better to make no reference to it than to insert the words "national health" as though something was being done about it, and then follow that heading by other words which do not seem to have anything but a very indirect bearing upon health matters.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I cannot
altogether agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) when he says there is nothing definite in the bill. I believe there is something very definite in it, namely that it does not want to do anything, and it wants to do a lot of that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For once we agree.


Angus MacInnis: The measure is supposed to be based on unemployment and health insurance measures of the United Kingdom. There seems to be a dread in the Prime Minister's mind that he might in some way or other overstep the provisions of the legislation in 'Great Britain. Now everyone knows who has had anything at all to do with municipal affairs in Canada that the health situation in this dominion is deplorable, and

10G9
Unemployment Insurance
it is getting worse. It was deplorable even before this depression began, and we all know what its ravages have been since that time. In every city and municipality in this dominion there are countless agencies which have for their purpose the gathering of funds in one way or another by charity, soliciting and begging, to take care of those who are too poverty stricken to take care of themselves. In some of the larger cities in the last few years attempts have been made to coordinate these activities, yet after all that amounts to nothing more than a rather more dignified way of begging than they had before. There is no reason in the world why this information gathering bureau should not have been put to work long ago. My hon. friend from Battle River (Mr. Spencer) introduced a resolution in this house year after year to that end, and my hon. friend from St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) did the same thing. It was not necessary to wait until now to get some body to gather statistics in regard to health matters.
I should like to read for the information of the committee an article in the Commerce of the Nation, of March, 1932. The article is by Frank G. Pedley, M.D., executive director of the Montreal council of social agencies. He has had considerable experience with the subject matter he discusses. First of all he touches on the difficulty, almost the impossibility, under our present system of giving everyone a wage sufficient to provide him with all the necessities and comforts of life, and he draws attention very definitely to the need of national health services. He says:
One aspect of the problem may be discussed, however, since it has a more strictly medical bearing and is supported by a great body of experience. I refer to the matter of sickness insurance.
When serious illness incapacitates the bread winner of a family a vicious cycle is apt to be established which inevitably leads to ruin, for illness results in loss of time and loss of wages; the curtailment of income debases the scale of living and this prevents the sick man from [DOT]enjoying an environment suited to his recovery. Perhaps the sequence of things can be more clearly understood in the case of a hypothetical John Jones. Let us say that Jones develops tuberculosis. Jones, of course, does not know that he has tuberculosis at first. He may feel abnormally tired and out of sorts, but he has felt that way before and now that he is married' and has some children he thinks twice before incurring a doctor's bill. If Jones lives in a city he can go to a free clinic, but free [DOT]clinics are usually operated in the day time and it means loss of time and wages to attend one. Jones' $20 or $25 a week-
That was a high wage even in the time [DOT]of high wages:
-is not sufficient to maintain himself and his family adequately even if he works full time. Jones, therefore, puts off seeing the doctor. We know he does this because most of the people in Jones' circle who die of tuberculosis have put off consulting a physician until within a few months of their death.
He probably carries on for a few months on patent medicines and finally sees his doctor. If the doctor is wise and capable the condition will be recognized and Jones will be advised to stop work and undertake treatment for six months or more. But the doctor might as well recommend a trip to Europe. The butcher and baker must be paid and Jones has not been able to accumulate any money for a contingency like this. It is true that he can apply to a family welfare association, if there is one in his town, but if Jones is an independent, selfreliant individual, of the breed we like to think Canadians are made of, he will refuse to apply to charity no matter how graciously it is offered.
The inevitable day comes when nature compels cessation of work and on that day the dissolution of the family begins in earnest. Mrs. Jones will leave the care of the home to take up casual labour, the children will leave school prematurely and another family will become submerged along with literally thousands of others.
Three things were wrong in Jones' case. His standard of living predisposed him to the development of the condition. He delayed too long in consulting a physician, and he failed to follow his advice when he did consult him. The reason in any event was financial. Medical fees are high in our country, nor is this because doctors get paid too much. The practice of medicine in this country is conducted in the most inefficient way conceivable. The doctor must charge you for the hours he spends waiting for you to consult him, for the hours he devotes gratis in hospitals and for the bills he cannot collect from your neighbour. The few minutes you spend in his office are only an item in the bill.
If a doctor were kept reasonably busy, was sure of most of his accounts and' did not have to devote a substantial amount of his time to free work, his fee could be materially lower without any loss to him. However the doctor's fee was not the only barrier to Jones. Even if he had consulted the doctor early he could not have followed the necessary treatment without sinking into a morass of debt.
He goes on to say:
If one compares the case of a Canadian Jones with that of an English one the contrast is very apparent. In England at the first sign of indisposition Jones may consult the physician of his choice. He has paid for that right and there is no question of charity about it. If the doctor advises a holiday Jones can take one and he need not worry about the finances of the family, for a proportion of his wages will be paid at regular intervals and with no more loss of respect to Jones than there is to a woman who collects her husband's life insurance at his death.
Information on all these matters has been available to the Prime Minister for years,
Unemployment Insurance

yet here we are in a progressive country like Canada dragging along twenty years behind the old country. It is time we kicked out of it and did something worthy of a progressive country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Strong language, Mr. Chairman, from a great many hon. gentlemen opposite.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Not gentlemen only.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If there were any exaggeration in this house I am sure the hon. member for Southeast Grey would be associated with it; there is no doubt about that at all-anything either strong or abusive. It is amazingly strange, now that we are aiming to promote a national health policy, that it should thus be assailed. I ask this chamber two questions. I ask hon. gentlemen first to point to any line in any statute of this country that undertakes to deal with national health. That is number one. Number two: Is it possible under existing conditions, with machinery set up in the provinces and municipalities, to deal with the matter on that basis until such time as by the operation of this act arrangements can be made to deal with it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does not the
Department of National Health deal with some of these problems?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not touch that
at all. There are two questions to which attention might be directed. It has been suggested that the Department of National Health may deal with these problems, but the Department of National Health does not deal with them at all. If one will take the trouble to turn up the statute it will be seen that the department is given large powers but they are not powers of action with respect to the provinces. Let us see what we are aiming at. We are aiming at a national health policy. Hon. members who are medical men have pointed that out as desirable ever since I have been in this house. The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) has done so. Now a mationaL health policy involves the consideration of several factors, among them being, first, the position of the individual himself-not the question of the municipalities or the provinces, but the position of the individual himself and herself. The provinces have claimed, and I have not disputed it, that in respect to health they are in a better position to deal with individuals than anybody else. Result: in many parts of Canada you have municipal hospitals and you have travelling dental clinics. In many parts of Canada

the provinces have established a sort of outpost for the purpose of oaring for those who are ill. These are facts. How can you apply the national provisions of this statute with respect to unemployment to that health condition? That is the problem, and we believe we have tackled it in the only way in which it can by any possible chance be successfully tackled. I have heard the hon. member for St. Boniface talk about state medicine; I have heard the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw), the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and the hon. member for Battle River discuss the subject. What do they mean by state medicine? Do they mean state doctors directed by the dominion, or by the provinces, or by the municipalities? Do they propose to deal with panels of doctors under the control of the dominion parliament or under the control of the provincial legislatures? None has said. We are dealing with actualities, with facts, with conditions as they exist, and we are endeavouring to lay the foundation for a national health policy. If any hon. member %vho has to-night decried these provisions will tell me how the foundation for this edifice can be laid except in the manner indicated I shall be obliged. Can we with one stroke of the legislative pen wipe out of existence all the provisions made by the municipalities and the provinces to deal with this problem-their hospitals, _ medical service, taxation to maintain them in cities, towns and villages? Take the province _ of Alberta with its hospitals, its taxation, taxation in the city of Calgary, municipal hospitals: how are these things to be dealt with? Are they to be wiped out with a stroke of the pen? This bill aims at laying the foundation for a national health insurance; that is its purpose. But will any hon. member point out how it can be done except as indicated here?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will give the right hon. gentleman full opportunity to do so, and if he desires that I sit down while he does it I will. Let us proceed a step further. This is a national unemployment measure. In the provisions of these sections it deals with the conditions of individual employed persons throughout Canada, and there is no method by which the same definite information of a national kind can be obtained which is at all equal to that provided for in these two sections, 42 and 43. That is what they are there for. We are proceeding to meet a condition and not a theory. K this were new territory, if this were a virgin page we were turning over, as unemployment insurance is, you could say many things

Unemployment Insurance
that would be just and fair criticism. But when you are dealing with the provisions made for hospitals at the present time, grants in aid, provisions with respect to the maintenance of health, at least in these provinces, and when the statement is made to us by many of the provincial premiers that they propose to deal with a scheme of health insurance, what are we to do? What do we propose to do here? We propose to lay the foundation for a national health measure, and you cannot do that in a night; nor have we in all the departments of the public service the information that would enable any scheme of health insurance to be adopted. The census figures in 1931 were prepared so as to enable us to deal, with some degree of actuarial certainty, with the problem of unemployment insurance, which has been discussed in this country for a considerable time. We now have the information based on that census. But I say to this committee with perfect frankness that we have no such information with respect to a system of health insurance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We hare in our province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know what they have
there, because they have talked the matter over with us. The preceding government discussed the matter at some length and Doctor Young-I hope he is still living-as long as fifteen years ago was endeavouring to accumulate the information that would enable them to deal with the problem. Now, laying the foundation as we are, we propose to proceed with the accumulation of knowledge that never has been gathered before in the terms in which it will be gathered here; and secondly, not to impose this structure of health insurance upon that body of information. For what would happen if the government brought in a bill dealing with health insurance, having regard to conditions in the provinces and their facilities? What we do propose to do is to fallow that to its logical end and, in the first instance, to do what one hon. gentleman suggested-I do not know where he derived his information-give such assistance to the provinces at this time as will enable them to coordinate their efforts with this plan. And I believe that ultimately it will be found that the provinces, in their desire to coordinate and to cooperate, will in all probability place the administration, the broad administration, not the detailed administration, with this commission. But to do it now, without having anything further than we have at the present time, would be ridiculous.
We are endeavouring to attain the very object which members of this house have asked for; we are endeavouring to reach the end which they so much desire; and we are met with this suggestion, "Wipe it out; don't pay any attention to that; we would rather see it taken out of the bill altogether". They do not want to lay the foundation but to build an edifice hanging in the air, to swing in space and fall down. Does the committee seriously consider what is involved? The strong language of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) does not improve the situation. His strong and vigorous and, I think, wholly unwarranted attacks against myself on public platforms are wholly unworthy of a former cabinet minister and a member of the profession to which I belong. But that is not a matter of importance; I mention it to-night only because he has seen fit to talk in his usual-I would not use a harsh term-irresponsible language.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that deliberately, because it must have been irresponsible. Now, you have here an earnest effort to achieve an end; and the thanks we get for endeavouring to achieve it is to be told, "Wipe it out." Why in the name of common sense should you say that because one set of men are endeavouring to grapple with a situation it is wrong, whereas if another set of men grappled with it it would be right? It does seem very strange, does it not? I ask each one of the members opposite me from the various provinces to take these two sections and apply them to the facts in their respective provinces and to ask themselves whether they know of any method by which, honestly administered with the cooperation and aid of the federal authority, both financial and otherwise, you could lay the foundation for a scheme of national health. When the proper time comes, if the minister succeeds in his endeavour to bring about some concerted plan of effort, we will take the necessary steps to assist in seeing that it is carried out-whether through this commission or whether through the provincial health departments, depends entirely upon the attitude of the departments. And the reason this goes no further than to lay that foundation is that we are unable to speak with any degree of authority as to their views. At one time they express one view, at another time another, and on another occasion still another, depending very largely on the political complexion of the governments that express the views. Here you have the purpose
Unemployment Insurance

of these sections and the reasons for them, and I do assert, and I think I can say I make the assertion in such a way that it will be very difficult reasonably to answer it, that the only logical and effective manner of laying the foundation for a national health scheme is found here, plus the effort of the minister, and the result of his endeavours for coordination, to determine whether or not the assistance to give medical care and attention to those who so much require it shall be made through the commission with respect to those who are injured, and none others, or in the larger sense through assisting the Department of Health to care for all its people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says that the purpose of these sections is an effort to achieve an end, that end being to lay the foundation of a scheme of national health insurance. I said I thought I could show him that in considerable part the foundation had already been laid. I think the real exception that is being taken to what my right hon. friend has in this new bill is that it is all superfluous. What there is that amounts to anything in it has already been enacted. The place one would naturally expect to find the foundation of a scheme of national health would be in an act of this parliament respecting national health. That act I have before me. The original act respecting national health was passed I think fifteen or twenty years ago. I am now quoting from the Department of Pensions and National Health Act which will be found in the Statutes of Canada for 1928, chapter 39. Part II, Which deals more particularly with national health, contains the following provision:
The duties and powers of the minister-
That is the minister of national health. We have the Minister of National Health sitting just alongside my right hon. friend at the present moment, and I should think he might be considered the cornerstone of the foundation.
The duties and powers of the minister under this part shall extend to and include all matters and questions relating to the promotion or preservation of the health of the people of Canada over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, particularly the following matters and subjects:

(a) Cooperation with the provincial, territorial, and other health authorities with a view to the coordination of the efforts proposed or made for preserving and improving the public health, the conservation of child life and' the promotion of child welfare.
That is pretty comprehensive; it includes all matters and questions relating to the promotion
[Mr. Bennett.1
or preservation of health and cooperation with the provinces, territories, municipal and other health authorities, the object being to coordinate the very thing my right hon. friend says he has in mind in this bill-the coordination of all these effeorts.


Mr. ERNST:: For what purpose?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For the purpose of the preservation of the health of the people.


William Gordon Ernst: Not for health insurance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A further provision, paragraph (h) is as follows:
Subject to the provision of the Statistics Act, the collection, publication and distribution of information relating to the public health, improved sanitation and the social and industrial conditions affecting the health and lives of the people.
How could anything be more comprehensive than that? If anything more were needed, it is to be found in the next paragraph, which is (i), as follows:
Such other matters relating to health as may be referred to the department by the governor in council.
All my right hon. friend has to do-he is the governor in council-is to refer to the minister the provisions of part II of this unemployment insurance act, namely the sections relating to national health, and the Minister of National Health will have all the power this act gives to anyone. Under the National Health Act he has power now as respects national health to refer to his minister for the purposes of investigation, coordination and collection of information and data any matters relating to health he may wish to refer.
Now to revert to the bill we are considering, there are, under the part dealing with national health, five sections. As indicated by the marginal notes, the first is "cooperation in matters of health and health insurance." That has already been covered by what I have read. The next is "to collect information and data." That also has been covered. The next is "to make information and data available." That has been covered. The next is "to examine and report on proposed scheme." That has also been covered. The last is "proposals to governor in council: special investigation." That has also been covered. Therefore everything that is in part IV of this bill is already in the act which has been on the statute book for nearly a couple of decades and is now in full force and effect under the direction of a responsible minister of the crown.


Mr. HOWDEN:: The Prime Minister stated a few moments ago that although a number

Unemployment Insurance
of members on this side of the house had made speeches on state medicine and health matters, no proposal had ever been submitted to the house for the application of a form of state medicine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No measure has been submitted to the house.


John Power Howden: I have a distinct recollection of having addressed the house on state medicine in 1931, and if I am not badly mistaken I made definite proposals with regard to how state medicine could be applied. The need for medical attention and state medicine or health insurance has never been so great as it is at present and has been for the last number of years. The only reason most of the provinces have not to-day a complete and efficient system of state medicine is that they cannot afford it. I have suggested in this house and have heard others suggest that if this federal authority, as in the case of old age pensions, were to submit to the provinces a proposal offering relief under the stipulation that they should adopt a standard system of health insurance or state medicine, it would be rapidly and readily taken up. Is the health of the Canadian people a matter of no interest or responsibility to this government? If so, then I need say nothing further about it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why "this government"?


John Power Howden: The federal government; that is what I mean.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is better.


John Power Howden: If it be a matter of interest or responsibility to the federal government, there is no question that if we extend offers of assistance to the provinces with the stipulation that they adopt and agree to a standard of service, they will be ready to take up such a proposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose it is unnecessary to remind the committee that nothing has been said touching the question of health insurance, either in the statute from which the right hon. gentleman read, or in the observations made by the hon. member for St. Boniface. If this committee is anxious, as I believe it is, to assist in the discharge of the duties of the state to those who are laid aside by illness, it will realize that here are practically 2,000,000 people affected by this unemployment insurance measure. That means definite, exact information with respect to 2,000,000 people, which we are asking this body to collect. It will depend upon the extent of the knowledge thus ascertained whether and to what degree the federal power may be able to engraft upon this scheme of 92582-68
unemployment insurance, health insurance as well. I am not going to disclose at the moment the extent to which we propose to deal with that in another way later, beyond saying this, that in this country at the present time nine different views are expressed with respect to health. Starting in British Columbia, I recall that at least fifteen years ago a suggestion with regard to health insurance was vigorously asserted in various parts of that province. The financial difficulty is the one that has been set up as preventing the province from carrying this out. In Alberta it has been made a municipal matter, and in Calgary the hospital tax is part of the taxes we pay annually. In outside communities they gather together municipalities for that purpose. In Saskatchewan they have something of the same system. In Manitoba it is slightly different. In Ontario they have specially directed efforts towards ensuring the health of the people through the activities of the health department itself. In Quebec it is much the same, except that the voluntary hospitals are perhaps more numerous. In the lower provinces the situation is something the same, except in Prince Edward Island. I put this again to the committee: This dominion, when the information is adequately in hand, may be able, as incidental to this unemployment insurance scheme, to take care of the health of all those covered by this insurance. That is the reason that part IV is in this bill. Ordinary reading of it. I think, would at once disclose that fact. But inasmuch as the provinces have done what they have, and have not indicated their willingness to lessen in any sense their activities, but only to ask us for money for them, how can you under this statute correlate these activities unless there is some understanding? What is pressed upon us is this-the right hon. gentleman knows; it was pressed upon him when he was Prime Minister-that grants should be made to this institution and to that, to this organization and to that-$10,000, $15,000, $20,000 or more, for the purpose, they say, of enabling them to carry on propaganda with respect to the health of the people. I do not think that will accomplish what is aimed at. It does not touch the sick, except with respect to the social service to which I directed attention last year, on the transfer of the work that was being done by the department that was not able to touch the people to the body that did touch them directly. I put it to the committee whether on reading these clauses carefully they do not realize that the purpose is clear, namely, in the first place to accept responsibility when the responsibility is known, but not to accept it until

Unemployment Insurance

it is known; and in the next place to exercise such care for the health of those insured under this measure as may be necessary to the discharge of the duty of the federal government with respect to a federal scheme, thereby relieving the provinces of their obligation. That may or may not be acceptable to the provinces which impose taxation upon those who may be receiving the benefits under this statute. That is a matter that will have to be settled, and the minister has been endeavouring to arrange a conference for that purpose. But this house will not have risen before there is an indication of just what is meant in regard to the application of these sections. If the provinces do not express a desire to carry it on themselves in their own way, then a grant for the purpose of enabling the commission to give such medical attention as may be necessary to those insured will appear in the estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister says that in the act which I have read there is no reference to health insurance. But there is a reference in the act-I have read several-to all matters and questions relating to health, and health insurance is one. I think, therefore, the Prime Minister will agree that the act is quite broad enough to cover the collection of information with respect to health insurance or any other aspect of health matters.


Ernest Lapointe: On he 17th of January last we had the speech from the throne, which said that-
Better provision will be made for the security of the worker during unemployment, in sickness and in old age.
On the very same day, January 17, President Roosevelt sent a message to congress in which he also recommended the following types of legislation looking to economic security.
1.	Unemployment compensation.
2.	Old age benefits, including compulsory and voluntary annuities.
3.	Federal aid to dependent children through grants to states for the support of existing mother's pension systems and for services for the protection and care of homeless, neglected dependent and crippled children.
4.	Additional federal aid to state and local public health agencies and the strengthening of the federal public health service. I am not at this time recommending the adoption of so-called health insurance, although groups representing the medical profession are cooperating with the federal government in the further study of the subject and definite progress is being made.
I call attention, to the fact that the subjects of the proposals in both messages are

exactly the same. Of course it is a happy coincidence that great minds should meet on the same proposals on the very same day, but they do not deal in the same way with the proposals suggested. First, on the question of unemployment insurance, the bill at present before congress is one which will work in cooperation with the states. President Roosevelt, although charged with being dictatorial in his methods, does not go to the extent of making it entirely a federal matter without the cooperation of the states; he works in cooperation with the states. But when it comes to health insurance, although he says he cannot recommend the adoption of so-called health insurance he goes further than my right hon. friend in order to fulfil his pledge. He gives aid to the states in various matters, In the Wagner bill, which is the bill before the Senate of the United States embodying the proposals of President Roosevelt, there are the following amounts as federal aids to the states in matters of health:
Per year
Mothers' assistance	 $25,000,000
Maternal and child health....	4,000,000
Crippled children	 3,000,000
Child welfare	 1,500,000
Public health	 10.000,000
That is what he is doing by way of subsidy to the various states of the American union. So I say that although by a happy coincidence the same measures presented themselves to the minds of both President Roosevelt and the Prime Minister of Canada, they are not redeeming their pledges in the same way. If it is possible for President Roosevelt, if not to establish a scheme of health insurance at least to give aid to the states in matters of health, the same thing is possible here, and we would not break through the constitution by doing it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is to-day throughout this country a very serious state of things in regard to health. In the large industrial areas thousands upon thousands of men, women and children are unable to obtain medical services. On the other hand, as I know of personal knowledge, quite a considerable number of members of the medical profession are compelled to become recipients of public relief. Such is the case in Winnipeg, and I believe it is the same in other cities. The same condition obtains in agricultural areas. It is almost an impossibility for a farmer to-day to afford medical attention, and the plight of the medical men in the rural areas is almost as bad, I understand, as it is in many large industrial centres. I am glad, however, that the Prime Minister has stated to the committee this evening that the government have

Unemploy merit Insurance
under consideration further proposals in regard to health insurance which they intend to submit to the house later in the present session. I hope I have not misunderstood the statement of the Prime Minister. If that is the intention of the government perhaps it will be as well if we wait until the government brings down what the Prime Minister has intimated, a scheme to give assistance to the provinces to provide a more or less national scheme of health insurance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) has just made observations which I think upon reflection he will see are greatly at variance with those of his leader. I am surprised that there should be such difference of opinion, because only a few weeks ago the right hon. gentleman declaimed very strongly against one body in the state collecting and a different body expending public funds. That is within the memory of every member of this committee, and I am bound to say that there is a very great deal of force in those observations. I have always reckoned with that and have so stated frequently in this chamber. We are endeavouring to escape that very thing. In the United States a message was sent to congress indicating that there was a situation that should be dealt with; then, out of their great riches they simply said, "Divide $25,000,000 among the states for this, $10,000,000 for that and $20,000,000 for that." That was all there was to it; it was very simple. We are endeavouring to conform to these fundamental constitutional views that we have had with respect to expenditures, and we will continue to do so as long as we are here. What we do say is that if the information called for by this bill were available to us to-night we could place in the estimates provision that would enable the federal power to deal with those who are insured under this act, numbering possibly two million people. That, in my judgment, is the first approach to a national insurance scheme.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
could have collected all that information in the last couple of years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But as a matter of fact
I am pointing out to the right hon. gentleman that this information is not as readily available as he thinks. If he had to try to get it he would realize that. I wonder if he realizes that it was just because of what has been said in this country from time to time by both parties that in the census of 1931 we did provide a column in regard to unem-92582-081
ployment, and the whole scheme that we are now submitting to this house has been predicated upon the information thus obtained, as of the first of June, 1931.
Here is the strange anomaly, and I am going to put it to gentlemen who are fair minded. I wonder how many have read the reports of the insurance companies of this country; I wonder how many have observed that our length of life is far greater than the expectation, and that the companies have added greatly to their reserves by reason of the fact that the expectation of life is far more than realized. Never has insurance been so largely bought in Canada as it has been in recent years; I do not say the last year or two, but in recent years. The strange anomaly is that the reports of the insurance companies year after year indicate that their mortality is far less than their expectation, and that as a result their reserves have been greatly increased. If our health condition is as bad as has been asserted, how is it that continuously, according to the mortality tables issued by the provinces, the mortality among children under the age of five and the number of deaths from various diseases, have not shown that increase which one would expect from the tales that are told? I ask medical men on both sides of the house to look at the figures. The vital statistics departments of the various provinces have circulated their figures from time to time, and I must confess that I was greatly surprised by them. The chairman of this committee is a medical man. I do not think it will be any breach of confidence if I say that I was inquiring of him as to what had been the result in the border cities, so far as the health of the people was concerned, of the depression through which they had passed and the sort of diet that had been provided by the authorities. To my surprise I found that what he reported to me as to the health of the people was borne out by experience in other places; that is, the regular diet of good, plain food had given the children in schools an amazing health. I confess that I was surprised also when I saw the figures in regard to the older people.
All this is highly valuable in respect to the determination of many questions with respect to diet, hygiene and matters of that kind. The other day one of the foremost English doctors said the kind of clothes women are now wearing, as compared with those worn twenty-five or thirty years ago, has greatly lengthened their lives.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the difference?
Unemployment Insurance


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a difference in
weight, and matters of that sort. I will leave it to someone else to explain that, but the doctor was pointing out the results.
To get back to this measure, the pensions and public health acts are one thing. This is an effort to tie the information and experience with respect to unemployment insurance to health, based upon actual experience. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested that I had said certain things would happen willy-nilly. I said if the provinces were prepared to make it possible we would submit to this house in due season legislation that would deal with the phase of the matter to which I was referring. Beyond that I cannot go.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It does seem to me that although the Prime Minister may have it in mind to bring in something of this kind in the indefinite future, that is not sufficient for us at this time. It is all very well to point out the obstacles that may be raised by the various provinces or that may confront any administration which seeks to correlate the activities that are now going on, but on the other hand large numbers of our people are suffering very severely at the present time. It is all very well to talk about women's clothing to-day lengthening life; it is all very well to talk about the health of our school children improving. That may be all true, but those of us who have had anything to do with municipal affairs know perfectly well that to-day the situation, at least in the western part of this country which I know best, is becoming desperate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, that is not putting it too strongly. It was only a few months ago-and I think my hon. friend from St. Boniface will corroborate this-that the doctors in my own city of Winnipeg threatened what might be called a strike, saying definitely that unless the authorities came to the rescue and provided definite assistance for those who were unemployed and otherwise in need of assistance the doctors would not continue to give any help whatever to the unemployed or needy. In other words, the doctors said they were not going to continue to carry the load. Our municipalities did try to do something in the matter, but the western municipalities are on the verge of bankruptcy and cannot much longer continue to carry this load. There are large numbers of men who are almost desperate. There are large numbers

of women whose health is being permanently impaired. I do not know what kind of dresses they wear. It is all very well to talk in a general way, covering long periods of years, but I know that to-day the health of large numbers of women is being permanently impaired because of their inability to undergo operations and to secure proper medical treatment. I know these reports come in from almost all our cities. A year ago Doctor Bates, who was here representing a large dominion organization, presented statistics that clearly demonstrated the conditions existing across Canada. Are we going to wait another five years before we get anything? As the Prime Minister was speaking I thought of the report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations as far back as 1929, six years ago. I am going to take a few moments to read that report. It was the second year this question had been considered by the committee. We had prominent health officials before the committee, including Doctor Grant Fleming of Montreal and Doctor Fitzgerald of Toronto, and this was the report of the committee:
Your committee would reaffirm the position taken in the final report adopted on June 6 of last session, namely

That was seven years ago.
That your committee accept and endorse the principle of unemployment insurance, based on compulsory contributions derived from the state, employer and employees.
2. Your committee recognizes that while it is highly desirable that such legislation should be uniform in all the provinces, and while social insurance has a federal aspect, nevertheless, according to the Department of Justice, under our constitution legislative jurisdiction in relation to the establishment of a compulsory system of unemployment insurance is vested exclusively in the provincial legislatures.
This was under a Liberal regime.


Ernest Lapointe: It is still so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is still the position of the Liberals? Then if my friends the Liberals are going to sit there and take that position, this .country may well ask itself whether it should commit its future to a party which refused to take action on one of the most important questions confronting the people of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not the question at all.


Vincent Dupuis: That is not the point.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It has a bearing on the point, because the Liberals were in power for several years after this report wras issued,

Unemployment Insurance
and so far as I know they took no action whatsoever to implement it. I feel a bit indignant when I find the Liberals of to-day hammering the government because of what the government is attempting to do.


Ernest Lapointe: What are you doing?


James Shaver Woodsworth: As every hon. member knows, we have only a small group, but we have tried in season and out of season to urge that the interests of the people should be protected.


Vincent Dupuis: Is the hon. member satisfied with this legislation?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Please address the chair.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not satisfied with this legislation. As I have said, I would gladly see this section eliminated because it seems to me that by including the section the government is giving a false impression. That is why I am speaking now. At the same time, I say that the Liberals are not proving very helpful when they are standing pat, as they did before, on purely technical and constitutional questions, and not offering any way out. Let me proceed with this report-


Peter John Veniot: What is the date?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is the 1929
report.


Peter John Veniot: You should correct your statement; you said the Liberals were in power several years after the report was issued.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: There was one the year before that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This report is dated Wednesday, May 1, 1929.


Peter John Veniot: That is not "several" years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one before.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would say it was; this report reaffirmed the position taken by the committee in the previous year. It continues :
3. Your committee find that the provinces on being consulted by the Department of Labour with regard to their attitude towards the establishment of a general scheme, do not appear to be prepared to take immediate action.
That is the practical difficulty; that is true to-day. The provinces are not prepared to take immediate action.


An hon. MEMBER:: Some of them are.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They have come a little nearer to it since 1929.


An hon. MEMBER:: British Columbia.


James Shaver Woodsworth: British Columbia is the exception.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Hon.
members must address the chair.


Peter John Veniot: Were you not a member of that committee?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes I was.


Peter John Veniot: That is a unanimous report.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, it is a unanimous report.


Vincent Dupuis: Very good.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why
condemn the report, then?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not.


Ernest Lapointe: He is condemning the Liberal party.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My point is, as I shall show in a minute if hon. members will have the patience to listen, that the action contemplated by this clause now under discussion was clearly before the country in 1929. The report continues:
Under these circumstances, your committee submits the following recommendations:
(a)	That with regard to sickness insurance, the Department of Pensions and National Health be requested to initiate a comprehensive survey of the field of public health, with special reference to a national health program. In this it is believed that it would be possible to secure the cooperation of the provincial and municipal health departments, as well as the organized medical profession.
Since Liberals have been interrupting me, I ask them this: Since their government was in power for nearly two years after this report-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: One year.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Did they take any action towards implementing that report?


Peter John Veniot: Only one year.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The recommendation was first made in 1928, and then the principle was reaffirmed in the report made the following year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are reading from the 1929 report.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Did they take any action?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, they communicated with all the provinces.

Unemployment Insurance


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let me say to the ex-Minister of Justice that the provinces had been communicated with the year before, and this report was issued after replies had been received from them.


Ernest Lapointe: But we cannot change the constitution as easily as my hon. friend, or the Prime Minister.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then we have the following recommendation:
(b)	That in the forthcoming census, provision should be made for the securing of the fullest possible data regarding the extent of unemployment and sickness and that this should be compiled and published at as early a date as possible.
If the Prime Minister had desired to do so he could quite easily have included the matter of sickness with that of unemployment. I do not know how far it was included in the census schedules, but there was the same opportunity for securing data with regard to sickness as for securing data concerning unemployment. Then:
(c)	That the federal government be requested to bring the subject matter of this reference before the next federal-provincial conference; and your committee suggests, when the agenda for such a conference is being arranged that the provincial governments be invited to send representatives of the employer and employee to discuss the subject matter of this report.
For at least a year after the report was issued-pretty nearly a year and a half- Liberals had the opportunity to do something.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They did communicate with them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was not a question of communicating; they had been communicated with the year before.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There was a definite recommendation, which I believe passed the house, to the effect that there should be a dominion-provincial conference, and that at that conference there should be representatives of employers and employees. So far as I know that was not done; I never heard of it. It was not mentioned in the press, and if any action was taken there must have been a secret conference. On the other hand, in the last four years-almost five-there have been various conferences between the dominion and the provincial governments, but apparently these questions of sickness insurance and national health have not been placed on the agenda.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does not the hon. member recall that in the supplementary estimates of 1930 a special amount was provided for a dominion-provincial conference to be called for that among other purposes?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not recall it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the hon. member will look he will see.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am content to accept the word of the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And he supported it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quite sure I would support it, if it was brought up. I had forgotten about it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no mention of health.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Social questions.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know just what was included.


William Gordon Ernst: We have the unusual spectacle of the Liberal Samson glorying in the Delilah of the constitution.


Vincent Dupuis: Wait your turn.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How long have we to wait? In 1928 the Department of Labour placed in the hands of the members of the committee a small pamphlet dealing with what had been done in other countries. This confirms what the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) said a few moments ago. We are lagging far behind most other countries in the world. The report published by our own Department of Labour states, among other things:
In some countries state aid took the form of granting special status to mutual aid societies, and in many cases providing financial assistance from public funds.
There is nothing in the constitution to prevent that being done.
In other lands compulsory insurance was established.
Voluntary insurance schemes have been adopted in Italy (1886), Sweden (1891), Denmark (1892), Belgium (1894), Finland (1897), France (1898), Spain (1908) and Switzerland (1911).
Compulsory insurance systems were put in force in Germany (1883), Austria (1888), Hungary (1891), Luxemburg (1901), Norway (1909), Serbia (1910), Great Britain (1911), Russia (1911) and Roumania (1912). It may be noted that systems of sickness insurance established since the war have all been compulsory in character. These include Bulgaria

Unemploy men t Insurance
(1918), Czechoslovakia (1919), Portugal (1919), Poland (1920), Japan (1922), Greece (1922), Chile (1924), Lithuania (1925) and France (1928). In Australia and South Africa commissions have been appointed to study the question and a bill providing for a system of social insurance is now before the Australian parliament. In Brazil a labour code which will contain provisions for sickness insurance is in course of preparation. In Italy a system of compulsory insurance against tuberculosis is announced as the beginning of a general scheme of sickness insurance.
This information that I give is now old; it goes back to 1928. I do not know what other countries have been doing in the Last seven years; at least I have not the information at hand-I happened to have this in my file with my other papers-but all this was done over seven years ago. We in Canada during the past seven years have not moved one inch towards realizing anything of this kind, and now we are being put off by a section in the present employment insurance 'bill that asks a committee to study the question and secure information. It is not study that we need at the present time; it is action.


Mr. DONNELLY:: In the countries my
hon. friend has referred to as having sickness insurance, has any of them sickness insurance connected with unemployment insurance, or are the two subjects dealt with separately?


James Shaver Woodsworth: In a number of
countries they are closely connected.


James J. Donnelly: They are?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


James J. Donnelly: Is any of those countries of the opinion that unemployment insurance and sickness insurance are better kept separate instead of being treated in one and the same measure?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I cannot give that
information. In Great Britain the two subjects are closely connected.


James J. Donnelly: Yes, and very unsatisfactorily.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Who says so?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some doctors do
not like the situation in Great Britain, I know, but a great many of the workers find that it is more satisfactory than what we have in Canada.
There is one other thing. I cannot quite see why the Prime Minister should insist that parliament has jurisdiction in the matter of unemployment and not in the matter of public health. To a large extent he based his plea for unemployment insurance on the treaty of 92582-691
Versailles. In this same document of our own Department of Labour, from which I have already quoted', I find this note:
The League of Nations international labour organization, at its tenth session held at Geneva in May-June, 1927, adopted two draft conventions and one resolution on the subject of sickness insurance. The first draft convention related to sickness insurance for workers in industry and commerce, and domestic servants; the second draft convention dealt with sickness insurance for agricultural workers; and the recommendation laid down general principles of sickness insurance.
If this government feels called upon to provide unemployment insurance as implementing the treaty of Versailles and to enact it under peace, order and' good government, I cannot for the life of me see why it should not provide sickness insurance as well. It seems to me that while we squabble in this house year after year after year-


An hon. MEMBER:: Speak for yourself.


Mr.   W GODS W ORTH@: Somebody says,
"Speak for yourself." Does he refer to me? I am speaking for myself and I believe for tens of thousands of people throughout this country who are looking to parliament to do something to relieve their distress. When representatives of the blind appeared this morning before the committee on industrial and international relations I was delighted that hon. members from all sections of this house lent a sympathetic ear to the presentation of their case. I know perfectly well that all of us in this house would like to see the blind cared for, and I know that all in this house would like to see the sick more adequately cared for. I do urge that this should not be made a mere party game.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then if it is not a party game there must surely be some way in which we can get together to provide for the urgent needs of the people. These constitutional questions can be relegated to the background. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) laughs. I do not mean that there is no constitutional question to be dealt with, but I urge that such questions are subordinate to the urgent needs of the people.


Ernest Lapointe: Why should the hon. gentleman ask that the British North America Act be amended if this can be done in the way he suggests?


James Shaver Woodsworth: We need amendments to the act because of changed conditions; but the present situation is suffi-
Unemployment Insurance.

ciently urgent to warrant the government in taking emergency action to provide for the needs of the people, and then later we can consider what amendments should be made to the British North America Act permanently to meet the situation. But for the last six or seven years since this report was published, and for many a long year before that, we have been dilly-dallying with these questions. We had reason to hope that the government was going to take a strong line of action as indicated in the speech from the throne and in the Prime Minister's radio addresses, that something was to be done in a large way for the people of Canada, but we now find that we are to be put off with a meagre measure of this kind, and that merely a gesture is being made in regard to public health matters. I do not think parliament should be allowed to prorogue without the house insisting that something be done in the near future to meet the real and urgent needs of the people.


John Power Howden: I do not want my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre to leave a wrong impression with regard to medical conditions in our part of the country. He stated a little while ago that the medical .renditions were appalling. Actually the conditions are not appalling. I do not believe that the people of our country, by and large certainly the people of greater Winnipeg, have ever before in the history of our country been quite so well supplied with medical services as they are at the present time. The difficulty is that the municipalities are having to pay for these services, and the municipalities are nearly all broke. As a matter of fact, the people in our part of the country at the present time are getting medical services such as they never had before. It is the doctors that are getting the worst of it. It is true that we had a near medical strike in Winnipeg. When the depression set in, the medical men of our part of the country were expected year after year to care for indigent people who had not a cent in the world to pay for their services. Eventually the time came when the doctors themselves were faced with the problem of bread and butter, and they had to strike or starve. So they did strike. And now, Mr. Chairman, the condition is this, that we get very small fees in Winnipeg, so small that I hesitate to state them, and it is quite unnecessary to do so at the present time. But I will go so far as to state with regard to these fees that from the several municipalities in what we call Greater Winnipeg no medical man can receive more than $100 a month. He may be doing two or three or five hundred dollars' worth of

work for the joint municipalities of Greater Winnipeg, but he cannot collect for that work more than one hundred dollars a month. H a medical man's work consists largely in practice among people on relief, that is the amount of his income; and by the time he pays for his automobile upkeep, telephone, office expenditures and what not, it does not leave him with a very fat living. But let me say that there is not a person in our part of the country at the present time who cannot get medical attention. We have a hospital by-law whereby persons who require hospitalization can go to the hospital and the municipality has to pay that bill also. The difficulty is not with the people; they are getting very good medical attention now. But we need assistance for our municipalities and provinces, and I want to set that matter straight. What the Prime Minister has said with regard to the people is true. Starvation is a fine cure for many maladies in this life. It has been said by one scientist that most men dig their grave with their teeth, and that is true; and with the restricted diet which people at large have had for some time they have fortunately enjoyed a greater degree of health.
I do not believe that the criticism that has taken place to-night has anything to do with the matters that we have been discussing lately; it has been merely levelled at part IV of the bill, which seems useless and of no avail.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. member who has just taken his seat took exception to the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that conditions were appalling; but I think his words substantiate that statement, because he said that the doctors, of whom there must be several hundreds in Winnipeg, had either to strike or to starve. If that is true then I certainly think my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre was right in describing the situation as appalling. The doctors do not decide to go on strike until things are in very bad shape indeed, and there are thousands of people who, rather than take relief or be unable to pay bills they may incur, put off until the last minute a visit to the doctor. May I remind the commitee that for many years the fee paid a country doctor-it may be less now-was at the rate of $1 per mile, and if a doctor went fifteen miles the fee was $30. If he went to several patients on the same journey a similar fee was put in for each. I do not say that every doctor did that, but at any rate these fees cannot be paid by the people. If the doctors do go on strike-and I cannot blame them if

10S1
Unemployment Insurance
they do-and the expenses are met by the municipalities, it means that the municipalities get further into debt; and as my hon. friend has just said, the municipalities can no longer meet the situation. I do think that my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre was right when he said that conditions were appalling. The Prime Minister has told the committee that the departments of health will be consulted and that, if they are willing to cooperate, something will be done, I hope no time will be lost getting the provinces together so that some action can be taken during the present session.


Humphrey Mitchell: I asked the question that started this discussion, and I was interested in the observations of a worthy doctor from one of the Winnipeg constituencies. The greatest problem at the moment is not the provision of medical care but the cost. After all-and I say this in a kindly spirit-the doctors are suffering largely for their sins, and I mean the lack of organization and the high fees charged to those people who make an effort to pay their way. I do not say that for the purpose of being critical; I say it because it comes from my practical experience as a governor for many years of the municipal hospitals in my city. The medical profession stands in the same relationship to the community as did the schools fifty years ago. They are more or less in a state of anarchy, and those who feel that a scheme of this description can be launched over night are simply kidding themselves; we might as well be frank about it. First of all we have to get the medical profession down to earth; they must tell us which way they are going. You cannot boss the doctors around though you can persuade them. I remember the great difficulty they experienced in Great Britain in connection with the panel scheme and the launching of a system of health insurance. The doctors put up opposition to the scheme and threatened to strike against the government because of the low figure at which the panel rates were fixed; but when the scheme was in practical application the greatest defenders of health insurance were the doctors themselves. As a matter of fact the medical practitioners there in the last three months have affiliated themselves with the trade union congress.
I believe that the doctors can do really constructive work in connection with this scheme, using their influence with the provincial and federal governments with a view to setting in motion a system of national health insurance. In my opinion they are the keystone of the arch, and if nothing else has
been accomplished to-night we have had the crystallization of the views of the Canadian 'people's representatives on this question. My hon. friend spoke about the doctors doing $400 or $500 worth of work and receiving only $100 for it. Well, I think it is fair to say that if you get fifty per cent of your bills in the most prosperous times you are not doing so badly. Consider the question of major and minor operations. The average working man who tries to pay his way in this country finds, when he or a member of his family is faced with a major operation, it is almost like buying a house.


Mr.   BOWDEN@: When I spoke about medical men doing $400 and $500 worth of work at the present time, I was speaking of the reduced fees they now receive-$10 and $15 for a major operation and 50 cents for a call.	.


Humphrey Mitchell: I wish they were down to that figure in my town; I am speaking from practical experience. My hon. friend knows as well as I do that an operation for appendicitis costs around $150.
Mr. HOWDE'N: Fifteen dollars to-day.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is about all it is worth. I do not know of any man in Canada who can earn $15 in twenty minutes. I do not say this in any spirit of criticism of the profession, because in my opinion they have made a distinct contribution to the life of the nation. And they have probably suffered more than any of the professional class in Canada through the depression. If this depression will only get people to realize that it is better to have a sound system of health insurance than the condition that exists now, then something useful will have come out of this troubled time. I believe this is a fair thing to say: public ward patients-and I am speaking of my own city-get the best attention; they have a better chance than some of the other patients of coming out of the front door, I might say, than the back one, because the 'best surgeons in the city are on the staffs of our hospitals, and a public ward patient does not get an operation unless it is needed.
'Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: I may be telling tales out of school. I was in England last year for the first time in twenty-five years with the exception of the war. I always had the opinion the British led the world in medicine, surgery and hospitals, but I think they are a long way behind us. I believe our equipment and even our doctors themselves are the
Unemployment Insurance

equal of the 'best in Europe., and I had an opportunity of looking over some of the largest hospitals in the city of London, the county and also on the continent of Europe. But I am wandering from the point. What I am most concerned about is this: whether the doctors like this or not, I believe in the next six years we shall have a system of health insurance in this country. This depression has taught them a lesson. It is absolutely unsound that the state should spend the tens of thousands of dollars it does in the education of a medical student and that he should spend thousands of dollars for the first fifteen years of his practice sitting in his office waiting for patients to come along. The most practical approach to the problem is to give the great masses of the people an opportunity to avail themselves of medical and surgical attention under a scheme of national health insurance divorced from the enormous charges-and I am not saying that in a spirit of criticism of the doctors, because this is a product of the system-that prevail for medical attention at the present time. I would like to see a couple of decent teeth put into part IV so as to give this commission power to launch a scheme of that description in cooperation with the provinces and other interested organizations in connection with this legislation.


Mr. GERSHAW:: First of all I would like to tell the hon. member for Battle River that a doctor charges his mileage for one way and makes many trips when he does not get the fifteen dollars. Moreover, the doctor who brings a patient through a major operation and gives him the attention he deserves has rendered a service that cannot be paid for by fifteen dollars, as the hon. member for East Hamilton has intimated.


Mr. SPOTTON:: What if the patient dies?


Frederick William Gershaw: The Prime Minister
mentioned that the average expectation of life had been very greatly increased. It has been increased from around forty years to fifty-eight years, but the increase has been very largely due to better conditions of living and a lessened infant mortality. The stress, strain and worry of these trying years seems to have had a bad effect upon heart and allied conditions, so that sudden deaths from such causes have greatly increased. Money that is well spent for the health of the people certainly brings greater and richer rewards than money spent for any other purpose.
In connection with health insurance Alberta has taken a forward step. The provincial

authorities have gathered a great deal of information and are about to set up one or two trial districts in which what is really a state medicine experiment may be tried out. It is valuable to assemble that information, to make sure of the steps that are being taken, and thus work out a system that will endure. The only way in which that can be done is by taking steps gradually, and at the present time much more information is needed before a satisfactory system could be launched. At the same time I would like to stress the need for legislation of this kind and for making progress as rapidly as we safely can.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. member for
Medicine Hat mentioned my name in reference to the statement I made. The figures I gave as to medical charges were genuine, and I trust similar charges are not made by all doctors. I have seen bills where a mile each way has been charged for, and where more than one patient was visited on the same journey. The doctor who did this is now practising in Edmonton. I sincerely trust other doctors are not charging as high a fee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would
the commission be prepared to cooperate with one province in which legislation has been drafted or would it wait until conditions are as nearly uniform as possible in all the provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall answer the hon.
gentleman's question as I proceed. The debate that has taken place on this clause, although it has traversed far beyond the scope of the matter covered by it, has narrowed itself down to a very simple question. I am surprised at the violence of the language used by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The question is a very simple one: .Shall parliament provide money to enable municipalities, cities and towns, rural and otherwise, to carry out their plans with respect to health and health insurance? The hon. member for St. Boniface was quite frank about the matter. He says: The service is now being rendered. Probably there is in this country no class that has rendered greater service to individual citizens during the hard years through which we have passed and who have received less compensation for their work than has the medical profession. There is no doubt about that. The problem is a simple one; stripped of everything and without this violence of language it narrows down to this: Shall the parliament of Canada provide the money to enable the municipalities to carry out the services mentioned by the hon. gentleman? All the elaboration

Unemployment Insurance
that can be made does not change that question. The Liberal party-and I agree it is unfortunate that party language was used as it was with respect to that phase of the matter-said:	We do not believe in giving
money to people to spend that do not raise it by taxation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I consider it
is not a right principle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a question of interest
it is good; as a question of principle it is bad. John P. Robinson said: Interest is good enough for me. But this is the real issue: you cannot to-night with all the power in the world scrap the provincial services and impose upon them a federal service without the loss of millions of dollars. That is as clear as anything can be. The difference between a national scheme and a provincial scheme at the present time is a very simple one; the hon. member for Vancouver Centre realizes that. The provinces have gone ahead [DOT]and exercised their jurisdiction with respect to public health, hospitalization and so on; they have built in every part of the dominion plants of great value, have expended millions of dollars on them. How are you to impose on them a national scheme and leave them as they are? Are you to have two schemes or one? Are you to scrap one and maintain the other?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Correlate them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But this talk about correlation has been going on for a long time. The provinces have things in being as distinguished from things that are not in being, and as long as the provinces have an existing plan which is functioning they are not willing to surrender it to the federal power. That has been one of the great difficulties in our *country. Referring to conferences, I have had the privilege of talking to representatives of all the provinces during the last four years. One province says, "No scheme that can be devised by the wit of man is as good as that which we have in this province for looking after the health of our people." The taxpayers have been paying for it, but now, because the taxpayers cannot provide as they did, they say; Give us some money. That however, is not the theory of a policy of national health or health insurance. It is not the basis of it; it is not the foundation of it. In this bill we have a national scheme of unemployment insurance; it is competent for us to attach to it a national scheme of health insurance qua those who are covered by it, ^nd that is what these provisions are for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is no
national scheme.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a national scheme
of unemployment insurance. Two million people out of a population of ten and a half millions may be affected by it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
outline of the scheme?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I see what the right hon. gentleman means. The scheme is not set forth here. This is to get the foundation upon which to lay a scheme, because the provinces have proceeded on the assumption that they are going to conduct this business in their own way. I have investigated the operations of every province in this confederation, and I know no single province that is prepared to say it is willing to forego its position. In British Columbia they have a statutory provision-*


Henry Elvins Spencer: And in Alberta.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, in Alberta it is
of a limited character, applying, I think only to districts. I may be wrong in that. In British Columbia the proposals were for the whole province; that at least is my understanding. Now we say we are going to introduce a scheme which will be an aid to the health of the people of this country. If on the basis of this measure we are able to make an appropriation to enable the commission to icare for the health of those who are insured, we shall then have the commission that is so caring for them directly responsible to this parliament. But a national scheme that merely hands money over is one to which at the moment I cannot give my support. I said that	last year and	the	year before	when wewere	talking about	the	question of	grants inaid.	Grants in aid	are	the basis of	the present	old age pensions;	in fact we	are now
paying .three quarters of them. Grants in aid were established in this country in connection with highways, in connection with agriculture-


An hon. MEMBER:: And technical education.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, although technical
education was on a somewhat different basis, because in our constitution there is concurrent jurisdiction respecting education. Having elaborated at great length the system that now exists, the provinces say: Let us deal with this-how? No suggestion of any way except the handing out of money. This bill contemplates something different-a scheme based upon exact information applied
Unemployment Insurance

to exact facts, that is, information supplied as to the two million people who may be affected by this bill, to lay the foundation upon which may be predicated-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where does it say that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I said an hour ago,
all this bill does is to enable the commission to gather the information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the foundation, the part that is underground; it cannot be seen.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The foundation is here; the superstructure will appear in the estimates. That is the way this matter will be dealt with. That is the reason I suggest to the committee that this is an extremely valuable provision, providing for aid in respect to the health of the people of this country. But as the hon. gentleman for East Hamilton said, you cannot do this by just jumping at it and saying: this is the way to do it. You must take cognizance of the fact that each of the provinces, except possibly one, has established a most complete system of care of public health, and some have established health insurance schemes. We propose to deal with it on a national basis in the manner I have indicated.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I must say just
a word, since the Prime Minister has undertaken to reprove me for using violent language-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Far from it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not consider my language violent, but I hope I can use strong terms to describe what I believe to be the actual situation. The hon. member for St. Boniface was inclined to think all in need of medical assistance were being dealt with. I have not intended to make any attack on the doctors; I think they have given valuable service, but I would say to him that all people in need of medical service are not by any means being dealt with, not by any means.


John Power Howden: They have only to apply.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, much more
than that. I have not been in social work in my own city of Winnipeg for many years and travelled throughout the west for the last twenty years without being made acutely conscious of the very serious situation that exists. People who have considered themselves independent frequently put off seeking medical assistance simply because they can-

not pay for it. I know scores of such cases. It is these people who are perhaps in the most needy position to-day. The service that they need is not being given. I had a case the other day, not in connection with a medical doctor but a dentist, of a boy who needed a tooth fixed; the regular charge was $65. I submit that charges of that kind cannot possibly be paid by the ordinary people of this country.


Mr. MOORE (Chateauguay):: They do not have to be.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am just giving
a particular case of which I happen to know, and that was the regular charge.


William Henry Moore: Find other dentists who would not charge $65.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It may be possible; I have heard of cut-rate dentists. But I am not discussing medical or dental fees, I desire only to point out that a great many people are in need of medical care who might be looked after by a proper health insurance scheme. The Prime Minister rather implied that I want to scrap the provincial schemes. Nothing is further from my mind. I think the provincial schemes will have to be dealt with, just as I think the constitutional question will have to be dealt with. But these are minor matters compared with the primary responsibility of caring for the needs of the people. I quite agree that at its basis it is a financial matter, for the individual and for the municipalities that have to provide relief. But we have the source of financial strength here in the dominion government, and I think we have suggested one means by which the finances could be provided. My hon. friend from North Winnipeg suggested grants in aid. I do not think there are any provinces which would refuse to accept grants in aid. If any were wealthy enough to refuse it, or if their idea of their constitutional rights was so high as to lead them to decline the grant in aid, such a province need not be included, but the rest of us are sorely in need of something of this kind. The point I tried to emphasize before and that I must continue to emphasize is that there is a very large number of our people who to-day are in sore need of medical attention but who cannot obtain it. I think it, is a distinct responsibility of this government to provide more adequately for the health of the people of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 40, 41 and 42 agreed to.

Unemployment Insurance
On section 43-Annual report by commission.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think section 42 sufficiently meets the difficulty raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. If it does not we shall be glad to make it conform to what the committee thinks desirable, but it provides for the regulations being printed and then laid on the table of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 44-Reports transmitted through the minister to the governor in council.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That answers the question the right hon. gentleman asked some days ago as to the report being laid before parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 45 agreed to.
On section 46-Repeal.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why the optional word "may" in this section?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the term always used with respect to a proclamation by the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 47 (as printed; now section 46) agreed to.
On section 48 (as printed; now section 47)- Act to become operative.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, this is the last section. I have an amendment I should like to suggest to this section, but I think it would be preferable to carry the few sections that have been allowed to stand before dealing with section 48, unless my right hon. friend feels differently. Three or four sections have been held over; perhaps it would be better if they could be dealt with before we take up the last section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the last section will stand until we have dealt with the other sections that are standing.
Section stands.
On schedule 1-Part I.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are there any questions arising out of the schedules? I think they have been discussed during the progress of the general discussion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is one question I should like the Prime Minister to answer if he can.
On more than one occasion he has stated in this house that approximately 1,700,000 people would come under the provisions of the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the estimate.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This evening the Prime Minister stated on several occasions that approximately two million persons would be affected by the health insurance proposals. I should like to know if the Prime Minister has more definite information that he can give the committee as to the number of persons employed in industry who will qualify and become insurable under the provisions of the present statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have already given the information based upon the census, and the computations of the actuaries are based upon the census. In the curves of their computations the actuaries have made allowance for the number of wage earners now employed and that have been employed in Canada.
The hon. member for Gloucester asked me to obtain from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics information as to the number of wage earners in 1932, 1933 and 1934. The figures supplied to me are as follows:
1932		 2,476,724
1933		 2,452,976
1934		 2,578,204
The average number not working some time, as far as ascertainable, was:	[DOT]
1932		 664,859
1933		 710,190
1934		 575,371
The average number with no job, according to the department's figures, was as follows:
1932		 571,759
1933		 610,763
1934		 502,819
The other day, reading from the report made by Mr. Cudmore, I gave the house the figure of 400,000. That date was as of December 1, 1934, while the average number without jobs is as of June 1 for the years in question, so the figure on June 1 was 502,819 and on December 1 the estimate of the department, on the information before it, was 400,000. That is the information supplied.


Peter John Veniot: Would the Prime Minister give the figures in regard to the number of workers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman also asked me to obtain the number of workers affected by the bill. Those are given me as follows:
1932		 1,733,707
1933		 1,717,083
1934		 1,804,743
10S6
Unemployment Insurance

That is applying the census figures to the known figures for those years. The figure of 2,000,000, which I mentioned as the number of workers affected, had reference to 1935. According to the department's figures the average number not working was as follows:
1932		 465,401
1933		 497,133
1934		 402,760


Peter John Veniot: I wish to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to what appears to be a discrepancy. The number of workers who would have been affected by this bill in 1929 is given as 1,848,493, while that same figure for 1934 is given as 1,804,743. That seems to be a discrepancy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


Peter John Veniot: There was no unemployment to speak of in 1929.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, there was.


Peter John Veniot: Very little; the best estimate was about 117,000. The number affected by this bill in 1930 would have been 1,874,981, but for 1934 the number is given as 1,804,743.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I supplied the hon. gentleman with the exact figures furnished me by the department of statistics. I think if he would allow for the increase in population he would find the explanation. The number of workers that would be affected by this bill is usually about seventy per cent of the whole.


Peter John Veniot: I am not attempting to suggest the Prime Minister is giving anything but what has been handed to him by certain authorities. I know however that in 1928 there were 1,691,719 workere who would be affected by this insurance bill. In 1934, a year of great depression, there was 1,804,743; or nearly 200,000 more affected than in the year 1926, which was one of prosperity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is perfectly true.


Peter John Veniot: It is true according to those figures, but it cannot be true in fact. There was no depression in 1928.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course the hon. member knows that seasonably there are large numbers of unemployed all the time, in this country. There never has been a time, and I do not suppose there ever will be a time, when that will not be so. The figures supplied by the department are the numbers which will be affected on the basis of the 1931 census, and the information supplied by industrial undertakings reported indicate the number of workers would be 1,733,707 in 1932, whereas in 1933 it had fallen to 1,717,083. Reports from

industrial reporting firms indicated much larger numbers of employed, at one time nearly 200,000 more. The figures furnished in this statement signed by the dominion statistician show the figure 1,804,743 for the year 1934.


Peter John Veniot: Let me draw the attention of the Prime Minister to another point. He mentioned that there are large numbers of unemployed at all times. If he will look at the census returns he will find the census commissioner reported that over a period of ten or fifteen years the annual unemployment never exceeded 140,000 in number. He added that it was generally to be found that the greater proportion of the unemployed were people who were not asking for work and did not want work. The number cannot be as large as mentioned by the Prime Minister when the census return shows that over a period of ten or fifteen years the largest number has been only 114,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can say only this, that the question put the other evening by the hon. member was submitted to the department. I believe the answers are as correct as they can be made; I believe they are accurate.


Peter John Veniot: I do not believe they are.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe the committee is anxious to conclude the discussion of the several clauses of the bill. The Prime Minister has been kind enough to say he would at my suggestion allow the last section to stand. On reflection I believe it would perhaps better suit the convenience of the committee were I to move the intended amendment now. It is one I hope my right hon. friend may perhaps be ready to accept. Mr. Chairman, would you call section 48?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It stands; it has been called.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I shall move the amendment now. As it stands the section reads:
This act shall come into force when assented to: Provided that no contribution shall be paj'able or paid under the provisions of part III of this act until a date to be set by the commission of which due notice shall be published in the Canada Gazette and' in such other manner as the commission may deem necessary.
The amendment I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is:
That the first line of section 48 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: This act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council after the question of its validity has

Unemployment Insurance
been submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada on a reference by the government, and the act has been declared to be intra vires of the parliament of Canada.
My reason for submitting the amendment is this:	While the Prime Minister has intimated that in his own mind he is quite confident the measure is intra vires of this parliament, nevertheless he has come to that opinion only within the last few months. I believe I am right when 1 state that for years past he has held a different opinion. It is not surprising therefore if many of us are in grave doubt as to the competence of parliament's jurisdiction in the matter, and if we have doubts people throughout the country will have equal doubts. A few days ago when I asked the Prime Minister if he had obtained an opinion from the supreme court he replied that he felt the supreme court did not wish to give an opinion on a matter which was not concretely before it. The position now is that in the course of a day or two this bill will have passed the House of Commons and will be sent to the Senate where quite possibly it may be quickly passed. The Prime Minister intimated he thought the lion was out of the path so far as the Senate was concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said it was in my right hon. friend's time; I cannot say as to now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I feel the right hon. gentleman knows he has no lions over there which will be in the way. Quite probably the measure will pass quickly through the Senate. In these circumstances I submit the Prime Minister would find it possible to obtain thereafter immediate assent to the measure, after which it could be immediately sent to the supreme court and the opinion of that body obtained even before the prorogation or dissolution of parliament. If 'I thought the suggested amendment would occasion any delay in bringing the legislation into effect, in the event of its being intra vires, I would not suggest the amendment. I am convinced however that my suggestion should not occasion any delay, and I do believe, assuming the legislation to be intra vires, very serious prejudice of its provisions would be thereby prevented. Unquestionably in the minds of the people throughout the country when the measure is assented to there will remain a grave doubt as to its validity. The provinces will have doubts, employers and employees will have doubts, and when my right hon. friend proceeds to provide the necessary machinery a critical situation may arise. He said the number of employees would exceed 4,000-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I said I did not
know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought
4.000	was his estimate. I put it at between
5.000	and 10,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the estimate
of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is
generally conceded that sooner or later this measure will come before the courts for a decision respecting its validity. Should it be declared ultra vires, and the machinery meanwhile were set up with appointments of four or five thousand people made, and all were on a sudden to find themselves without a position, the results would be to say the least unfortunate. It would have, too, a bad effect upon the beneficiaries, the people paying into the fund, and upon the position of industry generally. In these unsettled times, if any further note of uncertainty is thrown into the situation existing between employers and employees, and if any further difficulty is added by way of ascertaining where they stand and what will be expected of them by way of additional taxation and additional burdens to the industries with which they are connected, the situation will be made very serious indeed. It is to avoid the possibility of anything of that nature that I offer the amendment in the hope that my right hon. friend will see his way clear to accept it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment. Section 48 is drawn in its present terms to meet in part the situation to which the right hon. gentleman has directed attention. The commission is to ibe appointed and the act will at once go into operation. But no contributions shall be levied on either the employees, the employers or the state until such time as the commission concludes that it is desirable to bring part III of the act into force. After listening to the debate which has taken place in the house and in committee I should think it would be extremely difficult for anyone to suggest that this measure would be within the legislative jurisdiction of any of the provinces. If it is ultra vires of a province it must be intra vires of the dominion, without going any further into the matter. So far as making a reference to the court is concerned, I believe that is highly objectionable. In the Scott act case, so called, the act went into force, and there was a prosecution before a police magistrate of a man named Russell in the city of Fredericton which en-
Unemploymcn t Insurance

abled the case ultimately to reach the privy council for decision. It has been so often said that the opinion of the court with respect to the validity of an act is no better than the opinion of the law officers of the crown, but if a concrete case is raised by some person declining to make a contribution and the provisions of the act are brought into force, and the magistrate or court before whom the case is tried decides that the defendant is justified in not paying, the case with all the evidence that may be given as to the surrounding facts will be 'before the tribunal for adjudication; in other words, a concrete case, and not a number of pages of a statute. It is quite clear that facts must influence law.
Many hon. gentlemen to-night have referred to the question of emergency. It will be recalled what Lord Haldane said with respect to the power of this parliament in dealing with emergencies, that it had powers which under ordinary circumstances it had not at all. The milk case in British Columbia arises out of a definite and distinct case in which the facts would be placed in evidence. One of the factors that I would propose, if I were conducting a case brought under this act, to put in evidence, and which could not be put in evidence otherwise, would be that parliament unanimously voted for the second reading of this bill. That is a fact of great importance in determining its position because it indicates clearly the national character of the legislation. There are other factors to which attention might well be directed and w'hich would be forthcoming under any instructions from the law officers of the crown. I therefore cannot consent to theories being tested by the court. What will be tested will be the concrete operations of this statute.
Amendment (Mr. Mackenzie King) negatived: Yeas, 21; Nays, 56.
Section 48 agreed to.
On the schedules.
First schedule, Part I, agreed to.
On part II-Excepted employments.
Mr. B'EINNETT: I think we have dis-cused part II, but if there is any one question to which attention has been directed I shall be glad to see that it stands for consideration.


Peter John Veniot: I may be a little dull of comprehension, or perhaps it was because of the noise in the chamber that I did not catch the explanation of the Prime Minister

on one point. I should like to know how long has a man coming under this act to pay contributions before he is entitled to any benefits whatever?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Forty payments in two years.


Peter John Veniot: And only after the expiration of two years does he become entitled to receive benefits?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, after the payment of forty contributions, but he is allowed two years in which to make them.


Peter John Veniot: Oh yes, I see.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He might make forty payments in forty-five weeks.


Peter John Veniot: I understand.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In a certain part of the bill it is provided that a man has to be out of work nine days before he is entitled to benefits. Is that nine consecutive days or nine working days?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I explained that it was nine working days.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think the bill says anything more than nine days.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It defines that. That
section with respect to three days and three days stands. I shall come back to that when we get through with the schedules and also to one other section on which a question was raised by the hon. member for Swift Current.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: May I ask what constitutes a full week's work for the purpose of contributions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the section to which I referred the other day in answer to the hon. member for North Winnipeg and which I am going to discuss at some length because there might be some ambiguity with respect to working three days and missing three. I promised that that ambiguity would be entirely removed from the bill.


Mr. HANBURY:: I wish again to call the Prime Minister's attention to representations that have been made by myself and many other members of the house with respect to employees in banking, insurance and similar classifications.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What similar classifications?


Wilfred Hanbury: I have representations with respect to the building and construction

Unemployment Insurance
trade as being a seasonal trade, the workers of which should be included in the operation of this act. I wish to place that on record before the Prime Minister.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do wish to protest against the large number of classes of workers who are excepted under Part II. The Prime Minister a few moments ago called this a national unemployment measure, yet although agriculture is one of our basic industries it is being left entirely out. A large number of employees in agriculture drift back from the city to the country when there is work to be done on the farm. The old days are gone when there was one class of hired men who devoted themselves entirely to agriculture, and a great many of these workers now spend part of their time in the city and part in the country, or on construction work. It seems to me that this is one of the most needy classes of people and ought not to be left out. The same may be said of these other groups that are excepted, such as fishing, lumbering and logging; these are people who really need the benefits of unemployment insurance. I know perfectly well that lumbering and logging are by their very nature more or less casual. Possibly the risks are not so good, but at least these men should be given the opportunity of contributing to such a scheme. They could then draw out in proportion to what they had paid in. It seems to me that that w'ould tend to stabilize such industries. It is a very serious matter that these men should be left entirely out of the scheme. I have had representations in this regard from logging and lumbering workers out on the coast. Further, I do not know just what is meant by employment in transportation by water or by air, and by stevedoring. That might leave out entirely all engaged in the shipping industry. What about the people in the railway shops? Are they included or not? That is not clear to me. Certainly the shop men are engaged in the transportation service and ought to be included in this scheme.


Alan Webster Neill: Transportation by water, it is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure it does not include railways.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am very glad indeed. Take stevedoring too; that again is one of the most casual of our occupations. The Prime Minister will remember that in England a good many years ago it was very largely regularized. It seems to me that the institution of unemployment insurance would go a long way towards regularizing it in our ports to-day. And then the women workers: surely those engaged in domestic service and nurses ought to be included in a scheme of this kind. I cannot see any reason why they should be left out. I should like to have the Prime Minister tell us, one by one, with regard to at least these four or five categories why these classes of workers have been left out of his plan.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Speaking about agricultural labourers, how many men would you get, after they had made forty payments for two years and received $26 a month, who would go back to the farm?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I pointed out that a great many people are not engaged solely in agriculture but spend part of their time at other work in the cities.


John Vallance: What about the one who is engaged in agriculture, the labourer engaged all the time? Once he maks his forty payments for two years, will he retire for the rest of the time on $26 a month?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no. I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. I shall later endeavour to answer the hon. gentleman's question.
Progress reported.


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