BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina) presented the first report of the special committee appointed to study and report on the best method by which the British North America Act may be amended and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime
Minister) moved:
That Messrs. Morand, Bourgeois, Church, Dorion, Elliott, Ganong, Gray, Sullivan, Hanbury, Heaps, Howard, Howden, McIntosh, Peck, Plunkett, Rinfret, Stanley and White (London), be appointed a special committee of this house to consider and report upon the inauguration of a national policy of house building to include the construction, reconstruction and repair or urban and rural dwelling houses in order to provide employment throughout Canada, and also to provide such dwelling houses as may be necessary, upon such terms and conditions as may be best adapted to the needs and requirements of the people, having regard to the cost of such a policy and the burden to be imposed upon the treasury of Canada; and to recommend the manner in which such a work should be proceeded with; and to hear evidence and to send for persons and papers in regard to the matters above set out, "and that paragraph (1) of standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto."
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime
Minister) moved:
That the name of Mr. Rennie be substituted for that of Mr. Taylor on the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament.
And that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Rennie be substituted for that of Mr. Golding on the standing committee on industrial and international relations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Questions

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

Mr. YOUNG:: 1.	Were values for duty placed on bronze and aluminum powders entering Canada from Germany in December, 1931?
2.	If so what were these values?
3.	Did such valuations apply to powders coming from all countries, or from Germany only?
4.	What were the invoice values of these powders coming from Germany immediately prior to the setting of these values for duty?
5.	What are the names of the people in Canada who asked for this additional protection?
6.	What reasons did these people advance in justification of their request?
7.	What investigations were made by the department as to the merits of the claim for this additional protection?
8.	What investigation was made as to the possible effect of this increased protection on importers and users of these powders in Canada?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Several exporters in Germany were advised in December, 1931, as to the values for duty purposes of bronze and aluminum powders, after individual investigations were conducted at their places of business, under Sections 35 and 36 of the Customs Act.
2.	The values established pertained only to individual private companies investigated, and as all information obtained from them was covered by the pledge of secrecy, it would be a breach of faith to make it public and would be contrary to the established practice to do so.
3.	The values so established by the department in December, 1931, applied on importations from individual exporters in Germany only.
4.	It is contrary to the established practice of the Department of National Revenue to give information which would disclose the business of an individual or corporation.
5 and 6. When complaints are made by Canadian producers, it is the department's practice to investigate and when warranted apply the provisions of the Customs Act as to under valuation. It is contrary to the established practice of the department to give information respecting the names of firms who furnish information to the department.
7. Investigations were made at the offices of several of the largest manufacturers of these goods in Germany who were exporting to Canada, to determine the proper value for duty as contemplated by the Customs Act.
92582-57J
8. No investigation in Canada was necessary as the department was concerned only in seeing that duty was collected in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act.


L'fLE-AUX-GRUES, QUE.-POSTMASTER
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What is the name of the postmaster at rile-aux-Grues, county of Montmagny, Quebec?
2.	What is the salary of this employee?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Joseph Hector Lavoie.
2.	$529.36.


YAMASKA AND ST-FRANQOIS RIVERS -SOUNDINGS
Mr. DUBOIS:: 1.	Has the government recently or is it at present making soundings in the region of Lac St-Pierre. the Baie St-Franqois or to the mouths of the Yamaska and St-Frangois rivers, in the county of Yamaska?
2.	If so, under the authority of what department has such work been done or is being carried on?
3.	How many persons have been employed or are employed on this work?
4.	What is the daily salary paid to those
employed ?
5.	On the recommendation of what person of the county of Yamaska were persons employed or are bejng employed?
6.	Who was or is the foreman of the works?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1 and 2. Soundings are being made in the river St. Lawrence ship channel in Lake St. Peter under the authority of the Marine department. No soundings are being made by the Marine department in the region of Baie St-Francois or the mouths of the Yamaska and St-Franqois rivers, in the county of Yamaska.
3.	Thirty-eight persons are employed.
4.	S178.65.
5.	Persons from the county of Yamaska employed on the work were recommended by Mr. Paul Comtois.
6.	Mr. Georges Normandin is the foreman of the work.



FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT

Mr. FOINTALNE:: 1.	How many farmers from the judicial district of St. Hyaeinthe have availed themselves of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, from the time it was put into force, until the most recent reports?
2.	How many cases have been settled since the act was made operative, until most recent reports?

Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. RHODES:: To February 1, 1935:
1. 100.
2. 6.
gibbon's landing, b.c., rural mail


Mr. MUNN:: 1.	What is the name of the contractor for rural mail delivery, Gibson's Landing, British Columbia?
2.	What salary does the contractor receive?
3.	Were there other tenders received at the time of this appointment?
4.	If so, what are the names of those who tendered and amounts of their respective tenders?


Mr. SAITVIE:: 1.	Elphinstone Co-operative Association, Limited.
2.	$450 per annum.
3.	Yes.
4.	Elphinstone Co-operative Association $450; J. H. Drummond, $452.40.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	How many vessels or boats were seized for violation of customs law from 1930 to the end of 1934?
2.	What disposition was made of such vessels or boats?


FACTORIES AND EMPLOYMENT
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	How many factories had we in Canada
in July, 1930?	.
2.	How many of these factories have discontinued operations since July, 1930?
3.	How many people were employed' in these factories that discontinued operations?
4.	How many new factories started since July, 1930?
5.	How many people do they employ?
6.	What are the names of these factories, and where situated?
7.	What and where are the parent companies, if these are subsidiary factories?
8.	How many factories, that have started since July, 1930, have discontinued operations?



VALCARTIER QUE., UNEMPLOYMENT CAMP

Mr. POWER:: With	reference	to	return, Reference	38,dated February 11, 1935, under the heading of question 2, the nature of the work or works carried	on by the	unemployed at:	(a)Valcartier unemployment camp, and the reply thereto,	"erection	of	permanent buildings,"what is	the nature	of	the said buildings,	and
for what use are they intended?
[Mr. Fontaine.l



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: What are the total sums expended by the government on unemployment and farm relief from August 7, 1930, to February 15, 1935, under the following headings: (a) expenditures; (b) loans; (c) guarantees?



CUSTOMS AND EXCISE REVENUE-RICHMOND, QUE.

Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	What was the revenue of the port of customs and excise, at Richmond, Quebec, in 1928, 1929-, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934?
2.	What are the names of those who were employed at this port during that period and what were their salaries?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. NEILL:: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, reports and agreements between the dominion government, or the Department of the Interior, and A. B. Trites et al, or Base Metals Mining Corporation Limited, relating to certain mining claims in the Yoho National Park during the period between the 5th day of February, 1934, and present date.



KOOTENAY PARK MINING CLAIMS

Alan Webster Neill: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, reports and other papers and documents, passing between any member or official of the government, and any other parties, relating to the staking, recording, assessment work, or in any other way, to the Albion group mining claims, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Kootenay Park, British Columbia, such return to cover the period from February 5, 1934, to date.



MURRAY RIVER, P.E.I., WHARF REPAIRS

Mr. MacLEAN:: For a copy of all correspondence, engineers' reports, and other documents, in connection with the repairs to the wharf at Murray River, King's county, Prince Edward Island, in 1934, together with a statement showing names and the amount paid in wages to each person employed, rate per hour, and the amount paid for timber and other materials; also the names and addresses of all parties from whom said materials were purchased.



MILITARY AND POLICE EXPENDITURES

Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth) moved:: For a statement of all expenditures for military and police purposes since the present government came into office in August, 1930, including expenditures for the said purposes, actual or contemplated, under the Public Works Construction Act, 1934.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if this is to include buildings that were erected for the convenience of the permanent force and the mounted police I think it should say so. So far as expenditures for military and police purposes under the Public Works Construction Act are concerned, they are covered entirely by the estimates. I think there is a clear distinction. If the motion is to include these buildings it should say so.


Frederick George Sanderson: I may say to the
Prime Minister that I intended to include all the buildings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The buildings are not for military purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. CASGRAIN:
For a copy of all papers, correspondence, telegrams, and other documents, in the possession of the Department of Public Works, with reference to the construction of a public building at Ste. Anne de Beaupre, in the county of Montmorency, to the extent of $25,000 as mentioned in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1936.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, with reference to this motion and the following ones, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, under the rulings of successive Speakers, they are nob properly upon the paper. It has not been customary to ask for nor to supply information with respect to the current year's operations or as to the extent to which action may be taken. This motion, for instance, refers to the construction of a public building to the extent of $25,000, as mentioned in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1936. We discussed this question some time ago in this house and we concluded so far as all governments are concerned that the circumstances under which the appropriations are made in the estimates should not be discussed in the house through the production of papers between the minister and his engineers and other people who make reports, because it is not possible to give effect to every report that is made by every engineer in every part of the country. Something may seem to be important and yet it may not be possible to supply the funds. I therefore suggest that these motions be reconstructed in order that they may be dealt with in the usual manner.


Mr. POULIOT:: May I submit, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and as a question of privilege, that the Prime Minister might wait until the hon. member for Charlevoix-Mont-morency (Mr. Casgrain) is back in the house to argue the matter with him.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the wish that these
motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 stand in the meantime? Then the motions will stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. 10 is a proper motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Stands in the meantime.
Motion (No. 2) stands.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 14, consideration of the motion of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. 8, to establish an unemployment and social insurance commission, to provide for a national employment sendee, for insurance against unemployment, for aid to unemployed persons, and for other forms of social insurance and security, and for purposes related thereto.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not propose to trespass at any length on the time of the house. The subject matter of the bill, the second reading of which I moved some days ago, is apparently well within the minds of most members of this house. There have been universal expressions of approval of the principle of a national unemployment insurance measure; that muoh at least can be gathered from the discussions that have taken place. No hon. member, so far as I could hear, except possibly one, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), indicated other than approval of the general principle that underlies the measure. In fact, only a very brief discussion took place in any part of this chamber with respect to the bill itself. There being therefore a universal approval of the measure, the question that was discussed at some length was whether or not it was within the competence of this parliament to enact this legislation.
It is an amazing thing that hon. gentlemen opposite should cheer so vigorously every possible reference to the impossibility of this parliament passing this legislation. Just why they should be so vigorous in their approval of every word that was said against it, and then suggest that they favoured it, I cannot understand; neither do I understand it yet. One would think that in dealing with a matter of this character every member of the house would be astute to discover some means by which the measure could be made operative if it is so much desired-and there has been universal expression of the desirability of enacting this legislation. I find it
902	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Bennett
difficult therefore to understand just why this chorus of approval of any reference by any speaker to the impossibility of parliament passing this legislation should be coupled with such a vigorous expression of approval whenever hon. members said that they were in favour of it. What was desired in the way of leaving an impression on the public mind? That the legislation would be good if enacted by somebody else, but bad because it was suggested by this government?
The leader of the opposition suggested that there were reasons why he could not enact it during his term of office. None of these reasons had to do wuth constitutional grounds except one: the Senate stood in his way. That was the lion in the path. And yet I observe that that stalwart, Sir Allen Ayles-worth, was one who voted against the old age pensions measure.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I spoke of
provincial jurisdiction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the Senate was the
lion that blocked the pathway in those days, is it not now presumable that it would be in our power to enact the legislation if the Senate were agreeable? There were other reasons, financial in their character; the right hon. gentleman referred to difficulties he had encountered when he assumed office, and the difficulty in discharging the obligations that rested upon his party. Well, these difficulties having been removed, that lion having left the path, there was yet no evidence of any effort to introduce legislation of this kind. And the last reason, as to its being within the competence of the provincial legislatures to enact the legislation, being the explanation of the fact that his party took no steps in the matter is one which it is somewhat difficult to take seriously in view of the fact that no effort was made to amend the British North America Act which, according to statements now made, it would be very necessary to do if we were to be competent to enact this legislation.
I mention these things because it does appear very difficult to understand why in one breath hon. gentlemen should laud and approve the legislation, and in the next breath laud and approve every possible effort made to prevent its being enacted. The constitutional difficulties urged against the measure are somewhat complicated; they are complex. And yet I submit that in the end they are rather simple of understanding. Away back in 1928 when I was sitting where the right hon. gentleman now sits-I trust he will long enjoy that seat-his government introduced a measure involving the approval

of a trade treaty with Spain, I think it was -I speak subject to correction as to the country-and I raised with the Solicitor General the question then as to how far under our constitution this parliament could go in infringing upon provincial rights in the making of treaties. It will be within the memory of this house that when the sockeye salmon treaty was ratified by this parliament-not having yet been ratified by the Senate of the United States-I pointed out that many of the clauses of that treaty impinged upon provincial rights; and it will be recalled that the question as to how far we might go in interfering with the exclusive powers of the provincial legislatures, by reason of the making of a trade agreement or treaty with a foreign country, w'as a matter about which we had no definite decision. I remember very distinctly directing attention to it, because I thought it was rather important to arrive at some conclusion with respect to the question, and I find that on April 16, 1928, I made this statement:
That is the problem to which I direct attention, that and none other. I am not expressing beyond the casual arguments that occur to me any considered and careful opinion, because I have not had the time to look up the authorities, and I am speaking solely from memory with respect to them, but with respect to the last authority I have very peculiar knowledge, and if it follows the Tennant and the Union bank principle, that any community which is not a sovereign state may negotiate a treaty the effect of which is to deprive one of the component provinces which has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matters therein mentioned of the powers conferred upon it, that is a problem not yet settled, and I submit it to the committee for the purpose of engaging the attention of the law officers of the crown.
I confess I had no clear opinion with respect to that matter. I discussed it with members of the legal profession and with judges in various parts of the empire, and it seemed to be a question which was open for decision and conclusion by the court of last resort whenever a case involving the principle should reach that tribunal. And it was not until 1931 that the matter finally came up for decision.
It will be remembered that the so-called aeronautic case was one thait involved an agreement made between Canada, as part of the British empire, and other parts of the world. It will be remembered that the provisions of the statute passed by this parliament are very, very detailed, embracing almost every activity in connection with aeronautics. It was contended on behalf of the provinces that that legislation was beyond our competence ; it was beyond the competence of

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Bennett
parliament because it interfered with property and civil rights. The flying of aircraft from the standpoint of caring for crown timber, crown timber lands, with respect to landing, the acquisition of landing sites and matters of that kind, were all said to be solely within the jurisdiction of the provinces and wholly beyond the competence of parliament to enact legislation with respect to them.
When the case reached the privy council the decision was that, having regard to section 132 of the British North America Act, which has been alluded to, Canada as part of the British empire was bound by obligations incurred in the agreement to which reference had been made, and it was therefore declared that the statute was within the competence of parliament. Now that settles distinctly one problem and only one, as has been pointed out. The problem that has been settled is the problem as to the extent to which this parliament can legislate when a treaty is made by the British empire, of which Canada is a part, and to which it is a party, dealing with matters that affect this dominion; and whether or not the rights of the provinces are adversely affected is not a question for consideration. For the supreme power of this parliament to deal with these matters makes it not only necessary but imperative that the powers of the provinces under section 92 shall yield to the power of this parliament.
We thus have settled beyond peradventure or doubt a principle that was acted upon by hon. gentlemen opposite when in office-acted upon with respect to treaties and trade agreements with foreign countries, Spain, Czechoslovakia and other countries-the halibut treaty for example-and the very aeronautic statute itself, which dealt with obligations incurred by the dominion and which were at variance with the exercise of its powers exclusively by the legislatures of the provinces. So let us say that No. 1 is settled: that if there is an agreement outstanding within the provisions of section 132 of the British North America Act, which I will not trouble to read again, this parliament has supreme and complete authority to deal with the matter, and not only has the power but has exercised that power; and in consequence of the exercising of the power we have the judicial decision to which I have referred, which settles, it seems to me for all time, the question of our jurisdiction in connection with such matters.
I shall not now refer, because I did so some days ago, to the reasons given by the Lord Chancellor in delivering the opinion of the judicial committee of the privy council. He summarized in four propositions the powers
of the legislatures and of this parliament. It suffices to say that no one within sound of my voice on either side of the house will, I think, challenge the proposition that where there has been an agreement, where the agreement is made by Canada under a treaty or agreement as a part of the British empire with any foreign state of authority, then the exclusive powers of the provinces must yield to the dominant power of parliament to deal with the agreement in every phase, in all of its ramifications and implications.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: While the Prime Minister is touching upon the Lord Chancellor's decision, will he make a reference to the particular part of the Lord Chancellor's decision which he omitted in his original address and which the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) dealt with in his?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I intended to deal with that because it seemed to be so absurd for the ex-Minister of Justice to refer to it. I could not understand why he went out of his way to mention it. The rights of minorities are rights with respect to language, religion and one other matter that comes within the authority of both the provinces and the dominion, namely education. It had nothing whatever to do with this matter. There are no minorities when you come to consider the question of jurisdiction with respect to matters of this kind because the majority rule in parliament prevails. It is not a question of the minority in a province and when the hon. gentleman a few days ago mentioned the point, I confess I could not understand why he was doing so except by reason of his usual endeavour to drag something of that sort into every debate in which he participates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the absence of the ex-Minister of Justice, may I give my right hon. friend what I think was the exminister's reason? It was in that part of the judgment which read:
The process of interpretation as the years go on ought not to be allowed to dim or to whittle down the provisions of the original contract upon which the federation was founded'.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: . . . nor is it legitimate that any judicial construction of the provisions of sections 91 and 92 should enforce a new and a different contract upon the federating bodies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was with respect to the rights of minorities. That was what the Lord Chancellor was dealing with and the rights of minorities under the constitution are

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Bennett
with respect to religion, language and education. Those observations had nothing whatever to do with the question of the jurisdiction of parliament as distinct from that of the legislatures. It had to do with the question of an endeavour on the part of the federal power to whittle down the contract between the provinces and the dominion. I have heard the right hon. gentleman doubt-and I have agreed with him-as to whether it can be said thait the British North America Act is wholly a contract in the sense in which that term is used. The British North America Act as it now stands is somewhat different from the resolutions upon which it is based. But it is a statute of the imperial parliament accepted by the people of Canada and has become their constitution. When we speak of the rights of minorities we speak of the rights of minorities as maintained to them by the statutes of Quebec and maintained to minorities in other parts of Canada, with respect to language as defined by an act and with respect to education having its maximum .expression in what took place in the house in the year 1896.
Let us leave that proposition which I think all will agree has been established not only by competent authority but by reason, for if the British empire made a contract on behalf of Canada and Canada signed her name to that contract, obviously the draughtsman of the British North America Act when he prepared section 132 had in mind that the power to give effect to any obligation thus assumed should rest in the dominion parliament and not in a combination of the legislatures. It would be idle of course to say that this community speaking as a whole could enforce its views or maintain its obligations by each of the provinces acting even in concert, because the power is the federal power; the authority is the central authority, the national representative of the life of Canada, namely the dominion parliament.
Leaving the first proposition therefore as being firmly and clearly established, we now proceed to the second proposition whether there is within the British North America Act sufficient authority and power conferred upon this parliament to enact an unemployment contributory insurance act. I submit there is and I shall give my reasons briefly. First, a contributory insurance act is a direct taxation act and as direct taxation only is given to the provinces and taxation by any mode or form is given to the dominion, it follows that if you apply a simple test the jurisdiction must rest with the dominion. Let us apply that test. Could any province pass the [Mr. Bennett.J
bill that is now before the house? That is the first test. Could any province enact that measure? Could any province provide that there should be a contribution by the employer, the employee and the Dominion of Canada?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course not. Therefore, if it is a national measure there is only one power, one authority, that can divert moneys from the treasury of Canada for the purpose of unemployment insurance, and that legislature is the dominion parliament.


Charles A. Stewart: What case are you discussing?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is not quite so familiar with the constitution as perhaps he should be. I shall point out to him the reasons. Let us apply this test. Here is a bill that purports to take from employer A twenty cents or twenty-one cents a week, to take from employee B twenty-one cents a week and from the treasury of Canada sufficient money to maintain the administration plus one-fifth of the joint contributions of A and B. Then it is admitted that no provincial legislature could pass that statute. It must further be admitted that no combination of legislatures could pass that statute. All the provinces in Canada uniting together could not pass that statute. Therefore there must reside somewhere the power so to do and that power rests with this parliament.
Let us look at what happened in British Columbia. In 1932 the British Columbia legislature was confronted with this very state of facts: They had competition in connection with the milk business and they found great difficulty in being able to deal with it. It was more profitable to dairy farmers in that province to sell their milk in a fluid form than to sell the products manufactured from it, so the market for fluid milk became glutted. On that state of facts the British Columbia legislature passed the Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Act in 1929, which was amended the next year and again amended the succeeding year, authorizing the appointment of an adjustment committee in any district in which the dairy farmers petitioned for one. Where a committee was appointed the farmers had to make returns to it, and a farmer selling fluid milk had to pay to the committee a levy assessed according to the quantity he had sold; the total of these levies, which together made up the difference in value of the milk disposed of in the two forms, was to be apportioned by the committee among the farmers who had sold milk products. Tb*

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Bennett
expenses of the committee were to be met by further levy on the farmers. Both levies were recoverable as debts.
It will be observed that in the bill before the house it is provided that the commission to be set up under the statute shall have power to obtain from the employer and from the employee given sums per week for the purposes of the measure, the contributions of the dominion being added thereto.
In the dairy case it was held:
That both levies were taxes, and, as they would tend to affect the price of commodities, they were indirect taxes, and the act was therefore ultra vires the province having regard to section 91, head 3, and section 92, head 2, of the British North America Act, 1867; it was unnecessary to determine whether the act was invalid' also under s. 91, head 2, as being for the regulation of trade and commerce. The act was not in relation to agriculture so as to be within s. 95.
Now there you have the decision of the privy council, that this levy, which was made by a provincial board, was beyond the power of the province to authorize. Inasmuch therefore as the power must reside either in the province or in the dominion, and the privy council said it does not reside in the province it must therefore reside in this parliament, as it does. There can be no doubt as to the way that matter has been put by the privy council. I am not going to address a technical argument to the house, I merely point out that they held that it was a tax, although indirect, because it was a levy against the producers of milk for the purpose of creating a fund which fund should be available for the purpose of equalizing prices to milk producers.
This legislation imposes a charge against employer and employees with a contribution from the state to create a fund from which payments are to be made as provided by the bill. Now as between direct and indirect taxes the privy council for long years have laid down certain principles which govern. They laid down in the case of Bank of Toronto v. Land a certain rule adopting the language of John Stuart Mill in part as being the correct definition of the difference between direct and. indirect taxation. The tax is indirect if it would be passed on and was not a charge that the individual paid and could not pass along. So with respect to this milk case from British Columbia the judicial committee held that it was an indirect fax. Now direct taxation is the exclusive power of the provinces but taxation by any form or method is the exclusive power of this dominion. Therefore the count held in the Crystal Dairy case that the legislation of the province of British Columbia was invalid because it endeavoured to create a fund through the imposition of an impost that was a tax, an indirect tax, and therefore invalid and within the jurisdiction of this parliament and not that of the province.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question of
the hon. gentleman?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. Next, sir, may I
direct attention to the fact that in that very case attention was directed by the judgment to trade and commerce. I therefore apply the next test, a very simple test; could any legislature regulate interprovincial trade under our constitution? Could any legislature in any way, shape or form, deal with an enterprise that had branches employing say fifty people in Saskatchewan and sixty people in Alberta and one hundred in Manitoba? Interprovincial trade under our constitution is to be free and untrammelled with respect to customs. The constitution also contemplates that it shall be free and untrammelled with respect to every measure that comes within the jurisdiction of this parliament.


Jean-François Pouliot: What about the Marketing Act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Applying that test to the validity of any legislation passed by a province to deal with interprovincial trade, what must the answer be? The answer surely must be in the negative. Neither Ontario nor Quebec nor any other province can undertake to deal with or regulate trade between provinces. If I heard aright the Observations that were made regarding this measure from hon. gentlemen opposite-and I think they all could be contained in two paragraphs-the position is this, that it is highly desirable in the national interest that we should have an unemployment insurance measure, in the interest of trade itself, for it is undesirable that there should be attempts to attract capital to one province rather than another by saying: There they have unemployment insurance, and here we have not; it is undesirable that in one part of Canada we should have one provision of law prevail and in another part shall not have it. Therefore common agreement was expressed in this house that we should have a measure that at least was similar throughout the country in order that there might be freedom of interprovincial trade, uncontrolled as far as legislation is concerned. And legislation to treat or touch upon trade and commerce
906	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance

Mr. Bennett
between two provinces is beyond the jurisdiction of a provincial legislature, it is solely within the power of this parliament.
The words trade and commerce have had a restricted meaning placed upon them, beginning with Citizens Insurance Company v. Parsons, but the process of inteipretation has broadened during the years, and the meaning that attaches to them, as suggested in the very Crystal Dairy case to which I referred, is that there must be no interference with trade and commerce by legislation of this character which would be beyond the competence of the provincial legislature.
Now let us come to the third test. It is this. When at Paris we accepted the provisions for the League of Nations it will be recalled that a declaration was made that it was desirable in the interest not only of ourselves but internationally that we should deal with labour in the manner indicated in that treaty. I now propound this third test; Is it possible for any province to deal with international trade? Is it competent for any province to restrict the freedom of international trade? Shall this province do this and another do otherwise? That subject lies solely within the jurisdiction of this parliament. The whole problem of international trade is more or less directly involved with the question of unemployment insurance, because if one province enacts such a provision, competing with another that does not, the problem of exports and imports and international trade in the broad sense in which those words were used in the treaty of Versailles I think w'ould be affected.
You come then to another test, which was applied in a case as old as 1897, in which my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) was directly interested. The Grand Trunk Railway Company had a provision by which each of its employees contracted to free the company from liability in case of injury; that is the employee signed a contract whereby he waived his right if injured in the service of the company to claim damages from the company for the injury he sustained. Then the Railway Act was amended to provide that a railway company could not do that; that the Grand Trunk Railway Company should not be permitted to ask its employees to contract themselves out of the right to claim against the company for damages in case of injury. Well, now there was a clear interference with property and civil rights. There are few things perhaps more interesting than to observe the ease with which we sometimes seize upon words without realizing the effect of them as they have been judicially construed. Frequently both lawyers

and laymen are found using words in the sense in which we use them colloquially, forgetting that they have had a meaning attached to them by interpretation by the courts. Property and civil rights include contracts, and all matters of that kind are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the legislatures. But there has hardly been a statute passed in this country that has not impinged upon property and civil rights. No taxing measure enacted but in some sense affects property and civil rights. In this case to which I refer the Railway Act was held to be valid, and the power exercised when this parliament took from the Grand Trunk Railway Company the right to ask its employees to contract themselves out of a right to bring an action against their employer, the judicial committee held was solely within the jurisdiction of parliament. It is one of the interesting cases that one reads. As I recall it, the railway company was defeated by the language of its own factum. The railway company was the appellant and it alleged in the factum filed with the court that if they were not allowed to make contracts by which their servants could not sue them for damages suffered in the course of their employment it might create a situation of laxness in the service and the railway company would find itself in very difficult positions. Said their lordships of the privy council, "That ends the case, because that is an admission that this very legislation in its essence is railway legislation." What is the essence of the legislation before this house? It is not railway legislation, but it is legislation to collect a fund of money-which interferes with property and civil rights-for distribution to known persons on the happening of given events under specified contingencies.
Then what about it? Is that not conclusive? If the language used by the privy council were applied to this case it would indeed be conclusive, dealing with it from the standpoint of the power of taxation or from the standpoint of trade and commerce. But there is even a larger sense in which this legislation should be dealt with, and it is that ground to which I now desire briefly to refer, the third part of the argument which I desire to make to this house. In the radio case, which was argued after the argument and before the judgment in the aeronautics case, the privy council decided that the agreement or treaty- and keep in mind the words "treaty" and "agreement", because my hon. friend the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) referred to it as a treaty but subsequently amended his language, because it was not a

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Bennett
treaty but merely a convention.-between, other countries and Canada involved obligations on our part that had nothing at all to do with section 132, that did not in any sense touch section 132. Canada did not sign them or create the obligations or assume the responsibilities as part of the British empire, but assumed them on her own, her own nationality, her own personality, her own position in the world. Canada signed this convention by which she bound herself with Mexico and other countries to do and perform certain things. If the argument ever could be advanced successfully in any court, with power and with effect, it was with respect to radio.
Listen to the argument made at that time. It was that this interferes with property and civil rights in the provinces, as it does. My radio set is my property. The acquisition of it involves a contract to purchase. My setting it up involves no exercise of power with respect to the dominion. It is a matter of property and civil rights, it may be said. There yonder is the system by which we send out, by the power of electricity, these voice sounds that go to other parts of the world, but we could limit that power so that those sounds need not go so far; we could limit them to lesser distances. Then you come to the question of reception, and you ask what the dominion has to do with that. This it has to do with it, that broadly speaking there can be no reception in one province that does not in some way either travel to or pass through another province or a foreign country. So when the judicial committee had to consider the matter finally they determined what? They determined that radio was a matter that, by reason of the very meaning of it, had assumed such proportions that the jurisdiction of this parliament was to be found if necessary within the residual powers of peace, order and good government. Lord Dunedin put it on that basis, if need be, and he referred to the aeronautics case. The other evening, when the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) was referring to the power of the dominion parliament to interfere with specified exclusive points of jurisdiction mentioned in section 92 he obviously either overlooked or forgot the later decisions which decided clearly that if need be these broad residual powers expressed in the words peace, order and good government, may negative the exercise of the exclusive powers which, under section 92, are vested in the provincial legislatures. So we have the radio case, which decided that it is within the jurisdiction of this parliament, and not within the jurisdiction of any legislature, to deal with these matters.
Ah, but it went further, and it is that point to which I direct the attention of my hon. friends opposite in particular. It went much further. I was rather surprised that they should belittle the extent to which it goes, because there was a decision that completely justified the observations, for instance, made by the right hon. gentleman opposite when we were dealing with treaties. He pointed out that in 1867 no one was thinking of the treaty power. The right hon. gentleman said:
There is just one point with regard to what my hon. friend has said. I agree with him that in negotiating any treaty the federal government should' have the utmost regard for all matters reserved to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, but I think my hon. friend will agree that as to the dominion and the empire as a whole, at the time the British North America Act was drafted the position with respect to treaty-making powers was not as clear as it is to-day. It is now conceded with respect to matters of primary or exclusive concern to the dominion that we have the full right to negotiate, sign and ratify a treaty which formerly might have been held to belong to the British empire as a whole. The powers of this parliament with regard to a treaty such as we are now discussing are complete in all particulars, and are not affected by the wording of the section as it appears.
That was the observation made by the right hon, gentleman in 1928, when we were discussing in the most friendly way the relative jurisdiction of this new country, exercising new powers. As Lord Dunedin pointed out in 1932, in his judgment in the radio case, when the British North America Act was being drafted in 1867 one could not have in contemplation the exercise of the treaty power now being exercised by this dominion. He went further and said that now, under the statute of Westminster, whatever difficulties may have been experienced in the past it is now clear that the parliament of Canada has the power ito deal with those matters. And if, in dealing with them, either under peace, order and good government or under the exclusive power of trade and commerce, it is necessary to impinge upon, to lessen or restrict the rights of provinces, those rights must fall for, as was pointed out by Lord Dunedin, it is clear that the great body of Canadians cannot speak through the voices of the provinces, whether they speak in unity or not; it is this parliament that speaks for and represents the people of Canada; it is this parliament, representing all the people of Canada, and not the voice of the provinces united in terms of resolutions, whether or not they agree. It is not a majority of all the provinces that constitutes jurisdiction. With respect to national matters jurisdiction is found in this parliament.
908	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Bennett
exercising all the powers that can be exercised in the fullness of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the act of 1867, and more by the decisions that have grown up under it and still more by the customs and the practices that have grown up as well. So that applying the last test I have mentioned to this legislation I say it must be agreed that in all points it falls solely within the jurisdiction of the parliament in Canada.
Now let me go further. The main part of the arguments against this legislation had to do with opinions expressed by people from time to time, including opinions of my own that were quoted. As one of the hon. gentleman was proceeding, two cases came to my mind. I quite understand members of this chamber rvho are not lawyers wondering what it is all about, quoting something one man thought yesterday and something else he thinks to-day. Law is a progressive science; there is no science more so, and I am going to give two illustrations that happened in my own practice. I do so because it happens that I am able to speak with authority with respect to them. In the early thirties in the province of Ontario they passed a law dealing with chattel mortgages and the rights of those who purchased after a chattel mortgage had not been renewed. That legislation was re-enacted with some slight variations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. About 1925, I think, I was acting as solicitor for a client who came in and said, "We failed to file the renewal statement of our mortgage, and someone else purchased the property. Have we a right to recover from him the price, on the ground that he knew the mortgage was there and that the property had been mortgaged?" The decision of one judge in Alberta was that he had no right. The decision of one judge in Saskatchewan, and ultimately of the appellate court of that province, was that he had no right. Then came the province of Manitoba, in which a full court decided he had no right. I thought that was bad law. I advised that we go ahead with the action. The chief justice decided in our favour; the appellate division decided against us. They felt bound by the decisions. I then went to the Supreme Court of Canada, and during the progress of the argument one of the learned judges said, "The judges of Ontario have decided this and we are very proud of our judges. They have decided adversely to the appellant's position. It is a very bad thing to change law that has been in force in the mari-tiimes and in the west for sixty-five years." 
Nevertheless, largely governed by a suggestion made to me by a younger associate with whom I discussed the case we pressed the appellant's case and the Supreme Court of Canada decided we were right. The result was that there was overruled, and made bad law, law which had prevailed for years.
I have used that to illustrate the point I desire to bring [to the attention of the house, namely that when opinions are expressed by counsel they express those opinions because of one of two reasons, either that such and such is the law by decisions, or that "this should be the law, as I read the decisions." The client determines then as to whether or not he is willing the second course should be pursued. In the first instance you give your opinion that the decisions are settled beyond all question, and that is the end of it. In the other case you say, "I think these decisions are unsound"-and you press your case before the courts.
I had another case which was much more difficult, a case the memories of which still linger in the courts. For a few months I was Minister of Justice in this country, and during that time there came before me the necessity for appointing judges, under a statute that had recently been passed by the legislature of Alberta. Reading the statute I came to the conclusion that I had a complete and unfettered right to make such recommendations as I thought desirable. I proceeded to do so. I changed the positions of two of the judges, one being the chief justice of the trial division and the other the chief justice of the appellate division. I changed their former positions. The statement was made that my action was illegal, and when we went out of office the then Minister of Justice stated a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada. The supreme court, divided, but was of the opinion that the action was illegal. I then obtained leave from the privy council to appeal, and during the hot days of July we argued the case. In October of that year the privy council decided that we were right.
I believe I have illustrated clearly the point I wish to make here. I have no hesitation in saying to this house that with respect to this matter I gave it careful and, shall I say, continuous consideration when I concluded that we had to deal with it as a concrete matter.
Then, I should like to say a few words with respect to one other phase of the subject. I wrote a letter in September last. Of course I did. I wrote a letter inviting the premiers

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Bennett
of this country to come here to discuss this question. It is said I referred to their exclusive jurisdiction. So I did, for that is the position they had taken. That is the position which they had taken

excepting one of them-with us on former occasions. The question which was to be considered was the very question which the ex-Minister of Justice read. My statement of it did not say that was my view. It was an indication of what we had to discuss. I have still to hold that one's views must be modified by the circumstances and facts of each particular case which comes before him, when he is dealing with a question of law. The facts were as the letter stated. The Prime Minister stated their positions as they had put them-and as I suppose some will continue to put them. Yet, when the province of Ontario presented its case before the privy council, through its deputy attorney general, it presented a view which was quite the opposite to that which was presented by some of the other provinces.


Charles A. Stewart: What case was that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The case in which the question of a convention came up, in which the late Mr. Bayly, acting as deputy attorney general for the province of Ontario stated his position that when a convention made by the Dominion of Canada was ratified, then the dominion had complete and absolute jurisdiction with respect to it. That is the position I desire to try to make clear to this house.
The legislation which is submitted to parliament is legislation which we believe to be constitutional, for the reasons which I have given. Then, further, I had almost forgotten to mention that we have been asked why we did not ask for the ratification of a convention passed in Geneva in 1934. The only reason is this, that the convention does not come into force-because it was drafted only in June 1934-it does not come into force until twelve months after two countries have ratified it. Therefore, so far as we are concerned, we would be dealing with a convention which was not in force. The order does not expire until June, 1935. The terms of the convention itself are those which make provision for a unitary state, but provide also for the enactment of legislation with respect to three matters of social concern. But there was another reason, namely the difficulty of separating insurance from the other branches of the convention, and the undesirability of leaving any doubt with respect to the constitutionality of the statute, upon the grounds to which I have referred.
I can only say that there are other grounds to which I might refer. There are numerous other authorities which I could draw to the attention of hon. members in this house but I believe by doing so I would be serving no useful purpose. Legal decisions are constantly expanding, in view of the various implications and various sets of facts. One set of facts involves one decision; another set of facts involves another decision. The principles that govern are eternal, but the application of those principles is as variable as time itself. There have been so many illustrations of that point I shall not do more than bring to the attention of hon. members one more outstanding case in which property and civil rights was summarily dealt with, namely that connected with the Scott Act. There you had this parliament legislating in the smallest detail under the Canada Temperance Act, known as the Scott Act. Well, the privy council held it was intra vires of the power of this parliament, and a proper exercise of its powers. Some years later we find the McCarthy Act, in which Mr. McCarthy endeavoured to enact a statute which would deal with the licensing in the hands of the dominion. When it was referred to the privy council they decided it was ultra vires and not within the powers of this parliament. So you have commencing away back many years ago, with the King v. Russell, which came from the city of Fredericton, down to to-day, an ever expanding body of law, the application and interpretations of which have been modified by the conditions under which we live, expanding at times, and contracting at times. The change has been always constant in this respect, however, that the supremacy of the central power must continue, even though provincial rights for the moment may be in the ascendency. There has always been, in every decision of the supreme court or the privy council, the realization that the voice of Canada is the voice of this parliament, and not the collective voices of its provinces. When we consider, as we must, that the collective legislatures could not enact this legislation-could not enact it-when we consider that they could not by any possibility secure a contribution from the dominion treasury, and could not by any possible stretch of their powers enact taxation legislation by collecting contributions and placing them in a pool so that the sum might be made available for the unemployed; when you go farther and realize and admit, as you must, that neither interprovincial nor external trade can be affected by a provincial act, and when you go farther and realize that property and civil rights must
910	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Bennett
yield to peace order and good government, and to trade and commerce, wherever it becomes essential that the supremacy of the central power must be maintained with respect to national matters -and it is apparent that unemployment insurance must be a national matter-then I submit we must realize that this legislation is within the competency of this parliament. Under that emergency and under those conditions I submit to this house that this legislation is wholly within its power.
I realize of course the uncertainties of opinions expressed by counsel learned in the law. Only some few years ago an ex-chief justice of this country standing in this chamber expressed an opinion with certainty as to the constitutionality of the method of construction to be adopted in connection with the Calgary and Edmonton land subsidies. The courts of this country had held that mines and minerals did not pass under the grant made to the railway company, and yet the privy council a few days after that very statement reversed the decision of the court and held that the observations thus made by the law officers of the crown were incorrect. I know the uncertainties; I realize them and I appreciate them, but all I can say is that I believe that men trained in the law who take the trouble to study all the decisions, and realizing the purpose for which this legislation is now offered to this house and the necessity of having it extended to every part of the dominion, and the necessity of having uniform legislation so that benefits of the same character may be conferred alike upon the people of British Columbia and Nova Scotia, and realizing that the peace, order and good government of this country should be maintained by the paramount authority of this parliament, will conclude that the legislation is within our jurisdiction.
Just one other remark. The right hon. gentleman has said that this legislation either consciously or unconsciously was intended to deceive and delude those for whose benefit it is being enacted. I think upon reconsideration he will conclude that that is not correct. He says that they have asked for bread and they are offered a stone. I propose, Mr. Speaker, to ask this parliament to vote, whether or not those who allege that this is a stone are prepared to associate with us on this side of the house, and to declare that this is bread, and very solid bread too.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Bennett), which was agreed to on the following division;

Ahearn	YEAS Messrs: McPhee
Arsenault	M anion
Arthurs	Marcil
Barber	Michaud
Beaubier	Mitchell
Belec	Motherwell
Bennett	Mullins
Blair	Mulock
Bouchard	Munn
Bradette	Murphy
Brasset	Myers
Brown	Neill
Bury	Perley (Qu'Appelle)
Cantley	Perley, Sir George
Cardin	Pettit
Carmichael	Plunkett
Charters	Porteous
Chevrier	Price
Coote	Quinn
Davies	Reid
Dickie	Sanderson
Duff	Shaver
Esling	Short
Fournier	Simpson
Fraser (Cariboo)	(Simcoe North)
Ganong	Smith
Gardiner	(Cumberland)
Garland (Bow River) Speakman	
Garland (Carletoip	| Spencer
Gershaw	Sproule
Gobeil	Stanley
Golding	Stewart
Goulet	(Edmonton West)
Hanbury	Stewart (Leeds)
Hanson (Skeena)	Stewart (Lethbridge)
Hanson	Stirling
(York-Sunbury)	Stitt (Nelson)
Hay	Stitt (Selkirk)
Heaps	Sullivan
Howden	Sutherland
Kennedy	Swanston
(Peace River)	Tetreault
King, Mackenzie	Thompson (Lanark)
Louclcs	Totzke
Luchkovich	Turnbull
Maedougall	Veniot
MacMillan	Weir (Melfort)
(Mackenzie)	Weir (Macdonald)
Macphail, Miss	White (London)
McGillis	White (Mount Royal)
McGregor	Willis
McIntosh	Woodsworth
McKinnon	Wright-101.
McLure Mr. McDADE:	I was paired with the hon.
member for Laprairie-iNapierville (Mr.	
Dupuis). Had I	voted, I would have voted
for the motion. Mr. MOORE	(Chateauguay-Huntingdon):
I was paired with the hon. member for	
Chicoutimi (Mr.	Dubuc). Had I voted, I
would have voted for the motion.


Mr. COTNAM:: I was paired with the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Hurtubise). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.

Unemployment Insurance-Division
Mr. MadDONALD (South Cape Breton):
I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted, II would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CASSESLMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr RYEKSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GAGNON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Had I voted, 1 would have voted for the motion.
Mr. ST. PBRE: I was paired with the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon). Had I voted, I would have done so in>
favour of the principle of the bill.


Mr. JOHNSTONE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BUTCHER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Burns). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BEYNON:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). Had 1 voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Desrochers). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. ELIiDOTT: I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. MaciLEAN: I was paired with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. MadNICOL: I was paired with the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Rennie). Had 1 voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. MERCfLER (Laurier-Outremont):	I
was paired with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peteiborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SIMPSON (Algoma):: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Sague-nay (Mr. Casgrain). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GORDON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted. I would have voted for the motion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Smoke). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: I was paired
with the hon. member for l'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the second reading of this bill.


Mr. DUPRE (Translation):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Fer-land). Had I voted, I would have voted for the second reading of this bill.


Mr. BERTRAND (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted, I would have voted for the second reading of this bill.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabasha (Mr. Girouard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the second reading of this bill.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Bennett moves that the house go into committee on the bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the motion is
carried, may I give some explanation about my vote.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman cannot give an explanation on this motion; the motion is not debatable.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On section 1-short title.
Unemployment Insurance


Jean-François Pouliot: la a Canadian Press dispatch published in the morning papers to-day I read that the right hon. the Prime Minister said in New York on Saturday last that refoim policies without international trade might be of little use. This, sir, is the first reason why I would have voted against the bill, because so long as our international trade is blocked by high tariff walls, this so-called social legislation is of no use, although I am in favour in principle, as my hon. friend from Hochelaga said, of unemployment insurance. That is my first point.
My second point is again from a quotation from a speech delivered not long ago in this house by the Prime Minister. He said last week that this is not a relief measure; thus it will bring no help to the hundreds of thousands who are actually unemployed. It is just an insurance measure which will bring no assistance to those who are now unemployed, it cannot be called a relief measure, even the Prime Minister did not call it so. That is the second reason why I would have voted against it.
There is another reason why I would have voted against the bill although I am in favour of the principle of unemployment insurance. As it is submitted now to this house it is perfectly useless. Let us read section 132 of the British North America Act:
The parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof as part of the British Empire towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries.
At the time this provision was enacted Canada was not yet free to sign her own treaties. Treaties were voted upon by the parliament of Canada but they were signed by the representatives of Great Britain. For the first time a few years ago the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), then Minister of Marine, signed the halibut treaty as representative of Canada; it was the first step in that direction. But to understand the meaning of section 132 of the British North America Act we must go back to the time when it was passed. Canada did not then enjoy the freedom it does now under the statute of Westminster. I heard the Prime Minister a moment ago say that the supremacy of the central power will be recognized by the courts. A distinction should here be made. This parliament is supreme within the bounds of its jurisdiction, as the provincial legislatures are also supreme within the bounds of their own jurisdiction. There is a supremacy in each domain. There are

certain things that this parliament alone oan do, and there are other things that the provinces alone can do.
I admit that since this government has taken office there has been quite a mix up in the jurisdiction, either federal or provincial, in this country. But if we interpret this legislation from a strictly legal point of view, we have to consider sections 91 and 92 which give exclusive jurisdiction on the one hand to this parliament and on the other to the provincial legislatures. I am not going to repeat what has been said by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), but the point that is to be made in this regard is that it is not because a convention has been signed by Canada that the provinces are necessarily bound by it. We have the proof of this in the fact that the previous government did not take and would not have taken action on that, as was said by our leader, without consulting the provinces. The convention was signed on behalf of Canada subject to the approval of the provinces, without which approval no legislation such as that before the house now is possible. After having made a careful study of the constitution of this country and of the jurisprudence which interprets it, I have come to the conclusion that no tribunal will declare that the legislation which is now submitted to us is intra vires. Any judge, free from political affiliation, with a free mind, will hold that this legislation is ultra vires of this parliament.
Therefore, following the argument of the Prime Minister, let us take A, the employer, and B, the employee; each one of them pays so much a week during forty weeks for this unemployment insurance. Does the right hon. gentleman think for a moment all the manufacturers and employers in Canada will abide by his word when he says: Parliament is supreme and we are empowered to pass any legislation we wish, even contrary to the constitution. This legislation will surely be brought before the courts and there is no court that will declare it intra vires. But in the meantime we shall have elections and the Prime Minister, his colleagues, his supporters and his ambassadors will say: This is what we have done for the unemployed; we have given you unemployment insurance. Forty weeks! In the meantime we shall have elections. For the time this legislation will be approved by the Governor General until the election day, canvassing will have been done throughout the country. After the legislation is declared ultra vires by the courts, tbe Prime Minister, who will then be

Unemployment Insurance
leader of the opposition if he succeeds in being elected in his constituency will say:	This
is not my fault; the judiciary have given a wrong interpretation to my legislation; but I did my best; I submitted it to the House of Commons; it was passed by the house and by the Senate and approved by the Governor General; I can do no more; it is not my fault. In the meantime it will be used as an argument for canvassing people who are in distress. The government will tell them: Get a job for forty weeks and then you will have a substantial income that will be paid to you, part by the exchequer of Canada, part by yourselves and part by the employer.
I do not believe in that sort of thing. The Prime Minister said somewhere in Montreal or over the radio: the old order is gone. This is not a new order; it is the old insurance scheme. The only difference is that it is made compulsory by the government. This is the same old story. The government which was in the farming business with the marketing act is now in the insurance business. There is no trade that is not taken on by these masqueraders. Formerly they were farmers, growing different products under the marketing act and now they are insurance agents. They tell us seriously: It is a good thing. Can we believe them?
I have another reason for opposing this legislation and. it is that the Prime Minister said that Canada had reached the limit of her credit. Yet people are now going to be taxed anew for this scheme which will not be for the benefit of the actually unemployed. Had such a scheme been presented to the house in the special session of 1930 when the tariff was raised and when the Prime Minister said: We have received a promise from the employers that they will not reduce their staffs and will pay better wages with an increase in the tariff; had this social legislation, this unemployment insurance scheme been presented at that time I would perhaps have voted for it because I foresaw the ill results of the increase in tariffs. I am the freer to declare myself against this legislation because, as I have already said, at the special session of 1930 when Mr. Speaker asked the house whether the motion of the Prime Minister to increase tariffs was approved, I said: On division. I was perhaps not alone; may be one or two other members on my side said the same thing. I contend I am right now when I declare myself strongly against it. Sir, this is another instance of bluff, humbug and mirage. The government are not serious, they are angling for votes and this is bait.
I look upon it as bait and I do not swallow it.
The Prime Minister mentioned a judgment of the Privy council in the Crystal Dairy case, in which there was a reference to John Stuart Mill and his views about direct and indirect taxation. At page 415 of vol. 2 of his Principles of Political Economy-a very good book which I highly recommend to members of the government-it is said that:
Taxes are either direct or indirect. A direct tax is one which is demanded from the very persons who it is intended or desired should pay it. Indirect taxes are those which are demanded from one person in the expectation and intention that he shall indemnify himself at the expense of another; such as the excise or customs.
I wonder if that is the quotation approved by the privy council. It is a veiy clear distinction. May I submit that the legislation with regard to taxation has been most embarrassing for many years, because it has been a cause of widespread confusion. What I would ask of the Prime Minister and his colleagues is to submit this legislation to the Supreme Court of 'Canada in order to have the opinion of the highest tribunal in this country on it. I will make no motion in that regard, but in view of the decisions which have been quoted by the hon. members for Quebec East and for Shelbume-Yarmouth I want to have the opinion of the judiciary upon this legislation. It could have been submitted a long time ago if it had been ready; now that it is ready may I insist upon that suggestion? We should have then the view of the court, and if the highest court in this country decides that this legislation is intra vires I may support it. On the other hand if the court declares that it is ultra vires then the government of the day will have to get the consent of the provinces in order to make it valid. That course would show the government's sincerity, if the government are sincere all they have to do to clear the sky is to submit this legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada. Therefore I ask the Prime Minister if he is ready to move that the committee should report progress in order that the whole matter be submitted to the supreme court and that the members of the House of Commons shall be informed of the opinion of the judiciary on that matter.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I have no desire
whatever to enter upon the legal aspects of the matter; these have, I think, already been dealt with by the lawyer members of the house. But there are some other phases to which I should like to refer. The legislation

Unemployment Insurance

before us is designed, I understand, to implement the terms of the treaty of peace.
I notice in part XIII of that treaty this statement:
Whereas the League of Nations has for its object the establishment of universal peace, and' such a peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice;
I think it must be admitted by all hon. members of this house that although there may be many desirable features included in this legislation it falls very, very far short of conforming with the establishment or reign of social justice. That ought to be kept clearly in our minds. Further, looking at article 427 of the peace treaty, referred to in the preamble to this bill, I find this statement:
The high contracting parties, recognizing that the well-being, physical, moral and intellectual, of industrial wage-earners is of supreme international importance, have framed, in order to further this great end, the permanent machinery provided for in section 1 and associated with that of the League of Nations.
And it goes on to speak of principles that are of urgent importance. Social insurance may be derived from one of the principles enunciated, but this legislation before us does not by any means cover the field. I should be very loath to allow this opportunity to pass without saying that all the arguments of the Prime Minister in favour of it apply equally to all these other clauses of the peace treaty. I should like to enumerate these:
First-The guiding principle above enunciated that labour should not be regarded merely as a commodity or article of commerce.
In practice labour is regarded as a commodity or an article of commerce. If there is not sufficient work to go around labour is turned off with only the dole. That is the actual situation to-day. Again in fixing the price of labour no regard is had to the conditions necessary to maintain the labourer and his wife and family in a state of wellbeing.


Mr. HANBURY:: Even according to the
government's own scale.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When this measure was first brought down I felt very strongly that the main objection to it was that it did not provide for the most needy of the unemployed. The Prime Minister made it very clear that this was a measure for those now in employment, that it did not touch the men and women now unemployed. I could conceive that you might consider these two as belonging to different classes, but in practice we cannot separate those at present employed from those unemployed; and indeed we should not try to separate them. The problem is quite indivisible, and we should consider it as one. This government were not elected on their promise to help out with an unemployment insurance scheme for those now employed; they were elected very largely because of their promises to help the unemployed, and this measure does not touch that very large class of our community. No misunderstanding should be allowed with regard to the scope of this legislation. Further than that, according to the Prime Minister's own statement, and as shown in the measure itself, we know that it does not touch the employed classes which most need help, those engaged in fishing and trapping in the lumber camps, in the construction camps and so on. They do not come under the provisions of this measure, yet are the people who most need help; I protest against this committee being asked to adopt a piece of legislation which, however good in itself, touches only the fringe of the problem confronting us.
The Prime Minister in one of his radio addresses said:
However few or many unemployed we normally have no man must be left to the uncertainties of private charity or to the humiliation of government gratuity.
So far as I can judge, this measure leaves these large numbers of unemployed entirely to the uncertainties of private charity and the humiliation of government gratuity. It is quite true that so far the government is making no provision for the dole; the Prime Minister has denounced the dole. But unless the government does accept the dole, or unless the obligation is loaded on to the provinces and municipalities, large numbers of people will have to face the situation the Prime Minister described. May I be permitted to quote the Prime Minister again, because in these observations it seems he understood the larger problem:
When because of fluctuations in industrial conditions, the worker is thrown out of employment he should not be punished wrhen the fault is that of the machine, for whatever is the cause of these depressions, whoever in to blame

for them (if anyone is to blame) assuredly it is not the workman. If he is able and willing to work, but can get no work, provision must be made for his security in a decent way.
Then he goes on to say:
By this I do not mean the dole. The dole is a rotten thing. It is alike an insult to the worker and to those who profess to have control of our industrial system.
That was said by the Prime Minister in one of his radio speeches, and I submit the underlying principles enunciated therein are fundamentally true. That is, the workman is out of work through no fault of his own, and if so he should not be left to the dole. Provision should be made for his security, in a decent way. Under this measure, however, no such provision appears. I do not believe we ought to proceed simply to deal with the particular clauses of the bill without in some way coming to some understanding as to what is to be done for that larger number of people who are left entirely outside its provisions.
Then there is this further consideration: This is a contributory scheme. I should like to ask the government whether it would be at all possible for the great majority of the already underpaid workers to make such a contribution as is herein provided. Personally I do not think it could be done, without a great deal of hardship. How can a man who is to-day receiving less than the amount necessary to maintain a decent standard of living, the standard set by the Department of Labour itself, take weekly from his earnings an amount to be placed in such a fund as suggested in the bill. I do not think it can be done.
Further, I should like to deal with a legal point. To-day the Prime Minister admitted that a contribution of this type was in the nature of a tax; I wonder whether it is an equitable tax. Only a few days ago the Prime Minister enunciated the principle that taxation should be imposed in accordance with the taxpayer's ability to pay. But this tax, levied as a contribution, and to be paid on a flat rate, entirely disregards the ability of the taxpayer to pay. In this connection I should like to quote Mr. Homer Folks, Secretary of the State Charities Aid Association of New York, as given before the national conference of social work held at Detroit in 1933. Comparing the British health insurance scheme with a similar service supplied by a public fund, which is in reality a socialized health service, he said:
Its-
The British health insurance scheme.

Unemployment Insurance
-cost is carried, roughly, 40 per cent by the insured persons, 40 per cent by their employers, and 20 per cent by the government. As to the insured persons' payment (as well as the employer's), it is in no sense a voluntary contribution. Money which the government requires us to pay periodically is actually a tax; in this case it is a special tax. There is an appreciable cost in the collection of a special tax.
Both the British health-insurance fund and a public-relief fund, then, are derived from taxes. There are important differences in the incidence of these taxes, in addition to the fact that one of them is special and the other general. The British health-insurance tax is a uniform tax upon all those included within its benefits. They all pay the same amount, whether their incomes are near the maximum included or whether they are among those receiving the lowest wages. Their tax is not assessed in proportion to their individual ability to pay.
The criticism by Mr. Homer Folks as applied to the British act applies also to the proposed Canadian legislation.
The scheme as enunciated is a compulsory contributory scheme. A great many of us have felt that the time for such a scheme has long since passed. We have felt that it will not materially help the unemployment crisis, and we have been advocating what has been termed a non-contributory unemployment insurance scheme.
I frankly admit that the expression "noncontributory insurance" is somewhat a misnomer. Ordinarily we think of insurance as being contributory, and yet I have noticed that from year to year some big companies who do not insure with the standard insurance companies set aside a certain amount which they regard as their insurance. If a building belonging to the corporation is burned they draw upon the fund. It is a definite amount of money set aside and is often popularly known as an insurance scheme.
Without quibbling over terms I believe the time has come when in Canada we ought to have a scheme based not upon contributions from the employer, the employee and the state but one furnished by the state or, perhaps better still, by industry. It would be contributory, if you like, so far as industry is concerned, but non-contributory so far as the employee is concerned. In that connection I should like to place upon the record a motion passed by the city council of the city of Winnipeg and forwarded to me by the city clerk. The letter, dated January 29, 1935, quotes the following resolution, which had been passed the previous evening;
Whereas the municipal share of unemployment relief costs has grown to proportions which no longer can be met out of revenue by a large number of municipalities, and
Whereas many municipalities have completely exhausted their credit, with results that the unemployed are not properly provided for, indicating that an acute emergency exists which, in the opinion of this council, can only be met by the federal government taking over the whole cost of maintenance of all unemployed, and
Whereas, it has been indicated that the federal government intends to introduce at the next session of parliament an Unemployment Insurance Act with contributory features, which will leave all of the present unemployed out of its scope and therefore not result in any easement of the burden now so heavily resting on the municipalities for the maintenance of the unemployed, nor in any improvement in the deplorable inadequacy of their maintenance,
Be it therefore resolved, that this council goes on record of being in favour of noncontributory unemployment insurance legislation which will embrace all of the present and future unemployed within its scope, the funds for which shall be provided by the federal government and should be raised by a special graduated tax on incomes and should provide a standard of living at least equal to that set by the Labour Gazette.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we have come to the point in our industrial development where we must recognize that unemployment is one of our greatest national problems. I think even the Prime Minister recognized that in his speeches prior to the last election. Further than that, it must be admitted that the individual workman is not to blame because to-day he is unemployed. It may very well be that there are a few lazy people, but as I have suggested in this house before, the lazy people are not confined to the down and outs. There are some of them to be found in so-called high society, but the great majority of the people to-day who are unemployed simply cannot get work. I would urge with all the energy that I have that the burden of unemployment, since it is not due to the unemployed workman, ought not to fall on him alone but should be shared by the whole community. Certainly that is fundamental. What does government exist for? Surely to see that every one of its citizens is protected.
We were told that the last war was fought in order that our country should be saved. Well, I would urge that if there are fortunes that have in part been built up out of the war, that have been built up through the operation of the existing system, then those fortunes should unquestionably at the present time be levied upon to take care of the
Unemployment Insurance

people who have suffered because of the inadequacies and maladjustments in the existing system. I think that is elementary, and that it will appeal to everybody of fair judgment, to everybody who himself is not too largely benefiting by the existing system. Just how that is to be done is a matter that may be debatable. Whether funds should be secured through special taxation as was suggested by the city council of Winnipeg, or whether it should be through a levy on industry, I do not know; but I am inclined to think it is fairer to take it out of special taxes. In the provision of work-and as long as work is the basis of remuneration it is work we need, notwithstanding all that the editor of the Ottawa Citizen may say-in the provision of work we may very well call upon the credit of the country to make the necessary advances.
But I come back to my main point, and that is that the unemployed man, whoever he may be, ought not to be the sufferer he is to-day; yet there is not one line in this legislation that will make the burden any easier for the unemployed man. Legislation of this character presupposes the system remaining much as it is, and if some of us are right in our analysis, more and more people will be thrown permanently on the unemployed scrap heap. Hence this present legislation is wholly inadequate to provide for the needs of even that class. But I will vote in favour of it for the good that is in it. It may help out a certain number temporarily and in a very inadequate way, but I do want it distinctly understood at this time, when we are beginning a discussion of the clauses of the bill, that we do not think this legislation begins to touch the main problem that is before the people of this country, nor is it an adequate treatment of the problems which face even those classes that come under the terms of the measure.


Wilfred Hanbury: Before the short title carries, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that I am in hearty sympathy with this legislation, and I hope that if and when it is tested in the courts it will be found to be within the jurisdiction of this parliament. Coming from British Columbia I would point out that we have there probably more social legislation than any other portion of Canada, and industry in British Columbia finds itself at a certain disadvantage as a result of that legislation in competing with other portions of Canada. It is for that reason that I am heartily in sympathy with anything that will put industry and the working people of British Columbia on a fairly competitive basis.

I would inquire from the Prime Minister what is the estimated cost of this insurance to the federal treasury for the first year of its operation, and whether provision for the amount is to be placed in this year's estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I propose to deal with
that phase when we reach the sections that deal with it. If the hon. member will please wait until then, I will give the figures in connection with all these matters.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: May I ask the Prime Minister what precisely is implied in the provision of an alternative to the normal definition of "day," under clause (c), which provides:
(c) "day," means a period of twenty-four hours from midnight to midnight or such other period of twenty-four hours as the commission may for any general or special purpose prescribe.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Conceivably it might pass into twenty-five hours in dealing with matters of this kind. The term "day" is a familiar term to use in this connection, and this definition has been found necessary in dealing with the regulations under the British act.


Mr. HEAPS:: Does this section follow
closely the British act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the Prime Minister's
remark apply also to clause (j) dealing with trade disputes?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Onésime Gagnon: Apparently there is no
clause 3. What is the explanation?


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Clause 3 appears on
page 3, about the middle, but the (3) is not in large type.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Commission.
Abraham Albert Heaps: I would like the Prime Minister to explain what the relationship of the proposed commission will be to parliament. I see very little relating to it in the clauses of section 4, and I would like to know what jurisdiction parliament will have over the commission once it is appointed.

Unemployment Insurance


Richard Bedford Bennett: I endeavoured to explain when the bill was being submitted to the house that the bill provides for an independent commission, and like all commissions it is, of course, subject to the enactment of any legislation which this parliament may see fit to pass in derogation of its powers or supplementing or increasing its powers. Parliament, of course, is supreme.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, but we have had a railway bill fastening on parliament a form of commission of which I did not approve; in fact, the commission is placed above parliament. I do not want anything in this act, now or hereafter, to imply that a commission appointed by parliament can dictate to parliament the things it prefers according to its own interpretation of the statute. 1 want to know whether each year this parliament will have the opportunity of reviewing the work of the commission, and whether a special committee or parliament itself will have the estimates of the commission placed before it for consideration so that it may properly review the work of the commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Parliament has the
amplest opportunity to consider the work of any of its creations. I do not know what is meant by the question of estimates, because this commission is predicated upon the assumption that the numbers of people who avail themselves of it determine the amount of money it handles, and to estimate the number would be only doing what has been done in relation to the commencing of it. In 1931 the reason we had a delay in taking action was the fact that the census figures had to be obtained and analyzed. But the power of parliament is supreme in relation to this and all others of its enactments.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is quite true, but I see nothing in the act which would compel the commission to submit its report to parliament. It will submit it to the governor in council, but I would far rather see the act so drafted that each year, if parliament thinks it desirable, it could in some way review the work of the commission. That I think is very important, because after all, if this legislation is as important as it was claimed to be during the discussion on the second reading of the bill, and according to the statement of the Prime Minister about
1,700,000	persons will come under the provisions of the act, then such a provision as I suggest should be adopted. I do not know whether the whole of that number will ultimately qualify; I doubt it. But if they
do, then there will come within the jurisdiction of the commission approximately one-sixth of our population, and I submit that parliament ought to have complete jurisdiction over the activities of such a commission. It should have the opportunity of reviewing the work of the commission and satisfying itself with the activities of that body. I think we ought to be in a position to express our opinions on the floor of the house. So far as I can see, the commission will report annually to the governor in council; but, as I have said, I should prefer to have the report tabled in parliament through one of the responsible ministers, and have parliament adopt it or otherwise, with an opportunity for discussing it. That is what I now ask the Prime Minister. Shall we have an opportunity in this parliament, or will a committee of parliament have the opportunity of annually reviewing the work of the commission once it has been appointed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only repeat what I have already said. This parliament has jurisdiction over this matter, according to my conception of the situation, though there are those who think it has not. But if it has, a report to the governor in council is a report to parliament, so far as that is concerned. The mere laying of the report on the table is a different thing. Reports of various departments are made to the ministers or to the governor in council, most being directed to the governor in council; and the question of the discussion of them is for parliament to determine. It has always been open to this house, on a proper motion, to discuss any matter that is within its jurisdiction, and it has discussed everything that I can think of, from home rule in Ireland down to the smallest detail of our economic life. I can only say that there is nothing in this act that limits or curtails or lessens the power of parliament to deal with the matter.


Edward Joseph Garland: If it does not make a greater success of this than the British parliament did of home rule for Ireland, it will not be very successful.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Section 4, dealing with the appointment of the commission, provides that two commissioners shall constitute a quorum. It is within the realm of possibility, in the practical application of the act, that one of the commissioners might die or be removed from office, and there is no obligation on the government of the day to fill a vacancy created by dismissal or otherwise. Now, there might be some very important decision to be made which might affect labour where the labour point of view would not be
Unemployment Insurance

brought under discussion. Could not the government insert a stipulation to provide that vacancies shall be filled within twenty-eight days or two months or six months so as to protect all parties?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman mentioned to me, or the matter was brought to my attention, that defect as he conceived it to be, and I think a subsection might be inserted so as to provide that any vacancy that occurs shall be filled within a given time. I shall be glad to incorporate in the section such a provision as indicates the sense of the committee in that regard.
Mr. HAiNBURY: That could be done in the next clause.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Subsection 6 provides that the commission shall have power to acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property. What would be the full interpretation of real and personal property?


Richard Bedford Bennett: These words have a generally recognized meaning. Real property is usually used colloquially in reference to land with its appurtenances, and personal property is-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Clothing, I
suppose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but personal property refers to that form of property which is movable and is other than real property. But there is a third branch which is known as mixed property, and that is usually the definition given a leasehold interest under certain conditions. Real, personal and mixed property are the divisions-real being fixed, anid usually a term interchangeable with land and its appurtenances; personal being movable property and other than real and mixed property. The last mentioned term is hardly ever used, but it has reference to certain forms of leasehold.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It seems anomalous that personal property should belong to a commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the section that confers upon the commission the power to own real estate or to own personal property. Part of its money will have to be invested in security, which would be personal property. It might conceivably find itself in a condition where, by operation of law and not by an act of the parties, it became possessed of real property. The investment sections are closely worded and do not contemplate risks

being taken with the funds. This subsection only empowers the commission to own real and personal property.


Mr. DUFF:: If the provisions of the act are to be carried out by a commission I think I am right in saying that it will cost the taxpayers a very large sum of money. It seems to me that we are getting into the habit, both in this parliament and in the legislatures, of depending too much upon commissions or outside bodies instead of having the elected members of parliament and the members chosen by that parliament comprising the government, responsible for the carrying out of legislation. This legislation, even if it were placed under a minister and under a department, would still cost a great deal of money; but if it could be worked out so that instead of having commissioners appointed, with secretaries, stenographers and so forth, we might have the work done by the Labour department'-because I am of the opinion that this is legislation that should come under that department and a great deal of money might be saved to the taxpayers. When we come to the clause dealing with the amount which the employee would receive we could save, according to my finding, a quarter of a million dollars by placing this legislation in the hands of the Department of Labour instead of under this commission. That seems to me to <be in the interests of the employees.
I would strongly urge that the government reconsider part I which deals with the appointment of several commissioners. Of course, once they are appointed, this means that a large organization must be set up, not only in Ottawa but all over the country, which will cost the taxpayers a great deal of money and will consequently in my opinion not give the same satisfaction to the labouring people, the employees who will come under this legislation. Therefore I strongly urge that the government should consider this matter and place the legislation under a responsible minister of the crown. If that were done, as my hon. friend pointed out a moment ago, there would be no fear that the person dealing with the matter would not properly report to parliament, and parliament could approve the work of the Minister of Labour and his officials in connection with it at any succeeding session.
I strongly urge in the interests of economy, to save large sums of money to the taxpayers and to give further benefits to the employees, that this commission be not appointed, but that provision be made under which the Minister of Labour and his department shall carry out the provisions of the measure.

Unemployment Insurance


Richard Bedford Bennett: I need hardly say that obviously every phase of the matter suggested by the hon. gentleman has been considered and the reasons that apply against making this a political department are so apparent that in my judgment it is scarcely necessary to consider it. It must be free from political influence, and it must be free from those other weaknesses that are always inherent in what you might call political administration. Its success or failure depends very largely upon that fact, and it will be found in the end that if the advisory committee exercises the functions that such a committee is intended to exercise, to make this board, which will be a non-political one- because employers and employees are both to be represented on it and the chairman is to be selected by the governor in council having regard to what he is to do-an adjunct or part of the Department of Labour, would destroy the purposes for which the board exists. I need hardly remind a committee such as this, every member of which has perhaps read a good deal about this matter, that one of the weaknesses of development in connection with unemployment insurance plans in some countries was the exercise of political influence in the demands that were made for certain benefits that could not otherwise be derived.
The legislation contemplates that the influences for stability, unformity of administration and the prevention of just such difficulties as have been experienced are to be found in the non-political character of the board and the assistance that the advisory committee from a high sense of citizenship will render to such a board. I am sorry, but it would be impossible to carry out this legislation on the basis suggested by the hon. member. Full consideration has been given to the suggestion he has made.


William Duff: These are noble sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister. It would be a beautiful thing in this country if we could get entirely free from political influence. But if his argument holds good with reference to this bill, then as regards every piece of legislation which we pass in this parliament or which is passed in the provincial legislatures, if such legislation is to be properly administered, a commission should be set up to carry out its provisions. Why not do the same thing with all the other departments? Instead of having a minister at the head of each one, let us appoint a commission; let us have commission government for everything. We seem to be getting away from responsible government much faster than is in the interests of
the country. I am strongly in favour of responsible government. After all is said and done, whilst of course we sometimes play politics both seriously and in the interests of our party, by and large a Tory is just as good a man as a Grit.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Duff: I said by and large; I qualified my statement. I cannot understand why my hon. friends object. There are just as important bodies appointed in this country as this or any other commission. For instance, my right hon. friend, who is one of the greatest lawyers, shall I say in the British empire-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no.


William Duff: I have heard him argue very strongly about appointments to the judiciary; and quite properly in his position as Conservative leader and Conservative Prime Minister of Canada, when there are vacancies in the Supreme Court of Canada or the supreme court of a province, he naturally appoints one of his own political friends or the friends of his party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They say that he does
not. That is the trouble.


William Duff: Well, judges, like other
people, once they get appointments at the hands of their friends, sometimes forget them very quickly. I have seen that happen with both judges and other persons. So far as I am concerned, strongly partisan as I am, I do not have the same fear the Prime Minister has. If the present Minister of Labour for the next three or four months-and of course that will be as long as he will be in that position-has charge of this measure with his officials, I have no fear that partisan politics will enter into the matter or that the labouring man and employers of labour will not get a square deal. I am and always have been strongly of opinion that we have too many commissions in this country. Take for instance the Canadian National Railways. Parliament has practically nothing to do with that but vote money. That is not right. We who represent the taxpayers should be in a position to criticize and decide in connection with every important matter concerning that railway. Nevertheless we are tied hand and foot because under an act of parliament somewhat similar to the present bill we have given the commission or the trustees full power and taken it away from the elected representatives of the people. This is not in the best interests of the people
Unemployment Insurance

themselves or of our parliamentary institutions. I strongly object to this or any further commission being appointed. We have too many commissions in this country. It would be much better if the duly elected representatives of the people and the ministers of the crown were to carry out the provisions of all legislation passed by this parliament.


Alan Webster Neill: If this body is to be nonpolitical, as the Prime Minister says, why not have it appointed by the civil service commission? The Prime Minister points out as evidence of it being non-political, the fact that one member shall be appointed after consultation with representatives of organized workers and another after consultation with representatives of organized employers. But that does not prevent the appointments being really political. If those appointments had been made by the parties concerned, that would have been a different thing; but they are not; they are made only after consultation with those parties. Therefore when a Liberal government is in power it will select a Liberal representative of the workers and a Liberal representative of the employers, and vice versa when the Conservatives are in power. If the spirit of the legislation is, as the Prime Minister has more than once told us, to be wholly non-political, with only a hope, and not a very strong one, of its being successful, the appointments should be put under the civil service commission. If it is suggested that the civil service commission is incapable of selecting men of the calibre required for this commission, that is a lamentable situation and I do not think it is correct. The Prime Minister should explain why this commission and all these appointments are not made under the civil service commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be observed with respect to ordinary appointments that they are to be made in the manner provided by law. I take it that the civil service commission will have control of that phase of the matter. But the commissioners will be appointed by the governor in council, and I am bound to say that under the provisions of the peace treaty and the regulations that govern, the representatives of labour and of employers at Geneva from year to year have been appointed under provisions similar to those contained in this measure. For instance it was decided in 1919-there has been some objection to it recently-that the Trades and Labour Congress should be the body representing labour for the purpose of making recommendations, and the manufacturers' association was taken as representing the 
employers. The representations they have made to successive governments have been embodied in the orders in council appointing the representatives who have appeared on behalf of Canada at the meetings of the international labour organization.


Alan Webster Neill: Have their recommendations always been taken?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were two cases,
if my memory serves me aright, in which recommendations for assistants or advisers were taken from other labour organizations: one was the national Catholic workers union and the other was the All-Canadian Congress of Labour. The right hon. gentleman will recall the discussions that took place. I was not then connected with these matters officially, but I believe a great deal of discussion took place when the method was being settled as to how these appointments should be made. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would give us the benefit of his memory with respect to that. I believe the matter was settled at Washington.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I
do not recall details of the discussion but what the Prime Minister has said is correct. There was a conference and some adjustment was made, I think to the pretty general satisfaction of all concerned.
While I am on my feet-I notice that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) is in his seat-apropos of this matter of political influence may I draw attention to the fact that we have a national system of old age pensions, and I should like to ask the minister, as its provisions are being administered by him, whether those administering are subject to political influence and control and whether the act is being administered on such lines.


George Gordon: The Old Age Pensions Act is largely administered by the provinces-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but quite largely by the dominion too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, we just pay.


George Gordon: No; whether fortunately or unfortunately, we contribute seventy-five per cent of the cost, but as to the Department of Labour taking a political interest in the administration, in order-putting it in the worst light-to defeat the proper functioning of the act, that has not been done as long as I have been Minister of Labour, and as far as I am aware it was not done prior to my being minister. I do not know what the right hon. gentleman has in mind, but if

Unemployment Insurance
he knows of any evidence of political activity in connection with the Department of Labour, calculated to do damage to the Old Age Pensions Act, I shall be very glad to know about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend misconceives my meaning. He has taken something not intended to heart. I was trying to give the impression that he was administering the act so fairly that no political influence could enter in. I was wondering whether if he had the administration of this unemployment insurance measure he would allow political control to govern. The Prime Minister was arguing that we cannot trust a department of t'he government with the administration because there would be political influence at work all the time. What I have seen of commissions makes me believe that there is about as much political influence exerted through commissions as through any other body. As a matter of fact where a minister is responsible to parliament there is a greater control against political influence than in any other way.


Alan Webster Neill: Coming back to the remarks of the Prime Minister, he has pointed to a precedent rat'her than to any logical reason why these appointments should not be made by the civil service commission. The appointments he indicated are of an occasional character, strictly in the gift of the government. It is quite a different situation from that of permanent paid employees who are to be there all their lives, failing cause for dismissal. I do not think the parallel is sound.* If it is desired to take nominees of the Trades and Labour Congress or other labour bodies he mentioned, and of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association as their representatives, why not say so? But under this bill it is open to pick and choose political employees, which is against the whole spirit of the Civil Service Act. If we are going to have a civil service act why not stick to it? And I look beyond this particular appointment; I think the Prime Minister is a big enough man to see that three good men are appointed on this occasion. It is not so much they I had in mind as the smaller men.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is covered by
section 8 of the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: The government is going to
have a political commission and it will appoint a political committee that will appoint a political man in the country place, and he has to have a political committee to assist
him; and presently you will have people saying that the whole thing is a political machine. That as I understand is what the Prime Minister wants to get away from. Therefore why not make it non-political at the start?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 8 provides:
(1) The commission may employ such officers, clerks, and employees for the purposes of this act as the commission may determine, and all appointments of officers, clerks and employees so employed by the commission shall be made in pursuance of the Civil Service Act.
That is what I tried to make clear.
Mr. iNEILL: Yes, clerks and people like that, but I am talking about the active people, the chairman of committees and so on. Then they have this panel, which is a regular play on words. There is to be a panel selected, from which the chairman of committees and referees are to be appointed -a fine sounding title. But how are these panels to 'be promulgated? They are to be constituted by the commission, a political body. It is a fine pretence of fairness, but still a political machine, because they will appoint ten, or twenty, or thirty men, taking in Jew and Gentile, bound and free, Tory and Grit. But the crucial point is, who does the picking out of that fine body? It will be done by a politically appointed body which will be wised up to take Tom Jones and will always take Tom Jones, he being the one favoured by the government of the day. I ask the Prime Minister if he can deny that that system permeates all these appointments. I am talking not about stenographers and clerks but about the men who have the control.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The words are "officers, clerks, and employees." They are under the civil service. With respect to the commission I have only to say that if one of the number is appointed after conference with the representatives of labour I do not think you will find that commissioner agreeing to the conditions to which the hon. member has referred. Neither do I believe that the representative of the employers appointed under the circumstances I have mentioned will put himself in the position of becoming a party to a conspiracy with one other to do the things that have been suggested. The majority controls. In the appointment of the panels to which reference has been made the government's nominee as chairman can 'be out voted in all cases with respect to the setting up of the official body to which the hon. gentleman refers. As far as I know of any way in which
Unemployment Insurance

to accomplish it, this is the method, namely that of conferring with the representatives of labour. I will say this, that my memory is that of all those who have been appointed since we oame into office to attend the international labour organization at Geneva, the majority have been opposed to this party in politics. That is my memory of the situation, though I have never checked it up. I do know that the Minister of Labour sends up to council the recommendations that have come to him after he has conferred with the Trades and Labour Congress. Mr. Moore and Mr. Bengough were the last two appointed, so far as my memory serves me, and on one occasion Mr. Cook, of the Canadian trades union, was sent as an assistant. He was a Conservative candidate in an election in western Canada, but he dad not put forward his claim. His organization recommended that he be selected as an assistant, and he was the nominee of that organization. Then 1 am advised that on one occasion at least'- I cannot speak from memory because my memory does not carry names as perhaps it should-the representative selected by the national Catholic unions was a rather strong opponent of this administration. We have taken the nominees of labour; it has not been a question of their political faith, and that clause reads as it does for the purpose of endeavouring to secure the same treatment in connection with the appointment of these commissioners as has obtained since 1919 with respect to the appointment of those who went to Geneva as the representatives of the employers and the employees. My memory is that several of those whom we appointed had been actually in attendance as representatives of employers and labour under the former administration. I cannot say with respect to employers with any degree of certainty, but I can with respect to employees.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We appointed the late Sir George Foster on one occasion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was to the League of Nations.


Alan Webster Neill: Honorary temporary appointments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to point out that representatives to the League of Nations and representatives to the labour office are entirely different. The appointments of the representatives of employer and of labour are made after conference. I think it is provided that they shall be most representative of organized labour, and we have selected them in just that way. That is why the provision is made in this way.
T.Mr. Bennett.]


Mr.   EOJEOTT@: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister considers it advisable to have the commissioners other than the chief commissioners selected after consultation with those labour organizations, why is there no such safeguard with regard to the chief commissioner, the most important appointee of all?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government accepts responsibility for that appointment.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: The government accepts responsibility for all the appointments, but it does not take the same precautions.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Before six o'clock there was some talk about the method outlined in this measure for the appointment of commissioners. Some ihon. members spoke about appointing people who were non-partisan or non-<political in their opinions. I have still to find a person either non-political or nonpartisan. I know some people profess to have an open mind, but when I think of them I remember that some years ago Winston Churchill described the open mind as the empty mind, and I have a good deal of sympathy with Mr. Churchill's definition.
I can readily understand that if one man is appointed from the ranks of labour and one from the ranks of the employers each will stand behind his own opinions-and I a^ume they will have opinions of some kind. It will be difficult to say how much those opinions would or would not be influenced by political views. I have not much sympathy with the viewpoint which holds that we should always appoint people holding nonpartisan or non-political views. Perhaps I do not interpret that observation the same as some other hon. members may interpret it. For instance, I observe in the report of the actuaries the suggestion that we should appoint people holding non-political or nonpartisan views. I do not know why we should employ persons such as actuaries, pay them high fees for their services, and then allow them to tell parliament that we must appoint certain types of men who may have no .opinions on any subject. I have no objection to appointments being made not from the standpoint of partisanship but based upon the qualifications the position may demand. If a man is to be appointed from

Unemployment Insurance
among the employers I hope he will be capable and administer the act with the proper spirit, and I would say exactly the same concerning the person who may be nominated by the responsible labour bodies in Canada. The whole basis of the work of the commission will depend in large measure upon the chairman appointed by the government; I assume even in that instance the man who is appointed may have political bias in his ideas as to how the commissioners should do their work. I do hope any bias he may have will be on the side of the workingman and not in favour of the employers; I am frank to make that admission.
My further point has to do with the effective control by parliament of the commission, once it has been appointed. I know many hon. members, including myself, are not too favourably disposed towards commissions doing the work which ought to be entrusted to parliament. On the other hand I think the legislative work of parliament ought to be divorced from the administrative.
I should prefer to see an outside body partly separated from parliament performing the functions of administration, but on the other hand I believe there is no body more likely to understand the spirit of the act than members of the House of Commons. If a commission were removed from the control of parliament, such commission might be likely to do things it would never do if parliament had some effective check upon it. That is why I stated when this matter first came before the committee that I wanted to see some form of effective control by parliament of the commission, and to have such commission placed under the control of a minister so that when the estimates of that minister were under consideration we would have free opportunity to enter into a discussion of the administration of the act. I believe no government would have anything to fear if my suggestion were adopted. It seems to me that a commission appointed by parliament would do more effective work if it knew that at certain times its work would come under the review of parliament. The Prime Minister has stated that parliament will exercise over this commission the same control it has exercised over others. To me that is not an altogether satisfactory answer; I should prefer in the act the explicit provision that the administration would come under the review of parliament. It is possible that an estimate may come before parliament providing for funds to carry on the work of the commission, in which event I realize there will be opportunity for
discussion. Nevertheless I believe that in the final analysis parliament should have complete control of the whole situation.


Humphrey Mitchell: It seems to me that
the question of political control is worthy of careful consideration. I hold the view which has been expressed by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Heaps), that parliament should have some control over the working of the measure. I have always felt that an efficient civil servant is necessary to any democratic form of government.


Wilfred Hanbury: Or bureaucratic.


Humphrey Mitchell: Somebody says "bureaucratic." I should not like to see arise from this measure any condition such as has arisen quite recently in one of the major provinces. Civilization should have developed beyond that point sixty years ago. I am convinced that the dismissal of civil servants on the basis of political expediency is an insult to the Canadian people. When a man has devoted his life to the service of his country I do not believe his head should be chopped off because twenty or twenty-five years ago he may have voted Conservative, Liberal, Labour or any other way. That is an unfair and an unsound basis for dismissal. The appointees should be men who have faith in the legislation and faith in its possibilities. It would not be in the best interests either of industry or of the workingmen if commissioners who have properly carried out their obligations were to be changed with each change of government. The people of Canada do not desire that that should be done, and in the launching of the measure great care should be taken by the government to see to it that the men who are put in charge are public spirited, men who will carry out the full purpose behind the. measure. I hope we shall never live to see the day when in this federal government we may see a condition such as has developed recently within the dominion. Fifty years may be required for the development of an efficient civil sendee, and I hope a federal government may never stoop to do the things which have been done recently in other places. The men charged with the carrying out of this measure should be given a fair opportunity to prove its usefulness, and politics should not enter into their appointment. I am convinced that the commission should be composed of men with an understanding of legislation such as we have before us and an appreciation of the psychological make-up of the working man. I am further convinced
Unemployment Insurance

that the chairman should be a man with a judicial mind, one capable of weighing evidence and making decisions. I think that is the most important factor in connection with this commission. If you have the right kind of commission the legislation will work out in an entirely different manner from what it otherwise would, and should politics enter into decisions of the commission such a condition in my judgment would set back for a generation the usefulness of this legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That will be section 3,
Mr. Chairman. It is section 4 now.


The CHAIRMAN:: Yes, and section 5
will be section 4.
On section 5-Duration of office.


Humphrey Mitchell: I understand the Prime Minister to say before dinner that provision was to be made to take care of the case of one of the commissioners dying.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think that is covered by
subsection 3 of this section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is intended to make
such provision, and if it is not adequate now such provision will be made before the bill goes out of committee.
Mr. HANBUR1 :	I notice that we are
to retain some of these commissioners until the age of seventy years. In view of the unemployment situation in Canada, and the fact that we have old age pensions and have also many younger men who are capable of doing this work, I suggest to the Prime Minister that he make the limit sixty years instead of seventy. He will find many people under sixty who have the ability to discharge these duties properly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has referred to a very difficult and delicate subject. To have retired me, for instance, four years ago would have been in singular disregard of the public interest; and to retire so many gentlemen I see opposite who are perfectly willing to serve the state in an eventuality that will never happen would be much more serious still.
The problem is one that has engaged the attention of a great many people, especially in our English speaking world, with respect to judges and commissioners and with respect to those who hold positions similar to those of judges and commissioners. We have already provided that seventy-five shall be the retiring age for county or district court judges and for

the Supreme Court of Canada; seventy is the compulsory age for retirement in many cases in the civil service, and civil servants may retire at sixty-five. But the difficulty in meeting my 'hon. friend's suggestion is this, having regard also to what vras said by my hon. friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) as to the right type of man for the chairmanship: if you say he must retire at an earlier age than seventy, he may already be occupying the position of a judge and be sixty or more. So it is a matter of extreme difficulty. I think in following the provisions of the Civil Service Act as we have, we have gone as far as we should. Although I appreciate what has been said, I should certainly not like to see this changed to sixty, because I believe it would not operate in the interests of efficiency. I think it better to leave it in the terms of the Civil Service Act, which one day must be revised, probably, having regard to the conditions. This was written into the statute on the basis that the provisions of the Civil Sendee Act would be observed.


Wilfred Hanbury: I understood that the Civil Service Act provided for retirement at sixty-five.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At seventy-five it is compulsory.


Wilfred Hanbury: I thought it was sixty-five under the Civil Service Act. In the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, with a large labour personnel, sixty-five is the compulsory age for retirement, I understand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, even there they have extended the time beyond that. I need hardly remind the 'hon. gentleman that one of the officials of the Canadian Pacific died while on duty, and he was nearer seventy-five than sixty-five. Recently the banks have been endeavouring to provide more positions by retiring as many of their staff as possible between sixty and sixty-five, and large numbers of them have been retired in order that the younger men might have a chance and that greater opportunities for employment might be provided. In the railways the situation is as I have indicated. In the civil service we have extended the time beyond even seventy. There are one or two members of the service that we provide for by act of parliament, in the estimates, where the age has been extended beyond seventy-five; it would be very difficult to replace these men at any age because of their accumulated experience in the particular positions they occupy, having regard to their present keen intellect and the grasp of the problems with which they

Unemployment Insurance
have to deal. So, Mr. Chairman, I would dislike altering this from seventy under present conditions.


Mr. HAN BURY:: I cannot see that subsection 3 of section 5 provides for remuneration for someone appointed to act in a temporary capacity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That provision is to meet the case to which attention was directed this afternoon; that is, if only two were left and one was ill in hospital, and important matters had to be dealt with, this would enable the governor in council to make a temporary appointment. The question of payment would have to be provided for by order in council out elf contingent funds or otherwise. A real difficulty did arise on one occasion through the temporary incapacity 'because of illness of a member of a commission, which made it impossible to deal with a problem of some magnitude. The same principle is adopted here as when we invite a judge in to one of our courts to act ad hoc.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Salaries of commissioners.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the
Prime Minister indicate what salaries he has in mind for the chief commissioner and the other commissioners?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Frankly I am bound to say to the right hon. gentleman that I have not in mind any salary at the moment. I do not know for what salary we can secure the type of man we should like to get as chairman of this commission. So far as the commissioners are concerned I fancy that probably a salary of $10,000 or less would be satisfactory-something within that range- but I do not know whether the chairman, a man of competency, could be obtained for that sum. I have not any mind on the matter at the moment, and I should be very glad if the right hon. gentleman would express his opinion in that regard.


Wilfred Hanbury: This afternoon I asked the Prime Minister if he could give some information as to what the cost of this is going to be. What will be the charge on federal funds?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will come later when we reach the section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Commission to undertake investigations.
[Mr. Bennett. 1
Abraham Albert Heaps: I regard this as one of the
most important clauses of the whole bill, and I think we ought to have some explanation and a discussion of it. It is something new in our legislation and covers a wide territory. For instance, it gives to the commission certain powers which no previous commission has ever had in this country. In many respects I am exceedingly glad that the body which is to administer the act will have some of the powers that are to be conferred upon it by clause 7. But there is so much ambiguity about it that it is rather difficult for me to apprehend all that is implied in the bill. One of the sections provides that the commission may do something for those who are out of work and dlo not come within the financial benefits of the bill. If this bill is to be placed on an actuarial basis and the fund is to be administered according to such an arrangement, then I find it rather difficult to see what assistance they can give, apart from financial aid, to those who are out of work for the time being or who perhaps may be permanently unemployed. I thought however that, without going further into the meaning of this section, I might ask the Prime Minister to take the house and the country into his confidence and tell us what the government have in mind at this session of parliament in relation bo those people who will not benefit by this bill when it becomes law. When the Prime Minister a few days ago moved the second reading of the bill he stated that the government had in mind some other provision to meet the unemployment situation in Canada, and I do think that now we are discussing section 7 of the bill, the Prime Minister might say, where questions of the unemployed and partially employed are covered by the bill and it is intended that those out of work shall be kept physically fit to do work when there is no work for them to do, what kind o'f work he has in mind. What does the Prime Minister intend to do for that large section of our population who at present are looking with a great deal of hope and expectation to the government to provide them in the immediate future with useful and productive work?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland):: Is it the wish of the committee to take the section paragraph by paragraph?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.
On section 7.	(a)-Extension of insurance
to excepted employments.
Unemployment Insurance


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I was interested in the remarks of the Prime Minister a few days ago when he gave the list of those' who would be exempted from insurance under this bill. My concern at the present time is for a few hundred coal miners in my constituency, because I am at a loss to know whether or not they can be brought under this bill. They are engaged as part time employees in the coal mines for from twenty to twenty-four or twenty-eight weeks in the year, and then the rest of the time they are probably on farms or working at other occupations. I was wondering whether they could be brought under this bill, and how. These miners are having a very difficult time; they have been experiencing a difficulty in the last two years in making ends meet. I am informed that the mine owners are rather concerned about this bill because they are finding it very difficult to make ends meet, to pay their taxes, their running expenses and so on without having to meet additional costs. Under this bill will these mine owners be compelled to contribute when they employ their miners only for a certain period of the year?
I have listened with a good deal of interest to the discussion that has been going on in connection with this bill, and I have wondered whether any reason has been given so far why I should support a measure of this kind.
I represent a farming community in Saskatchewan, composed almost entirely of farmers *with the exception of the few hundred coal miners I have mentioned, and unless those miners can benefit by the act I do not know of any person in my constituency who can derive any benefit from it. If times were normal I do not believe our people would object very much to the passing of an unemployment insurance bill; but at the present time, when our farmers find it impossible to pay their taxes, I think it is hardly fair to impose additional taxation upon them. It is an axiom of our law that those who do not receive any benefit from taxes should not be taxed. I wonder what the Prime Minister has in mind for constituencies such as the one I represent. What does he intend to do by way of compensating adjustment for the money which those farmers will pay to make up their share of the dominion government's obligation? I am concerned for the moment for the part time employees in these mines, and I should like to know whether or not the owners will be compelled to pay a share of insurance.
[The Chairman.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: We shall reach that section a little later and I will discuss it then.
Paragraph (a) agreed to.
On paragraph (b)-Assistance for unemployed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) will observe that the commission will have very large powers, but the provision that is contemplated is for those persons ordinarily employed in any of the employments excepted from the operation of part III of the act or ordinarily employed in insurable employment but who for the time being are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefit. So long as they come within the clause but do not come strictly within the provisions of the sections providing for benefits, power is given to take such action as may be thought desirable.


Wilfred Hanbury: That is only to make a proposal, not to take action.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister has stated that this bill is founded on the British act. I understand that within the last few weeks there has been appointed in Great Britain a new body known as the unemployment assistance board, which takes care of all wage earners receiving, I believe, less than $25 a week, and now it will take care of about seventeen million wage earners. Is there any provision at all in this bill to take care of those who do not appear to come under the provisions of its terms?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The British statute is one that deals with unemployment assistance by way of relief. I mentioned it the other afternoon, explaining the circumstances under which it came into being, but the hon. gentleman was not in the house. There is the provision in paragraph (b) to which I have referred. They make a report to the governor general in council so that the government may be seized of correct information with respect to the matter before determining what action if any will be taken. If the hon. member will look at subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (b) of the section he will see what we are proposing in that regard. The act itself does not provide for relief; it provides that the commission may make recommendations to the governor in council on the investigations they carry forward, with the machinery at their disposal, as to persons who would ordinarily be insured under the measure, and that is all. It does not deal with other than those to whom attention has been directed.

Unemployment Insurance
Mr, HEAPS: It is possible that those who may be insured under the measure may be so long out of employment as to lose its benefits.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is another matter dealt with later.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But I should be glad to hear from the Prime Minister now what ideas he may have for relieving the general unemployment situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I explained that this was not the time or the place to do it.


Alan Webster Neill: This is, as the Prime Minister said, I think, the most important clause in the bill. It provides that:
The commission shall, a6 soon as practicable after appointment, undertake investigations-
And so forth. This is altogether a new departure in Canada. These men will be very busy for months to come organizing their own office and their own branch of the duties that have been made incumbent upon them by the other clauses of the bill. Would it not be more appropriate if those duties of immediate investigation were imposed upon the unemployment advisory committee appointed under clause 36? They do not seem to have very many immediate duties to perform and they might well get busy and do this immediate inquiry, because I am quite sure the three commissioners will be busy for many months to come getting the operation of the act organized.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did endeavour to point out that as long ago as 1919, 1920, this parliament made provisions for financial assistance to labour exchanges and that the labour exchanges have during all those years been gathering certain information which has been made available to the governments of the country. It is contemplated that the information which can be derived from investigation not by these three men themselves but from the machinery connected with the commission will enable them to have a clear appreciation of the situation with respect to the matters to which the hon. gentleman has referred. But the unemployment advisory committee is not intended to deal with matters of that kind, neither is it contemplated that it should take any part in what one might call the administrative side of the matter, but rather as citizens of repute, probably serving as a matter of public service, they will be able to give their disinterested advice upon the evidence that may be accumulated by the commission or through its instrumentality. In England this has been found to be a highly desirable committee and one that has done extraordinarily good service, but in that 92582-59
country there is a chain of responsibility that descends to the parish and the small community through the one government that, as the hon. gentleman knows, we do not have here, and one of the difficulties in a country of such vast distances as this is to have a local body that will be able to give adequate reports upon all the matters that affect employment and unemployment. In England the labour exchanges have been regarded as the basis of the success of the operation of a measure of this kind, and I believe the labour exchanges in this country will, when they are functioning as provided by this measure, render invaluable assistance along the lines that have been suggested. I trust my right hon. friend will not suggest that labour exchanges will endeavour to deprive a commission which he proposes to set up of any power or authority in that regard. But I think whoever administers government will find the labour exchanges invaluable from the standpoint of being able to collect such definite and positive information.


Alan Webster Neill: In a year or two.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think not. I should say in a very short time, because the exchanges themselves are functioning at the present time although they are not functioning to the extent which this measure provides. With the added jurisdiction provided by the legislation I think they will become of first rate importance to the country, apart altogether from the service they will render in connection with the measure itself.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Westminster act referred to is the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, which was printed, according to the instructions of the House of Commons at Westminster, on December 11, 1934?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are two statutes to which I take it the hon. member refers. One deals with the benefits that are called unemployment assistance apart altogether from the question of unemployment insurance. The Unemployment Assistance Act of 1934 was added to the Unemployment Act of 1932 as part II thereof. It begins of course with the very local unit of administrative power and traces up to the highest point of responsibility under that statute. The poor laws, for instance, are subject to consideration in dealing with that act. There is provision for sudden ot urgent necessity in trade disputes, cases of special difficulty, suspension from the advantages of the act, and matters of that kind. That is the act to which reference was made. The Poor Relief Act, to which some reference

Unemployment Insurance

was made, went back as far as 1601, and then there is the poor law practice before 1914. All that is the historical side of the matter. And then there is the statute which is the Unemployment Assistance Act, the one to which the hon. gentleman has referred.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the right hon. gentleman. With that act of 1934, there is a lengthy memorandum explanatory of the draft made under section 32. That legislation, is very interesting, but I was greatly disappointed when I read it. I listened carefully to a broadcast given by the Prime Minister. I do not mean the Prime Minister of Canada; I mean the Right Hon. Ramsay MacDonald, and I have before me a clipping from the Montreal Star quoting that broadcast. This appeared the same day the broadcast was made, namely November 9, 1934. Mr. MacDonald spoke about this very legislation which has been referred to by some hon. gentlemen:
MacDonald Highlights.
That is the heading of the article.
Right Hon. Ramsay MacDonald, speaking at the Lord Mayor's banquet in the ancient Guildhall of London, England, at 4.10 to-day said:
"It has become quite clear that the unemployed problem of our generation calls for national planning and coordination.
To reclassify our unemployed we have made a new unemployment act, one of the greatest advances in social legislation and administration that this country has known.
We must never forget that they are human beings. A great majority of them are men and women whose distress is their misfortune."
He said that there was to be a reclassification of the unemployed. A good friend I have in Westminster was kind enough to send me the act and the memorandum, but I was very much disappointed in reading them because both of them contained nothing with regard to reclassification of the unemployed according to trade. This is vital. The other day I listened to the Prime Minister and he gave us figures from the census of 1931. We are now in 1935 and from the calendar on the table I see that this is February 18. What are the figures for February 18, 1935? Are they the figures of 1931? I remember distinctly that the census figures of the unemployed were not given in 1931 or in 1932; they were given by the Minister of Labour in 1933, two years after they were gathered. Is this reasonable? Are we posted as to the real situation of the unemployed? Paragraph (e) of the definitions reads: "continuously unemployed." There are some men who work part time and they may be considered as unemployed because their salary is not sufficient to cover the expenses of their living. There are many people who are being taken care of 
by their fathers. For instance there are farmers' sons who left for the cities, married and had children while they were working there; they have lost their jobs on account of the tariff policy of the government; they have returned home and their fathers now have to take care of them. According to this, however, they are not considered as unemployed. I defy the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour or any other of his colleagues to give the right figures about unemployment, including those taken care of by their parents or relatives. They have no figures. They come here with the figures of the census of 1931. Bluff, humbug, deceit. Was the number of unemployed the same in 1931 as it is on February 18, 1935? Those figures are out of date. They are all right to put on the blackboard for school children, but they are not the proper figures to give to members of parliament. The Prime Minister cannot object to what I say, because once I asked him the question and he was about to reply when an hon. member who did not hear my question got up and interrupted him. Afterwards I asked him in straight language: "What are you doing to classify the unemployed? What can you do to relieve unemployment unless you have reliable figures about the numbers according to their trade?" What was his answer? His answer was: "We are doing our best in that regard." I wonder what "our best" means. I wonder if it means anything. That answer was confirmation of what I had been saying for years in this house. This request is based on logic. What does the government know about the number of unemployed according to trade? Can the Minister of Labour tell me the number of white collar unemployed in any city, town or village in this country? He does not know, neither does the Prime Minister, neither do the third rate clerks who drafted this legislation, copied it from similar legislation passed in other countries without regard to the special conditions of this country. They know nothing; they have no foundations; they build castles in the air. What for? Propaganda, that is all. I said that this afternoon and I say it again: Does the Prime Minister-for whom I have a high regard, except when he makes such statements as he sometimes does; outside the house I have great respect for him-does he say seriously to this house that he can do anything for the relief of unemployment unless he knows about their number according to trade? That is essential; it is something every one should know. I am surprised that such an eminent man refuses to inform himself about that. It has been repeated time and

Unemployment Insurance
time again that each unemployed person should be considered individually, just the same as each soldier who was wounded on the battlefield had to be looked after individually.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The following additional data relating to the 1921 census may be of interest.
Number of wage earners, June 1, 1921.. [DOT][DOT] [DOT][DOT] Number idle at some time in year ended
June 1, 1921	
Number idle on June 1, 1921	
Number who lost time through illness in year
ended June 1, 1921	
Number of weeks lost through illness in year.. * Approximate.
Per 1921 census data	Per 100,000 wage earners
1,225,316	100,000
497,423	40,595
145,898	11,907
150,088	12,249
1,078,878*	88,049*
In compiling the 1921 census data the results were tabulated for each of the weeks 5-9, and the data are thus reproduced' in the above table to illustrate the possible extent of the local shiftings in the data. Curiously enough, there is no evidence of concentration on five weeks of idleness.
The following table based on the 1931 census, but mainly by four-week groups, also shows evidence of local shiftings.
The group 25-28 may be noted in comparison with the preceding and following group. The 1931 census data used, likewise reduced to the basis of 100,000 wage earners, are-[DOT]
Males and Females-All Canada
Persons idle Time idle (in weeks; 0 . . 1-4 .. 5-8 . . 9-12.. 13-16.. 17-20.. 21-24.. 25-28.. 29-32.. 33-40.. 41-48.. 49 ..
according to
periods of idleness Number of persons idle
	 53.181
	 4,321
	 4,265
	 4,716
	 4,010
	 4,008
	 3,646
	 6.229
	 3.749
	 5,278
	 2,653
	 3,938
Persons idle for the number of weeks indicated
Time idle (in weeks) 0 . .
Si
m
16J
241
321
381
or more
Number of persons idle 100.060 46,819 42,498 38.233 33,517 29,501 25,493 21,847 15,618 11,869 6,591 3.938
The following additional data relating to the 1931 census may be of interest.
Number of wage earners, June 1, 1931	
Number idle at some time in year ended
June 1, 1931	
Number idle on June 1, 1931	
Number who lost time through illness in year
ended June 1, 1931	
Number of weeks lost through illness in year..
Perhaps the committee will remember that this is a smaller figure, actually, than is shown by the 1921 census, that figure being 1,078,898. But the actuaries pointed out that this figure could be established not actually but only approximately, whereas in 1931 special instructions were given in connection with the census. I think the right hon. gentleman had something to do with the preparations for that census, and it fell to the- late Minister of Trade and Commerce to carry it through. Special endeavours were made to ascertain the exact number idle on the first day of June, 1931, and the figures were 87,062 out of the entire working population of 1,719,834.
I Mr. Bennett.1
Per 1931 census data Per 106,009 wage earners 1,719,834	100,000
805,205	46,819
370,966	21,570

87,062	5,662
1,054,763	61,329
No, those figures are not correct; I have trans^ posed them. The number idle was 370,966, while the number losing time through illness was 87,062.
The numbers idle, per 100,000 wage earners, as shown in the final column of the 1921 census table, page A3, and in the 1931 census tables on this page, were plotted on cross-ruled paper according to the time idle in weeks, and a curve was drawn with a spline among the plotted points. From these curves were read off the probabilities of being unemployed less than one week, one to two weeks, two to three weeks, and so on. The 1921 and 1931 probabilities were not used -directly in the computation of the rates of contribution, but from these probabilities and the probabilities for the nine year period, 1922-30, the probabilities for the eleven year period, 1921-31, were computed,

Unemployment Insurance
the latter probabilities being the main basis used in determining the contributions. All of these probabilities are shown on page A8.
If it should be noted that, in drawing all of the probability curves referred to in the next preceding paragraph, the spline was sloped so as to increase the probabilities for the periods of idle time approaching zero, for it is believed that a substantial proportion of those reporting no idle time in the census year had in fact short periods of idle time. Those who had had several short periods of idle time of, say, one, two or three days, might easily forget the whole or a portion thereof in the course of the year, or might not think it worth while to report what might appear to be a trifling amount of idle time.
By drawing the curves in this manner indicated above, the average idle time as computed from the curve probabilities is larger than if the census data were adhered to more closely in drawing the curves, but there is ractically no addition to unemployed days for enefit purposes, for, under the scheme of the bill, the first nine unemployed days are excluded for benefit purposes. There is a slight reduction in the average number of weeks of contribution, and this is on the safe side.
I am perfectly willing that this section should stand, but I read this so that hon. members may have no doubt as to the basis upon which the measure has been framed. Mr. Watson, the actuary from whose report I read, is associated with the actuarial branch of our insurance department, and 'he enjoys a very high reputation. But the government believed that the members of the house would require information from some other source, and the other day I tabled a report by Mr. Wolfenden, a consulting actuary, who has given a great deal of time to this matter.
I should like to answer, if I might, one criticism, and that is that this measure should have been introduced last year. The census was completed in 1931. In the debate that arose on a resolution presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I promised that if we were alive before we ceased to be a government-at least before we dissolved parliament-we would ask the house to consider an unemployment insurance measure. More perhaps than hon. members opposite are concerned I have been concerned in trying to expedite this measure. It has not been easy to sift out all the figures to which I have directed attention, as shown by the census. If any hon. gentleman thinks the tabulating of the returns of a census is a simple process, all he has to do is go up to the statistical branch and observe the operation of the machines by which definite information is tabulated. That information was long in preparation and difficult of computation. Then it had
to be compared with the information obtained in 1921, and an average had to be made in order to be able to provide, with some degree of actuarial certainty, for the contingencies with which the bill deals, bringing the information down to 1934. So these figures have been framed on an eleven year period, which it is believed will be as adverse a period against the fund as it would be possible to conceive under ordinary conditions, for, as is pointed out by Mr. Watson, we would be unwise if we projected ourselves into the future with a too optimistic mind, and on the other hand we would be unfair if we dealt with the matter with a mind too pessimistic. So, taking the figures during the eleven year period ending in 1931, you have the result to which I have referred.
There is one further word I should like to say in consequence of the observation made by tire hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. In the very nature of things legislation of this kind can become operative only after it has been in force for a considerable period of time. The greatest social reformer of our modern times, dealing with this legislation, pointed out how unwise it is for a people to endeavour to predicate their position upon no change, and how desirable it il to try to look into the future for a period of at least two years. In the effort that is represented by this bill there has been an endeavour to look beyond the confines of today and visualize at least to some extent the conditions that may exist two years hence, at the lowest, so that the operation of the bill, if there were a recurrence or even a continuance of conditions of depression, would find the countiy at least equipped to meet it. The corresponding benefits, with the adjustment of benefits to the farming and labouring population, comes about through the exercise of their purchasing power on the one hand and, shall I say, so far as this is concerned, from the very earnest endeavour that has been made that even more than equally corresponding benefits should be conferred upon the agricultural population. I read this report in order that it may be before the committee, because it is difficult for all to have access to this document.
Now I think possibly it is desirable to put the following table on the record, because many hon. members are particularly interested
in it:

The following is a summary of the intercensal unemployment data compiled by the Bureau of Statistics based on statistics from many sources, but mainly from monthly returns made by employers of labour.
Males and Females in the employments coming within the scope of the Scheme of the Bill-1922-30-All Canada
	Year ending June 1st									Average, 1922-30
1922	1923	1924	1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	Number of workers	
Number losing no time	
Number losing some time	
Per cent losing time	
Total weeks lost	1,356,835 907,723 449,112 331	1,490,855 1,015,272 475,583 31-9	1,548,326 1,021,895 526,431 340	1,493,623 1,030,600 463,023 310	1,516,542 1,122,241 394,301 260	1,634,141 1,174,947 459,194 28-1	1,691,719 1,256,947 434,772 25-7	1,848,493 1,397,461 451,032 24-4	1,874,981 1,316,037 558,744 29-8	1,605,833 1,125,689 480,144 29-97,598,276	8,348,788	10,218,952	8,663,013	5,914,514	8,007,291	7,781,907	7,948,520	12,562,373	8,832,082Average weeks lost by idle	169	17-6	19-4	18-7	150	17-4	17-9	17-6	22-5	18-4Average weeks lost by all workers..	5-6	5-6	6-6	5-8	3-9	4-9	4-6	4-3	6-7	5-5Per cent idle	10-8	10-7	12-6	11-2	7-5	9-5	8-9	8-3	12-9	10-6
Unemployment Insurance

Unemployment Insurance
I apologize for having taken so much time to read these figures, but I think it only fair to the committee that they should have them before them. Unless this long document were printed, dealing with matters some of which are not of very great interest to the committee,, there would be no other way of giving the information to hon. members; for that reason I have taken the time to read it. If it is the desire of hon. members, further consideration of section 6 may stand until they have had the opportunity to examine the figures I have placed on the record.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before it stands may I
say-


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The hon. member for 'Gloucester
has the floor.
Mr. VEN'IOT:	The Prime Minister has
given the figures for 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930. Could he give similar figures for the years 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, although I did give the approximate figures respecting 1932 and
1933.	I cannot give them with respect to
1934.	I shall look them up again and see if I have them here.
Mr. HANIBiURY:	They could be made
part of the table.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not wish to interrupt, but first of all I wish to tell the right hon. gentleman opposite that I used no violent language; I was just in an indignant mood, that is all. I am pleased to note that the hon. member for Gloucester has brought up the matter to which he has just referred. The figures which the right hon. gentleman has quoted are a vindication of the policy the Liberal government followed during the nine years they were in power. Why is that so? Because the figures he has read show only a very small number of unemployed in that time. When he goes to the country he will give the figures of the working men during the time the Liberal party was in power. Let him give the figures showing the unemployed, so that the people may be in a position to subtract that number from the number who were working in 1930. Sir, the Prime Minister has been most unfair in the manner in which he has presented his figures. I have nothing to say about Mr. Watson. He may be a very honourable gentleman, and I am not attacking him. However I have quoted figures long enough to know that figures can be digested only after they
have appeared in Hansard. The Prime Minister may read tables, but who understands them? What difference does it make whether the Prime Miinster says "females, 20-5; males 30-5; both sexes 25-056"-what difference does it make? Let him give other figures. I imagine people with pencils and paper calculating these figures; they come here and say that this or that will save the country. We have had enough of that. The Prime Minister is too serious a man to give us figures of the time the Liberal party was in power, and then say to the people, "This is the number of people who will take advantage of this scheme of unemployment insurance." That is most unfair, and untrue. Why? Because there are so many unemployed now that of three men one man works, one does not work and one works only part time. The man working part time is supported by the man who works all the time. For that reason the man who works all the time has to support not only himself and his family but also the unemployed and the man who works part time. Sometimes he has many children, and the added burden is very great. To quote now figures showing conditions during the time t'he Mackenzie King government was in power is an absurd procedure.
The question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester was a timely one. Let them come here on February 18, 1935, give the actual number of unemployed and the actual number who are working, and then they will have to tell all the unemployed, " This insurance scheme is of no use to you." On the other hand the government will have to tell the people who are at work now, " We have a scheme for you. You will get something if you pay, and if your employer pays, and if this legislation is declared valid by the courts of this country. Otherwise you will get nothing." The Prime Minister has been very careful in his remarks. I have often heard him say: It is a move in the right direction. But 'he changes so often that he might change before this is put into force. He has changed about tariffs, and about many other things. He might change about this, and then the people will have nothing. But the election will be past and in the meantime his party expects to take advantage of this legislation. I mention this because it is my deep conviction that this legislation is only humbug and bluff, and we are not here to listen to humbug and bluff.
We hear hon. gentlemen opposite speak of the legacy received from the former administration. I see one of my friends on the
Unemployment Insurance

treasury benches smile at that. He knows he has used that language. I also see another friend of mine from the province of Quebec speaking to one of his colleagues when he should be listening to this. I have heard him say over the radio: What a legacy we received from the Libeial party! Well, the legacy he received was the figures which the right hon. gentleman has just quoted about the numbers of men who were working. Let him look at the change in 1930 as compared with 1929, the small drop in the number of men who were working in 1930 at the time when the Tories were paying people to wear white buttons and parade as unemployed in order to disturb the meetings of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition. That is what was done, and it was just bluff and humbug in 1930 as it is bluff and humbug now.
During the adjournment I happened to meet Rip Van Winkle, who had been asleep since July, 1930, when he heard the present Prime Minister say at Moncton, " I will end unemployment or perish in the attempt." He asked me: "What is going on now in the house"? I told him: "Unemployment insurance," and he asked me: "How is that? Unemployment should have been cured before now. Who is putting it through"? I said that it was the hon. member for West Calgary, and Rip Van Winkle asked: "Who is the hon. member for West Calgary? Surely he has been defeated, because if he had become prime minister there would have been no unemployment in this country." I replied: "No, Rip. It is a most extraordinary thing. He did not perish in the attempt, but the country has perished in the attempt, and the number of unemployed is now so great that he is afraid to state the correct number of unemployed to the House of Commons."
The Prime Minister says he will come to their rescue, but how can he when he does not know their number, does not know where they are or how they are? The only thing he knows is the amount that was paid by this government to the provincial governments, and about some schemes to give a chance to profiteers to make money out of building wharves and things like that. That is all he knows about. Let me tell him, as I have very often told his supporters, and the members of the government, that they should create a wall around him to give him time to think about the business of this country, instead of being importuned by callers who come seeking jobs. I know very well that if the right hon. gentleman had been left alone, instead of being encouraged
* Mr. Pouliot.]
in this policy of desperation, in this nefarious policy, by people who call themselves his friends but are not, the policy of this government would have been entirely different. But to-night I have the satisfaction of my life. I see the vindication of the Liberal party, a vindication of the Liberal policy during the ten years the Liberal party was in power, and in future when one hears any Tory member opposite say "Look at the legacy we received from the Liberal party," the reply will be, "Remember Mr. Watson's figures which were read and taken as his own by the Prime Minister on the night of February 18,
1935." Then they will be just as dumb as ministers of the crown.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, when I
hear the high crescendo of the hon. gentleman I sometimes think of Tennyson's words:
An infant crying in the night:
An infant crying for the light:
And with no language but a cry.
It cannot but impress itself upon one's mind in that way. I did endeavour to read the figures which were prepared by Mr. Watson, and which for purposes of computation have been used as I indicated. I read them into Hansard, so that if the committee desires the section to stand, it may do so and be considered in the light of the figures I have read.


Mr. McPHEE:: Has the Prime Minister
the figures on hand of the unemployed in 1931?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not the figures
but I will give them before we get through, from another angle altogether when we come to deal with the question of computations.


Mr. MULOCK:: Did I understand the
Prime Minister to say that all these people will come under this measure?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


William Pate Mulock: Or is that the number of
those employed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were the people
employed who were reported t-o the office of the dominion statistician. It has been explained here on more than one occasion that the basis of contribution has at times been changed because a larger number of operating industries had reported at one time than another, and the number of people employed had increased. But those are the figures on Which the actuaries proceeded in making the computations they did for the periods of time I have indicated.

Unemployment Insurance


John Campbell Elliott: If this section is to stand
there is a suggestion I should like to make to the Prime Minister, and that is that he recast the section. It is a question of drafting. It seems to me that if the section ended where subsection 2 starts, and if that were made a new section, the whole thing would be a good deal clearer. I just want to leave that suggestion with the Prime Minister and see if it is not possible to clarify this section, which is pretty much involved as it stands at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the hon. member
referring to the printed section 7, the renumbered section 67


John Campbell Elliott: The printed section 7.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now section 6. Frankly
I cannot see any difficulty about that but I will look it over.


John Campbell Elliott: If the Prime Minister
will consider it, I think he will perhaps see that it could be made clearer.


George Washington McPhee: The figures given by the
Prime Minister in connection with the unemployed in 1931 are very much at variance with the statement he gave to the house on September 10, 1930, during the special session, and I think it just as well the committee should be advised of the figures given to the house by the Prime Minister himself at that time.
The figures he gave to-night from Mr. Watson would indicate that 320,000 were unemployed in this country in 1931, while the figures given by the Prime Minister himself on September 10, 1930, indicate that only
117,000	were unemployed at that time. That is, the number had been increased by 200,000 in that one year. I quote the figures as given to the house by the Prime Minister on September 10, 1930, at page 63 of Hansard:
I find that at present in the province of Alberta there are 5,155 unemployed; during the winter it is contemplated that that number will reach 6,650. In British Columbia at the present time the unemployed number 7,692 and it is expected that during the winter that number will increase to 14,700. In the province of Saskatchewan the present number given is 5.276 and it is expected to rise during the winter to 8,201. In Manitoba the figure is now 6.950, with a possible 9,600 in the winter. In Ontario the figure is given as 49,367, rising to 82,214.
I might interject here that in the city of Toronto alone there are at present some 26,000 families on relief. The Prime Minister went on:
In Quebec the present number is 41,190, as against an anticipated number of 49,290. In New Brunswick the present number is 500 and
it is expected it may reach 2,850. In Nova Scotia the present number is 1,800 and it may rise to 2,350.
Prince Edward Island is the only province not mentioned in the list. Later on the Prime Minister says:
It will be observed that the present number is something over 117,000, and it is believed that number will approximate 177,000 during the winter.


Abraham Albert Heaps: According to the figures the Prime Minister submitted this evening it appears that there was an average unemployment, of those who were partly employed, of 18.4 weeks per year. What effect would such a condition have on the insurability of part time employees? Can the Prime Minister give us that information to-night? If not, I should like to have it when this section is again under consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This whole plan is based upon the figures prepared by the actuaries on the bases that I have indicated to the house; and to add to or take from them would necessarily change the actuarial computations.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think I have made myself clear. The bill provides for a certain number of payments per annum for persons to become eligible for the benefits of its provisions. Now according to the tabulation given us this evening it appears that there was an average unemployment, of those partly employed in industry, of 18.4 weeks over a period of years. Let us assume that a person is unemployed for four months of the year; what would be the position of that man under the bill? Would he be entitled to its benefits, or would he be entitled if his employment were intermittent? In that event would he be debarred from the benefits contemplated here?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is entitled to seventy-eight days or thirteen weeks commencing nine days after his unemployment begins, plus such benefits as may have accrued to him by reason of his having been continuously employed in a period of time up to as long as five years.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Under this section it is provided that the commission may make proposals to the governor in council in connection with various matters-extension of insurance to excepted employments, assistance for unemployed, training of unemployed, and so on. The contributions under this bill are worked out actuarially and I have been wondering where the money will come from to provide for this work under this particular section. There does not seem to be in the bill any other section that provides for the government to put up anything except it"
93S
Unemployment Insurance

share of the contributions and administration expenses; and particularly under paragraph (c) of subsection 1 it is provided, in cooperation with educational authorities and institutions or otherwise, either generally or in certain areas for any class or classes of such persons, that there shall be physical and industrial training with a view to maintaining or increasing their industrial fitness, and so on. That has reference to unemployed who will not contribute at all to the building up of a fund. Where is the money to come from? Will it be necessary to amend the act or to make a special grant?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason the report is made to the governor in council, to determine what action shall be taken. It involves of course financial provision.


Mr. VENIOT:: If I understand it rightly, the actuaries based their calculations on the figures given us by the Prime Minister tonight covering the period from 1922 to 1930. If we cannot get the details of the employment from 1931 to 1933, how could the actuaries be correct in the basis laid down for future contributions if they have not taken into consideration the years 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934 as minutely as they have taken into consideration the years from 1922 to 1930?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman did not follow the report of Mr. Watson showing how be plotted his curve on the basis of the information he had. If the hon. member will read the report carefully I will answer his questions in the light of the statements made therein and of the sections of the bill as well as of the information I put on Hansard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did not Mr. Watson say in some report that one of the effects of such a measure might be to increase the number of unemployed inasmuch as in periods of depression employers, having to pay into a fund, might be inclined to drop some of their staff, also that others would allow employees to be carried on unemployment insurance whose services might be otherwise retained. I saw a reference to a report-I thought it was made by Mr. Watson-to that effect. Did he submit any such report?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not recall that, in either the report of Wolfenden or the report of Watson, though I recall something similar in the English report-I believe, in the report of the royal commission on unemployment insurance. I will try to ascertain the facts by to-morrow.
'Mr. Both well.]


Peter John Veniot: May I call attention again to these figures. In making comparisons showing the number of employed as of June, 1931 the Prime Minister gave the figure 1,719,834. He mentioned that number at the beginning of his remarks, and when I asked the question he must have forgotten this figure because he said he did not have it for 1931.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the hon. member said 1932, because I had read 1931.


Peter John Veniot: There has been a misunderstanding between us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the hon. gentleman referred to 1932, 1933 and 1934.


Peter John Veniot: When we come to this section again I should like to have the same detailed statement for 1932, 1933 and 1934 that the Prime Minister gave for 1931.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is impossible to give it in the same detail, for on June 1, 1931 the census was taken and these, are census figures. But the figures for 1932, 1933, and I hope at least part of 1934, I will give to-morrow, because they are the sum total of those employed and reporting. There is a distinction between those that report and those that do not, because there are many employed in this country with respect to whom no report is made to the statistical department, as has been frequently pointed out in this house. As regards those who report, however, I will furnish the committee with particulars.


Peter John Veniot: The figures given for the years from 1923 to 1930 are based on returns submitted to the statistical department by concerns employing people throughout the dominion. If that could be done in those years and in that way, why can it not be done for 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934 in a similar way, without reference to the census?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have these figures but not beside me; I had only that part of the report that I read. But I said a moment ago that the figures for 1931 are census figures and therefore they check more fully against actual conditions as reported by employing concerns. The census figures for 1921 are also given. From 1923 to 1930 the figures were sent to the statistical department by reporting concerns; 1931 is a census figure; and 1932, 1933 and 1934, as far as I can give it, will be provided.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know what we are discussing but I am still on section 7.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is section 7 as printed. We are under paragraph (b).

Unemployment Insurance


Humphrey Mitchell: Paragraph (a) reads:
Providing unemployment insurance for the employments excepted from the operation of art ill of this act, or for any of them, either y extending thereto the provisions of that part, with such modifications, if any, as may be found necessary, or by special or supplementary schemes.
What is contemplated by the government where the paragraph reads, "by special or supplementary schemes"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just what it says, following the language that was employed in one of the other acts, amplified to some extent, that, this being a new bill, these commissioners will make their inquiries and the result of their inquiries will be made in a report to the governor in council who will then determine whether financially and otherwise such proposal will be made effective. That is what that means. The one that follows is somewhat similar, but it provides for the assistance, during unemployment, of persons ordinarily employed in any of the employments excepted from the operation of part HI and those who are ordinarily employed in insurable employment but who for the time being are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefit under this legislation.


Humphrey Mitchell: Would this take within its provisions say an insurance company that already has a scheme somewhat similar to this?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not included in the bill.


Humphrey Mitchell: This does not give power to include those?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not this provision. A later one may be open to that construction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have the reference to what I had in mind. In the Ottawa Journal of February 15 the following statement is made based on a report tabled by the Prime Minister. It refers to Mr. Watson:
If a high degree of stability in employment were attained, said Mr. Watson, the chief function of unemployment insurance would be to tide workpeople over short periods of unemployment between jobs.
The policy, however, has itself the tendency, for various reasons, to increase unemployment. Mr. Watson cited these as follows:
Good employers, accustomed to retaining their workers during slack periods, use the unemployment fund to carry surplus staff over these periods.
Many workers once on benefit are "not so zealous in their search for work as they would be if they had no income at all."
Unemployment insurance tends to induce an over supply of workers to seek employment in insured industries and those who lo6e employment aTe less ready to take uninsured employment.
And so forth. Evidently Mr. Watson has made a report somewhere.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is in that document from which I read; I sent it to Hansard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it in the report the Prime Minister read to-night, and if so will that appear in Hansard?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The whole report made by Mr. Watson has been tabled. I have read only from the part dealing with the figures which I had in my notes, and I sent it to Hansard. But I have no doubt it is in the document that was tabled if the paper says it is, because it was from that document that the paper took the extract. I think somewhat similar observations were made with respect to the English system at the time it was introduced.


Edward Joseph Garland: So far as this general clause is concerned, it would appear to be a direction to the commission that is to 'be appointed, and so perhaps it would be unfair on my part or on that of any other hon. member to draw any hard and fast conclusions therefrom. But reading paragraph (c) in conjunction with the British act I find a very close similarity in language between the two. Am I correct in assuming that most of the clauses under paragraph (c) are taken almost word for word from the British act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: That would imply, therefore, the application of some type of system in Canada eventually similar to that now operating in Great Britain?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not necessarily.


Edward Joseph Garland: I hope not. I am glad to hear the Prime Minister say that. Under the British act there is a provision which compels employers to notify the minister-in this case it would be the commission, I presume-in the case of the discharge of any young worker between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. The object of that, so far as the act seems to be concerned, is that they may be instructed to attend compulsorily some local training camp, or industrial centre, as it is euphoniously termed. If children of fourteen or fifteen years of age fail to attend, action may be taken against the parents and the parents may be fined a
Unemployment Insurance

certain sum for not compelling their child or children to attend such an industrial centre. Furthermore, the minister can then take proceedings under the Education Act of 1921 or the Education, Scotland, Act, of 1918, or the Day and Industrial Schools Act, Scotland, of 1893, to remove the young workers entirely from the parents' control and order them to be placed in the charge of other relatives or a person named by the minister, or order their attendance in a reformatory school. In other words, the minister may order young workers to enter such a place for a period that may be three years or less, at least until they are eighteen years of age. The reason for that in Great Britain is clear. It is that the benefits under their act appear to be quite insufficient to enable the parents adequately to take care of themselves and their children. I am content that the Prime Minister is seized of the great social importance of having the children kept in the home, especially at that extremely delicate age, fourteen to sixteen, the age of adolescence, a most dangerous period for both male and female. I would suggest therefore that in the consideration of any scheme under this clause of the bill regard is had to the necessity for taking proper precautions to see that the children are not taken from the parents unless there is some other reason, for instance, criminal taint or mental taint or something of that sort. If the parents are satisfactory citizens; if they are doing the best they can, they should be assisted financially in sending their children to suitable schools in the vicinity, and even in going to high school, but the children should never be taken from under the care of the parents. I sincerely trust the Prime Minister, although he has no children, will see that the minister, if he happens to be in control, will take that fact into due consideration. I am frankly opposed to the British system in this regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the point is very well taken, but I think also the hon. member for Bow River will at once admit that conditions that obtain in Great Britain are not similar to those that obtain in this country. For instance, our truancy acts and compulsory attendance in schools are entirely different from what they were in England at one time; I think there has been some modification during the last two years, although I am not quite certain as to that. In Ontario I think children are compelled under compulsory provisions of the statute and of the Truancy Act to attend school until they are sixteen; that is my recollection. In Alberta

we have somewhat the same provisions. In Great Britain they endeavoured to raise the age to sixteen and there was a great deal of difficulty about the matter. I do not think the hon. gentleman need fear any effort to enforce the provisions of the statute along the lines he has suggested, at least not while this government is in power.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think the Prime Minister
when he moved the second reading of the bill said he would have printed the reports of both Mr. Wolfenden and Mr. Watson. The very voluminous report of Mr. Wolfenden covers about thirty pages and that of Mr. Watson a little more. I still think it would be of great assistance if these reports were printed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Probably the hon. gentleman was not in his place when I tabled the reports, and stated why I thought it was not desirable to spend the money to print them. If it is the desire of the committee that they be printed, it will be done, but of course it will take some time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As this subject is likely to be of importance for years to come, I think it would be of advantage to have them printed, and it might as well be done at once.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In that event I will take the necessary action this evening. I think one is a little longer than the other. It was in Mr. Watson's report that reference was made to what the right hon. gentleman now mentions, although not in those terms. Paragraphs 3 and 4 deal with the matter, and paragraph 1 dealt with the possibility of there being an increase in unemployment from the fact that unemployment insurance is payable. The words were:
(3) Unemployment insurance tends to induce an over-supply of workers to seek employment in insured industries, and those who lost employment are less ready to take uninsured employment.
I shall take steps to have both these reports printed.


Wilfred Hanbury: This section provides only, I understand, for the commission making proposals for the consideration of the governor in council. They cannot of themselves make any of these various clauses effective. Could the governor in council make the recommendations effective without submission to parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would depend entirely upon what the provisions were. Obviously with respect to financial commitments in a large way they could not. With

Unemployment Insurance
respect to regulations provided for in the statute, they might be able to authorize them. It is intended that the commission shall not of its own mere motion commit the government to expenditures that would be at variance with the general principles upon which the statute is based, but it would report to the government, which would determine as a matter of policy what action should be taken.


Wilfred Hanbury: I understand then that if a change suggested by the commission were acceptable to the governor in council the governor in council could make it effective if it did not require contribution by the federal government; if the funds provided through the insurance were sufficient they could make it effective without submission to parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The general principles of the bill determine within themselves the limits of the powers of the commission, both to initiate and to administer. With respect to initiation their powers are powers of reporting to the government. The government must determine what action shall be taken within the ambit of the bill itself. If it involves expenditures which would throw the machinery out of gear from an actuarial standpoint, obviously neither party would make such proposals effective until there had been readjustment under the statute itself to deal with the disequilibrium between premiums and benefits. The scheme could not be operated on a basis that would make it insolvent. That is the reason these provisions are very definite in their terms.


Wilfred Hanbury: In that event any change would require submission to parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Was it under this section, or if not what section, that the Prime Minister promised to reply to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) with regard to coal miners? I am interested also; I spoke of this on the second reading of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it is a later section, dealing with those entitled to benefits.
Section stands.
On section 8-Officers and employees to be appointed under Civil Service Act.


Wilfred Hanbury: I think this is the item about the cost to the federal treasury?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, this is not the clause.


Wilfred Hanbury: Well, subsection 3 says:
The costs of administration of this act, including remuneration of commissioners, officers, clerks and employees, shall be paid out of moneys provided by parliament.
The Prime Minister might give the information in connection with that clause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to that
subsection the estimate given varies. In Great Britain they estimated the entire cost at about twelve and a half per cent of the sum passing through their hands. If the fund were to consist of $42,000,000 the dominion would pay one-fifth of the joint contribution of the employer and the employee; in other words the dominion pays one dollar to five dollars paid by the employer and the employee, which is one-sixth of the total, plus the cost of administration, estimated at somewhere between twelve and a half and fifteen per cent. That is the figure incorporated. The expenditure for administration I am putting at possibly fifteen per cent, which would mean an expenditure of something over $7,000,000.


Wilfred Hanbury: That would be in addition to the contribution of the government to the fund itself?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Wilfred Hanbury: Is that money to be
provided for in the estimates?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. When the Old
Age Pensions Act was under consideration it was provided that the money should be taken out of any undistributed moneys in the consolidated revenue fund. All that can be done so far as parliament is concerned in the first year of this bill will be to make an estimate. Whether or not it should be dealt with as the old age pensions provisions were dealt with, or by a special estimate, has not been determined.


Edward Joseph Garland: Some discussion took place before recess that should have taken place on this section, as to the question of appointments by the civil service commission. I suggest to the Prime Minister that subsection 2 of section 8 is ambiguous. It reads:
For the purposes of any investigation, or for any other purpose of this act, the commission may, subject to the approved of the governor in council, from time to time temporarily employ such persons of technical and professional attainments as the commission may deem necessary.
Unemployment Insurance

Taken, in conjunction with subsection 1 it indicates to me that all technical and professional appointments will be made under patronage, because subsection 1 simply says that the commission may employ, pursuant to the Civil Service Act, "officers, clerks, and employees;" it does not mention technical or professional services of any kind. If the Prime Minister would change the wording of subsection 1 very slightly, as as to make it read:
The commission may employ such officers, clerks, employees and such persons of technical and professional attainments for the purposes of this act as the commission may deem necessary-
-then the situation would be much clearer. As it stands now it would appear that technical and professional appointments can be made only under subsection 2.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill as written exactly represents the intention of the government. It refers first to the permanent employees of the commission; they are to be appointed by the civil service commission. Temporary employees, experts for any particular purpose, are appointed by the governor in council; it has been so with respect to such matters in all countries, and I suppose will continue to be. Where you do not desire to employ an expert continuously, or where you engage, as we have, the services of a professor from one of the universities, or a consulting actuary, he is treated as being an expert for a specific purpose. It will be observed that the word "temporarily" governs the whole provision-"temporarily employ such persons of technical and professional attainments as the commission may deem necessary." When the commission deems them necessary for temporary employment the governor in council must approve.


Abraham Albert Heaps: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has the Prime Minister any idea how many officers and employees will be required for administration?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This starts with the labour exchange as the lowest unit, and the communities will be divided into sections having regard to the size of the country. Perhaps the maritime provinces, the two large central provinces and the west will comprise the separate units, or there may be four, five or six. The number of employees will vary, of course. At first it may require a little larger number than later, because it will be necessary to get in some collected form the information which is available from the local communities. The exchange offices already have the basis of that information, as the right hon. gentleman knows, and the extent to which it will have to be amplified will depend upon the detail with which the commission will require the information to be furnished. I have formed no estimate as to the number, because, as is known, from year to year we vote a sum of money to maintain these labour offices. That sum of money would now be made available for the maintenance of these labour exchange offices, and in large centres of industrial activity such as the two central provinces there would be a vastly greater number of employees than in the smaller industrial centres, represented for instance by the maritime provinces or by the agricultural communities of Saskatchewan or Alberta, in part, although Alberta would have a considerable number by reason of its industrial activities as a result of its mineralization and lumbering. I have not formed any estimate as to the number, but I will make

Unemployment Insurance
further inquiries and ascertain if it is possible to form an idea as to the number that will be required.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a very important factor, because if this act is to be a federal measure it must be apparent at once that the machinery the provinces have for this purpose can be of no service whatever. In the provinces, where they have the administration of factory, mine and shop acts, they have at hand practically all that is required in the way of staff to administer many of these social measures, but if the federal government is taking it as a federal obligation it will involve, to a considerable extent, I should imagine, the creation of what is sometimes spoken of as a bureaucracy, considering that it will be all new work for the federal government to undertake; and I have no doubt it will require a considerable number of officers throughout the different provinces. Could the Prime Minister indicate in regard to the officers and employees, not the stenographers and such, but the main employees, whether the number would run to five thousand or ten thousand?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the right hon.
gentleman has imagined a larger number than I have even thought of. The employment offices, for which in times past we have really supplied the money, under the reorganization will carry on a good deal of this work, and the Department of Labour, which now carries on investigations all over Canada through fair wage officers and so on, together with the inspection of the employment offices, will be able to continue that function. It is through these officers rather than through the administrative machinery of the provinces, at least in western Canada, that this work is carried on. The reports made under the factory and coal mines acts will in no sense be interfered with by this legislation; neither will there be any duplication of effort in that regard. The employment offices have been the medium through which employers have sought employees and employees have sought employment, since they were established in 1919. Now it is proposed to increase their efficiency, but not in any sense to duplicate the effort of the provinces in dealing with their social problems, just as they have relied on these exchanges since 1920 in connection with their employment difficulties. I will make inquiries, however.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will a considerable staff not be required in connection with the collection of contributions by employees and employers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We believe that will be very simple. The collection is to be done by the employer, who is to send in his contribution together with the contributions of his employees. That is one of the provisions of the statute, so that should not greatly multiply the difficulties so far as the staff is concerned. I believe the difficulty they experienced in the old country in connection with administration arose from causes other than those, for instance, to which the right hon. gentleman has referred. My own view is that the number required will be very much less than may be thought by those who look at the bill casually. I will make inquiries as to how many are now employed in all the exchange offices throughout Canada, and see if some estimate can be formed as to what increase may be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the statute.


Wilfred Hanbury: In connection with this
increase to which the Prime Minister has just referred I would remind him that in answer to a question put by myself just a few moments ago he stated that the cost of administration, as I understood it, was expected to be approximately $7,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would include
everything in connection with the administration of the act.


Wilfred Hanbury: Accepting the figure of
$7,000,000, and assuming the expenses in connection with the act to amount to let us say $1,000,000, a total of approximately $6,000,000 would be left to be distributed in salaries. If we take an average income of $1,500 a year this amount would provide for practically four thousand employees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From the Atlantic to
the Pacific.


Wilfred Hanbury: When the leader of the opposition suggested perhaps four thousand or five thousand-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; he said five thousand or ten thousand.


Wilfred Hanbury: It will provide for about four thousand employees, as I understand it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not necessarily
follow, as I have stated, that this will be the number of employees added. If the existing employees in the Department of
Unemployment Insurance

Labour and the employment offices are utilized, it would not involve any such increase as that. As I say, the estimate is based merely upon the amount expended. I thought it undesirable to mention any sum which in view of experience might be regarded as entirely inadequate.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I thought I saw something in the bill about buying stamps.
Mr. 'BENNETT: That mode was in part, discontinued. There are provisions here in connection with matters of that kind, but when the act originally came into force-I believe it was in 1920 or 1921-I recall being in England when the first stamps were issued, and it was found that in part that method was undesirable. This statute deals with provisions of that kind. I could not give any estimate which could be regarded as accurate, because I am dealing only with the application of the costs of administration in Great Britain upon the circumstances in our own country, and having regard to what we have already established and what is proposed I shall make further inquiries from the Department of Labour and advise the committee to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith Cumberland) :: Shall clause 9, number 10 in the
bill, carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would be
better to call the numbers as they appear in the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that would be easier.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman, would you mind reading these clauses?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Does the hon. member mean the marginal note, or the clause itself?


Paul Mercier: The marginal note is enough.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland). For section 9 the marginal note is: Organization of Employment Service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest that if we confine ourselves to the numbers as they appear in the printed bill we will avoid confusion; the numbers can be changed afterwards. Section 10 of the bill deals with the matter of the commission organizing an 
employment service for the dominion. The Prime Minister has already stated we have an employment service which is to be taken over. Is the clause sufficiently broad?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I explained to the committee, we have these offices. The extent to which they may discharge the duties called for by this bill is an altogether different question. To the extent to which it may be possible to utilize them, it is proposed so to do, but this measure gives the commission a free hand in the organization of the employment service of the country. To restrict them in the first instance might fasten upon them inefficient persons, and one of the weaknesses I have experienced in my short official life has been that there is no statutory provision for getting rid of the inefficient person; once a civil servant he is a civil servant forever. This provision would enable the commission to organize their service on a basis which they think will be efficient.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I refer to this not in any critical sense but rather to avoid difficulties later. If we have an employment service, as it is at present organized under a department which has a responsible minister and deputy minister, a department for which this parliament makes appropriations in the estimates, and we have also a commission which is given its power under a separate act and receives its own appropriations, we could hardly have those two authorities working side by side without conflict.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the right hon.
gentleman will follow me when I say that people charged with a responsibility such as that with which the commission will be charged would not desire to be compelled to accept A, B and C. But it has been found in practice-at least it has been my experience- that any effort to transfer services from one direction to another does not meet with the success one would desire. The real reason is a weakness in our civil service law. I have explained on more than one occasion that the weakness is this: No matter how inefficient an individual may be, there is no provision for terminating his service, as the private employer does, except for age or for continued inability to discharge his duties. And in I would not say many, but in several cases at least that have come under my observation, had it been a private enterprise undoubtedly the employer would have indicated to the employee, because of his failure to discharge his duties, the desirability of his seeking employment elsewhere. One of the great benefits

Unemployment Insurance
of civil service employment of which one is constantly reminded lies in that fact. I gave my opinion publicly on the point; I do not think it was accepted with very good grace, but I at least mentioned it, and it has been my observation that it was an absolutely sound statement to make, namely that once you get into the service and become a permanent employee, then the statutory increases must follow as a matter of course. Of course that is not the law at all. The law of this country is that statutory increases are based upon merit, upon meritorious service. Un^ fortunately the feeling has grown up that the statutory increase is a matter of right and of course, but under the provisions of the law, as I read them, that is not so. One of the difficulties in practice, and I believe the right hon. gentleman will agree, would 'be the transferring of services, and the possibility-and I use the word "possibility"-of making it more or less difficult for the new board sucessfully to function.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have had the impression that the immediate and ultimate aim behind the measure was to form a commission which would gradually take over all these social services, so far as the federal government is concerned, and that this body would have to do with unemployment insurance, unemployment exchanges, old age pensions and, probably, health insurance, which may be added in the course of time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is dealt with here, yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And that all
these social services would come under the commission, which would deal with these matters in a large way. If that is so I should think that as these services are now being performed in part by the Department of Labour there would be some provision under which the Department of Labour would be relieved of them. Surely it cannot be intended to have two bodies carrying on unemployment exchanges and two bodies administering old age pensions; there should be one body which would take the whole matter in hand, either through a commission outside the government service altogether or through a department of labour with enlarged functions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe the right hon. gentleman's opinion and the opinion I hold are very much alike. There is nothing in the measure which discloses, as he has properly said, the manifest intention of legislation of this type, to endeavour to ensure the 92582-60
efficient administration of social services under a commission which would be set up for the purpose. He has fairly stated what is in the back of my mind; whether I live to see it carried into effect is another matter. But to transfer them by a section of the measure from one body to another is not in my judgment at the moment a proper way to do it. The right hon. gentleman will recall that the provincial authorities have at present a relation to the employment exchanges-labour exchanges-and it is the intention to cooperate with them for the purpose of seeing how this section, and the provisions of this measure may be brought into harmony with their own interests, as they are at present carried on under existing legislation. We supply some of the people and they supply some of them; we supply part of the money. It will be recalled it is a sort of joint enterprise. As soon as the commission is appointed it is proposed that they shall discuss the whole situation with the provinces, and, to the extent that it may be possible,, bring their operations in harmony with what the provinces have heretofore done in connection with labour exchanges, under the legislation which is already upon the statute books. If it becomes desirable to make the necessary amendments they will be made in the act relating to labour-I forget the name of the statute at the moment-and in the Old Age Pensions Act. The right hon. gentleman has correctly read what was in my mind, but it is not in any sense indicated in the sweep of this measure at the moment. It depends, of course, upon the human element in making effective the provisions of a statute so as to secure if possible some system of uniformity in the administration of these social services. As I said to the right hon. gentleman this afternoon, we have had considerable difficulty in connection with old age pensions, and I doubt not that he already saw the beginnings of that. We have had to make investigations at times that were most unpleasant because of the effort made to retain a position of effective independence and at the same time to receive the benefits of the Old Age Pensions Act. That has gone on on quite a large scale in more than one part of the dominion. It is unnecessary to make any public statement with reference to it, but that has been the fact. I have in my mind just what the right hon. gentleman has said, but the realization of it is altogether a different thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The intention then is to leave all existing services as they are, enacting this as a separate measure and

Unemployment Insurance

ultimately working towards a possible transfer of the one to the other. Inasmuch as there is some question, to put it mildly, as to the validity of the act, I think that is probably the course that should be taken. It is unfortunate that before putting through legislation to effect that end we have to wait to see whether or not the act is valid; otherwise what will now require two or three different enactments might have been accomplished in one.


Wilfred Hanbury: Are the employees of the employment service referred to in clause 10 to be taken in under the provisions of the Civil Service Act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: All employees other than those specially mentioned are to be provided under the provisions of that act.


Frederick George Sanderson: When this commission is set up, will it cany on its work and its duties independently of any department of the government? I have in mind, for instance, the radio commission, which is under one of the departments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This act is predicated on the assumption that it is not under the control of the minister.


Frederick George Sanderson: That it is not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then who will control it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Parliament.


Frederick George Sanderson: Does the Prime Minister think that will be a very good arrangement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is the only effective arrangement possible at all.


Frederick George Sanderson: With all due respect to the Prime Minister I do not agree with him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know that.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not suppose the Prime Minister cares; nevertheless that is my opinion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not in any sense indicating that I have any objection to the hon. gentleman expressing his opinion as freely as I have expressed mine. I only say that it is contemplated that the commission will be under the control of parliament, and parliament will be free to take such action in the premises as it thinks fit with respect to anything .that may be done by the commission.
[Mr, Mackenzie King.l


Edward Joseph Garland: The point has been raised that the eventual development under this act will mean the absorption of either one set of employment offices or the other, but unfortunately clause 2 of section 11 is mandatory. It says:
The commission shall establish employment offices within each regional division at such places as they may deem expedient and desirable for the purposes of this act.
And it specifies the divisions. I am just wondering whether or not it is a question of legal phraseology, I do not quite follow the Prime Minister's former statement in reply to the leader of the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was endeavouring to make clear what I think my hon. friend from Bow River will see in a moment, namely the distinction between the offices and the employees. On the one hand I was dealing with the desirability of one set of employees administering the social services to which I referred, but it is essential that in the first instance this organization immediately establish its offices. The personnel will be, if possible, the personnel I have referred to so far as it may be useful, and in that regard I point out that we ourselves contribute largely to the payment for these services at the present time.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does that mean that the present employment offices will be taken over or vanish?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I want to make it quite clear that there is no mandatory provision in the act to compel the commission to take over these offices, but the one or the other would be the result. I do not want to mislead the hon. gentleman.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is not clear-"they will foe taken over or vanish." Will there not be the cooperation of the province through the employment service?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hardly put it as my hon. friend suggests, but we vote $150,000 a year at the present moment for the purpose of enabling the employment offices to be maintained. These offices are available for the purpose of enabling the provinces to use them for any purposes they may desire within the purview of the act. It is not the purpose that these employment offices shall come under the provisions of this statute, but it is the purpose of the government in this act, and it is made abundantly clear in its provisions, that the provinces may shill utilize the

Unemployment Insurance
machinery of the existing offices for the purpose of enabling them to relate the unemployed to the employer requiring the services of employees, and vice versa, to supply if possible the employers who are requiring men. I want to make it perfectly clear that there is nothing in this measure that makes it dependent on them, but the purpose of the bill is that there should be that correlation because we have that financial control, providing $150,090 per annum for that purpose at the present time, following the recommendations that were made after the treaty of peace in 1918.


Humphrey Mitchell: Is it the intention of the government then, to assume all the cost of the operation and administration of these employment offices?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Humphrey Mitchell: There will be no quarrel
about that; there should not be, anyway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When I say that, as I said to the leader of the opposition, that is the ultimate intention because there is a field which will have to be covered gradually by the federal power as regards these social services. I mentioned old age pensions, and there are the provisions of this act with relation to health and with respect to employment.


Humphrey Mitchell: Does this contemplate the abolition of private employment agencies?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not contemplate either one thing or the other with respect to them. It contemplates that such usefulness and efficiency will be established under it that it will foe rather difficult for another agency to function successfully.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the Prime Minister information to show how much was spent by the provincial governments in these employment agencies?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot give the figures offhand, but I can answer the question in this way. When the statute was first enacted the provinces expended substantial sums, but after the depression their expenditures were of course very much less. The moneys which we provided were perhaps largely, and in some provinces I might say almost wholly, the moneys that they relied upon for the maintenance of their services.


Mr. McINTOSH:: In section 11 of part II regional divisions are mentioned. How many of these regional divisions will there be in Canada?
92582-60J


Richard Bedford Bennett: The number will be determined by the commission.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Then the Prime Minister does not know exactly at the present time how many there will be?


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the present time the Prime Minister is not one of the members of the commission and has not means of being able to determine what the commission will regard as adequate.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If we cannot find out how many regional divisions we shall have or how many offices there will be in each province, can the Prime Minister tell us about the personnel of the central office within each regional division?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman was not in his place to-day when the discussion took place with respect to these matters. This is a section that confers power upon the commission to do what is provided for under the section. Their manner of doing it must be a matter between them and this parliament. They are clothed with the authority and entrusted with the duty. Neither I nor any other member would be in a position to indicate what in the mind of the commission would be a sufficient compliance with the section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section II-Regional divisions: central offices.
Mr. iNBILL: I have an amendment to move to this section. I want to put it on Hansard so that it may be considered over night. I would move as subsection 5:
There shall not be maintained at any employment office what is known as a "blacklist."
There is a great deal of what is called labour unrest in Canada to-day. I do not know that it is anywhere more manifest than it is in British Columbia. The unrest in the labour element is being played on by certain parties, not altogether for the public good; it is being capitalized. So far as British Columbia is concerned, I do not know whether there is a more fruitful source of that discontent than the existence of what is known as the blacklist. Its existence is vehemently denied by some employers, frankly admitted by others, and of course firmly believed in by the labour element, who claim that they have absolute proof of it. In British Columbia, quite a number of years ago, we did away with private employment offices and centralized all work of that kind in government offices. Possibly it was the only way it could
Unemployment Insurance
[Stage Direction]
be done, by simply prohibiting anyone, endeavouring to procure work for anyone else, to .be paid for it. But it did not prohibit people from doing so for nothing. Perhaps they had in mind patriotic associations, or such as the Young Men's Christian Association, which might try in a voluntary way to get work for people. The employers got round the law by either individually or through associations in the particular industry, employing a man to run an employment office, and it is in the operation of these offices that the blacklist exists. They are not employment offices in the sense of the act, though they are that to all intents and purposes, because they are run by a particular company or association of companies. A man sees a position marked up on the blackboard. He knows he can fill it and he applies, stating his qualifications. He proves to be absolutely competent and experienced at the job, and the employment agent is inclined to take him on. He asks his name and then goes behind a screen or turns to a list and comes back and says, "We don't want you." The man asks why not. The agent insists that he is not wanted and takes the man standing behind this applicant, a man less qualified and less experienced. The first applicant is turned down because he is on the blacklist.
I met a number of workers a few months ago; as a matter of fact they were strikers. Some people called them red, but if they were red they were reasonably red. The conditions were such that they might have expressed themselves in violent and vehement language, but they did not; they were reasonable. Putting things together I decided that a great deal of the trouble lay in the existence of the blacklist. I told the men that I had been an employer myself and fully realized that it was impossible to say to an employer that someone else could dictate to him whom to fire and hire. I pointed out that a business could hardly be run on that basis, that the man who employed labour and furnished the money should have the right to say whether he would employ a certain man or not; and certainly he had a right to fire him. But that should not go on forever and especially should not apply to other employers in the same industry. That is where the blacklist comes in. A man may have some words with his immediate boss, a small straw boss, in the dull and cold gray light of the morning when he is rather stiff in the joints. They are both grouchy; their boots are tight; they had been working in the wet the day before.

they have a few words and one says some-rhing to the other. They are both perfectly good men, but either the boss fires the worker or the worker beats him to it and says he will quit anyhow. A card is then filled out by the foreman when the man leaves, and this card gives his pedigree. One of the questions asked on the card is: "Would you employ this man again?" If he says no, that man's chance of a job in that industry not with that employer merely but in that industry in British Columbia-is damned for all time. That is the curse of the situation.
I told these men that if the boss fired a man for cause and they proposed to force him to take the man back, they would also perhaps run up against the situation that if the employment office sent them to a place they did not want to go, they would have to go. They said they were prepared to put up with that because they had to do it now; if they refused to go, they are placed on the blacklist.
I do not propose that it should be done by drastic action; I do not think that an employer should be forced to employ someone he does not want, and vice versa. It could be done by reasonable regulation. It might be arranged that if a man were fired from a certain company he should not be sent back to the same employer within say a year, and that would give time for feelings to die down. In the meantime there would have been a change of men and afterwards there would be no friction if he went back after the lapse of a year. In the same way, if a man quit an employer, whatever the reason might be, he should not be compelled to go back to the same employer within a specified time, which should also be reasonable. Apart from that, they should be sent out in the order in which they applied and if they were qualified for the position they would have to go and be taken. In that way men would not be thrown out of a livelihood as they can be at the present time by reason of the blacklist, simply because two grouchy men get together and curse each other. I said to these men that if they would accept a thing like that it might be abused and we might find a man saying to his boss, "You can't fire me because I can appeal to the law and you will have to take me back." The answer was that it is done in other industries. They named the railway companies in which boards of appeal, composed of some of the higher officers and some of the men, pass upon these matters. There is a report

Unemployment Insurance
every month reciting instances in which railway servants in the lower ranks have appealed on account of dissatisfaction with regard to services or wages, often in connection with their runs, and the case is decided by the board of appeal. There is no friction and the result is that for many years there has not been a railway strike. They made the further point that they themselves would work to prevent any abuse of it because it would be to their advantage to have such a system in force.
I suggest that this might be allowed to stand. It is something new I have sprung on the committee, and it might be made to apply only to British Columbia. Certainly, however, it would be an excellent thing. Some hon. member suggests that the employment agencies be done away with. I would say certainly. We have done away with them in British Columbia except in the instances I have named. It would be a good thing if it was only giving a lead in the dominion offices if they inaugurated some system whereby there would be no suggestion of this blacklist by which men, for a mere whim of somebody else, may be deprived, not of their job-that is a trivial matter; they could get another one-but of any employment at all, because the blacklist goes right down the line in the industry concerned. There is no question about that; if anyone wants instances, I can give them.
In another case, a big employer of labour -he is not in my district and I can tell the story-told me that the system they arranged was to send out a spy periodically. He did not call the man a spy; he called him an investigator. This investigator got a job; he was sent up ostensibly as one of the employees. He snooped around; of course he had to justify himself and do something for his money. The scheme worked like this: he would sidle up to a man and say: "'pretty lousy job" or "pretty lousy grub here." If the man said yes, he was reported as having said that the grub was lousy and he was dissatisfied. He would be let out within a week or two; he would not know why. He would be told: "Here is your money," and he would not get any work again in that place. That is the way blacklists get started. I would be glad if the Prime Minister could see his way clear to allowing this clause to stand so that he, his colleague the Minister of Labour and officials of that department could consider this question.
Wilfred Hanbury: I would like to ask the
Prime Minister this question: Under the suggested amendment, is there anything in this legislation that will require any employer to engage any labourer or workman that may be sent by the employment office to him?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Wilfred Hanbury: The Prime Minister says no. Under the circumstances as I see them, while the amendment might be placed on the statute book, I do not see any teeth in it that could make it effective.
Mr. MaoINNIS:	The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni has raised a question that is of great importance to many people. I do not however agree that the basis of the blacklist is as simple as the hon. member believes it to be; at least that is not my understanding. I think the blacklist arises from the very fundamental fact that generally employers in this country are opposed to the organization of their employees in industrial organizations or in trade unions. In certain trades such as railroading, street railway 'occupations and certain stabilized trades of that kind, employees have become organized; their organizations have become well established and they have agreements with their employers. Where an agreement of that kind exists, it is almost impossible to institute a blacklist. But if we take less sheltered industries, particularly lumbering and to some extent mining, employers in those industries have opposed with every means at their disposal their employees forming any kind of organization.


Mr. HOWARD:: Is the hon. member referring to British Columbia?
Mr. MaoINNIS:	Not only in British
Columbia, but throughout Ontario, Quebec and every other part of Canada. Employers are in the business for making profits and trades organizations militate to some extent against the making of profits, although in some cases where the employees have been organized for some time, employers believe it is good policy to have them organized because they consider men who are intelligent enough to organize will give better service than those who are not. But you cannot get that into the heads of the lumber barons, at least not in British Columbia, and I doubt if you can in Quebec. In the lumber industry on the Pacific coast the blacklist extends not only over British Columbia, but also into the northwest Pacific states, Washington and Oregon. As a matter of fact the employers themselves are very strongly organized but they object strenuously
Unemployment Insurance

to their employees organizing. I have worked for employers and I have been called up before the superintendent and told, "Our investigators have made a certain report upon you. We are sorry we have to have these investigators but the management deems them essential." These men act not only as investigators but as agents provocateurs. They get the men to start organizing and when they have done so, they will report to the employer that certain men are ringleaders. These men are then called on the carpet and sent out of the camp. From then on they are debarred from getting any employment in this particular industry. I do not know whether the proposal made by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, which I am satisfied was made in all sincerity, will meet the situation. But if it does not, then this government should take positive and definite steps to encourage organization among the workers in industry, because there is no other way in which legislation passed by governments can be enforced than by strong organizations of the employees concerned.


Charles Gavan Power: Whilst we are on this question of employment service, may I ask the minister whether he has any statement or report which he could furnish to the committee as to just how useful the employment service which is now functioning has been in the past two years in finding work for the unemployed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statistics are not here; the Minister of Labour has them in connection with his estimates. But I can say that these services have been regarded as being very valuable and have rendered, especially in western Canada, very useful service to both employers and employees. The minister has the information prepared for his estimates, and if it is thought desirable I can have it here to-morrow.


Charles Gavan Power: I take it, then, that the Department of Labour is satisfied that these employment offices have rendered valuable service during the time of the depression in obtaining employment for people who would otherwise be unemployed. Do I understand that from the minister?


George Gordon: In my judgment the employment offices have done valuable service not only during the time of the so-called depression but since their organization. All these efforts lend themselves to improvement, but there is no question in my mind that they have done and are doing useful service.


Charles Gavan Power: Has any serious attempt ever been made in Canada to assist in the migration of labour from one place where employment is scarce to some other place where there might be better chances of obtaining employment?


George Gordon: The administration of the employment offices is, as the hon. member knows, under the control of the provinces. I do not say that they have succeeded as well as they might have had the scope of their activities been enlarged, but on a comparatively small scale they have assisted in the effort that the hon. member suggests.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The question is on the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry I cannot
accept the amendment. In the first place it would serve no useful purpose. No government department operating under a commission would maintain a blacklist. It would be an insult to the commission to prohibit it from doing so. But that is not the real reason; the blacklist in any event would be maintained by the employers, not by the commission. That is not the duty or obligation of such a commission. The prospective employer would be the one with the blacklist; he would be the person who declined to take X, Y or Z whose services might be offered. Lastly, if there were any difficulty about the matter it could be dealt with by regulations, for which the bill provides in section 38, and which can be as far-reaching as may be necessary. I do not think, however, that one should contemplate the possibility of an organization of this kind maintaining a blacklist. Its job, its obligation, will be just the opposite. I think on reflection the hon. member will conclude that it is undesirable to press his amendment. On the other hand if he desires that the committee should look further into it, there is no reason why the section should not stand in order that the amendment which he proposes as subsection 5 should be considered.


Alan Webster Neill: I appreciate the Prime
Minister's action. Of course I did not suggest that the government office would run a blacklist; it would be the employer who would enforce it, as he said. It would be desirable to do away with all private employment agencies, as we have done partially in British Columbia; then when the government office proposes to send a man to a certain employer and he says "I will not take him because he is on my blacklist," it would be for the government to say; "You will have to." Lest

Unemployment Insurance
there should be any suggestion that this is going to operate unfairly against the employer, may I say I am satisfied that a large number of employers would welcome it. Many of them, especially the more humane and far-seeing, even from the dollar and cents point of view, would welcome it because they know it would do away with one of the greatest causes of friction between employer and employees. We all know that you do not get satisfactory work when there is a continuous source of irritation. I am glad to accept the suggestion that the section stand over.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Obviously no employer
would allege a desire not to employ a given individual because his name is on a blacklist.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Before this item stands,
I think in view of the amendment suggested by the hon. member (Mr. Neill) this committee should be informed of what is probably one of the reasons for his suggesting it. I am inclined to agree with my colleague from Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) when he suggests that more encouragement should be given to employees in industry to organize themselves so that they can negotiate better with their employers. But it is accepted as a fact by many people in Canada to-day that during the past twelve or thirteen months men were sent into our lumber industry from one end of Canada to the other for the one and sole purpose of disorganizing the industry. There are many, and I am one, who think that these .people were sent into this country by agents of Russia who were disturbed at the quantity of lumber that this country was sending out in competition with them. We had men sent into the industry in British Columbia and other parts of Canada who were agitating and who could not 'be satisfied no matter what was given them. They were not there endeavouring to improve conditions; they were there to disturb the industry. I think that is one of the reasons for the suggested amendment. True, I do not think there is any question that there are men on the blacklist in British Columbia to-day as far as the lumber industry is concerned, and I think many of these men will be kept there until they show that they are not going to be affected by these professional, paid agitators who come there to destroy our industry. And while I am quite prepared to support any organization of employees for the purpose of enabling them to negotiate with the employers, I am not going to put a weapon in the hands of agitators so that an employer can be forced to employ them in order that they may disorganize our business.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I wish to make it clear that this blacklist is not something which has been in existence only during the past year; it has existed on the Pacific coast since 1919. During the war when labour was scarce and the lumber industry very active the lumber workers built up a strong organization, but when labour became more plentiful and the employers wanted to take advantage of the state of the labour market, everything possible was done to smash the labour organizations. And ever since that time the blacklist has been in existence. While I am quite satisfied that there are a few individuals who are not interested in organizing for legitimate purposes but are possibly more interested in disorganizing, I am quite convinced from my own experience of twenty-five years in the labour movement that satisfied employees cannot be led to follow agitators of that kind.


Wilfred Hanbury: I agree.


Angus MacInnis: If there were not a basis for agitation in the conditions prevailing in the industry, making employees ready to heed the voice of the agitator, there would be no difficulty whatsoever in the camp. In fact the workers would be the first to run these agitators out of the camp if the conditions were right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall only say that from my observations what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) has said is fully warranted. I have not the same sources of information that he has-only the reports that come from various sources-but I certainly formed an opinion some months ago that is wholly in accordance with the statement he has just made. I believe sincerely from the evidence furnished me that in one or two cases in British Columbia there was a disturbance of industry which was directly traceable to those who would profit greatly by such disturbance. But the point I desire to make is that while agreeing wholly that harmonious relations between employer and employed are the basis of success in any industry, I cannot think that the insertion of a subsection such as this in a statute dealing with a commission that has such wide responsibility is justifiable. Obviously you cannot force an employer to take a given employee. That is the real point to which I direct attention. And as you cannot compel him to do it without violating all the rules that have heretofore governed the relations between employer and employee, I suggest that to place such a provision in the statute would do violence to our general appreciation of the understanding that should
Unemployment Insurance

exist between the commission and the employers to whom from time to time they send those who may be seeking employment.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Prime Minister has just stated that an employer could not be compelled to accept a given employee. Under the provisions of this measure can an employee be compelled to accept an employer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If any person insured under the act declines without good reason to accept employment that is offered, then the results indicated in the statute itself follow. I should hardly like to put it that he is compelled to accept, but what may happen if he does not accept the opportunity is that he will lose the benefit.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There are certain exceptions under which the employee is not compelled to accept employment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; that is provided in the statute itself.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The clause stands?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I promised to let it stand if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Neill) so desires.
Section stands.
On section 12-Collection of information.


Wilfred Hanbury: In the fourth line of subsection 2 "failure to comply with any such request" is made an offence against the act, but there is no time stated within which such failure to comply may occur. I would direct that to the attention of the Prime Minister. I think some time limit should be stated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the difficulties in stating a time in any statute of this kind is that you must have regard to distances and geography. The law implies a reasonable time; that is why no such words are included. If, for instance, I asked the hon. gentleman to supply information and said if he did not supply it within twenty-four hours proceedings would be taken against him; if he was in Vancouver and I was in Winnipeg or Ottawa, that would not be treated as of any importance at all. The real implication of the law is a reasonable time, and I think the hon. member will agree that to state any length of time would be destructive of the very purpose he has in mind.


John Campbell Elliott: Subsection 2 of section 12 reads:

The commission may request any person to make written returns of such information as the commission may deem necessary for the purposes of this act, and failure to comply with any such request shall be an offence-
Of course this is a commission the personnel of which we do not know at the present time, nor do we know the tribunal that will try this suggested offence, but I do think that this subsection is too broad as it stands. The commission may request information which the party is unable to furnish.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then he could not be
fined.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, he could under this subsection. I submit that the words "without reasonable cause" should be included.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is implied.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think so, under this wording.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think if the hon. member will observe the language of the section he will modify his view. Subsection 1 contemplates the collection of information concerning employers requiring workers and workers seeking employment, the same to be made available to the employment offices. Then they may request returns for the purposes of this act, and failure to comply with that request is constituted an offence. If reasonable time is not given there can be no conviction; if the information sought is not information under the act there can be no conviction. So, as the law implies a reasonable time, and having due regard to the conditions that govern the whole provision, namely the purposes of the act, I submit that the section i3 properly drafted.


John Campbell Elliott: May I point out that the section reads:
-such information as the commission may deem necessary for the purposes of this act-[DOT]
I think we might include the words "within the knowledge of such person."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is implied.


John Campbell Elliott: I submit not, as the section is drafted.


Paul Mercier: Why not
add "within a reasonable time" since there is no time specified?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Vancouver-Burrard directed attention to that point. The law implies a reasonable time. To fix a given period would be impossible, having regard to distances. I think it is quite clear, under the decisions of the courts, that

Radio in Southern Alberta
the law implies that a reasonable time must be given. What is a reasonable time depends, as one judge has said, upon the circumstances of each case. If it was not difficult to obtain the information it might not be unreasonable to expect it the next day.


Wilfred Hanbury: I suggest that it would
be necessary to send a registered notice under that section, which would indicate that the time must be reasonable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is perfectly obvious
that there could be no conviction unless it was proved that the notice had been received.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-Local committees.
Wilfred Hanbury: I notice that no provision has been made for the remuneration and expenses of these local committees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true, and the hope is that these local committees may be glad to give some service to their communities with respect to these matters. But there is provision later on, in a broad and general way, by which some honorarium may be paid. It is not intended that they shall be paid officials in that sense at all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14 (as printed; now section 13) -Advances to workers seeking employment.
Abraham Albert Heaps: This section deals with the
question of transferring men who are out of work to sections of the country where employment may be found for them. It involves a rather complicated question that may require a good deal of discussion, and I would ask the Prime Minister to call it eleven o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can see no good purpose in having this section stand, since it is a simple clause, but if the hon. gentleman desires to have that done I shall accede to his request.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is eleven o'clock now, in
any case.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 19, 1935