Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is seldom we advance very far in any parliament before we are reminded that, one by one, our ranks are certain to be thinned by the hand of death. Mr. D'Arcy Britton Plunkett, representative for Victoria, is the first member of the new parliament to have been taken from our midst. His death occurred only yesterday after an exceedingly brief illness, so brief in fact that many hon. members of the house were not aware of his indisposition until they read that he had passed away.
Mr. Plunkett was in his sixty-fifth year, and was unmarried. The circumstance that his death should have occurred in this city while he was attending to his parliamentary duties, that for this reason he should have been away from the many friends and associations of the constituency he represented, and that because of the seriousness of his illness it was impossible for any of his fellow members and associates in this city to have much in the way of contact with him in his last days, adds not a little to the feeling of sadness which we all experience at this time.
Mr. Plunkett entered parliament in a byelection in December, 1928. He was reelected at the general elections of 1930 and 1935. I shall leave it to my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) to speak of his public services. To my right hon. friend Mr. Plunkett was not only a very loyal supporter but a very true personal friend. I hasten at once to express to him on behalf of the government and of all hon. members on this side, and also to hon. members of his party our feelings of very sincere sympathy with them in the loss they and
their party have sustained. May I say that the sense of personal loss which they experience will I am sure be shared in large measure by all who sat in previous parliaments with Mr. Plunkett, and also by others whose privilege it was to come to know him since the opening of the present parliament.
I should like on behalf of all hon. members to add a brief expression of sympathy with Mr. Plunkett's brothers and his nephews, who I understand, are his only immediate surviving relations and also a word of sympathy with the city of Victoria, which has lost its representative in this parliament.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the generous terms in which the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has spoken will not soon be forgotten by those of us who knew Mr. Plunkett as friend and colleague. I should like on my own behalf as well as on behalf of those with whom I am associated to express to the right hon. gentleman, not as leader of a party but as leader of this house, our very sincere and grateful appreciation of his kind words on this occasion. '
We are once more reminded that death is ever with us. The sickle of the grim reaper has appeared very early in the life of this new parliament. Out of two hundred and forty-five members one has been taken from us, although it is now but May and we first met in February.
Mr. Plunkett came into the House of Commons in a by election in 1928. He was reelected in 1930, and in 1935 he was again reelected after a very strenuous contest. If one were to ask what qualities ensured his election in the city of Victoria I would say that essentially the first was that he was a man of integrity and of the highest character. He was not a man who wore his heart upon his sleeve, and many who did not know him little appreciated the kindly heart that beat under a somewhat, shall I say, rugged exterior. But those of us who came to know him realized not only that he was a man of character and integrity and of great simplicity and directness in speech and action, but that he was possessed of a sense of loyalty that nothing could destroy. He was proud of his city and proud to be the member for Victoria-prouder than most men who represent constituencies, because he had been absent in the great war for a very considerable time, and came back only to find confusion in his own business. When he was elected he felt it was indeed the proudest moment of his life. His pride in Victoria he expressed in many ways.
The Late D'Arcy B. Plunkett

As a public man he took but little part in the debates of the house, but he was most regular in his attendance both in the chamber and in committee, and made himself singularly well informed with respect to all matters which engaged the attention of pariiament. Over and above all that he was a man of great industry, although that fact may not have been apparent to those who sat in the chamber with him. He attended to his correspondence in a manner which I believe commended him to his constituents; he was always busy looking after the interests of his friends and constituents, whether they were his political supporters or otherwise.
He was a great Canadian in the sense that he believed in his country, its destiny and its future. Although he represented the city of Victoria, in the far west, he never forgot that in Ontario he had first seen the light. Obviously his loss to all of us is great, but even greater to those of us who knew him better than to others who knew him only casually. While in the first loss of a member of this parliament the house as a whole has suffered a bereavement that is not easily understood, we, small in numbers, who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, have lost a well beloved comrade and colleague and one who by his loyalty and devotion to those with whom he was associated and to his party had greatly endeared himself to all of us.
I never think of the passing of one who is active in public life and who has to endure all that public men must endure,-the vicissitudes of life, the vicissitudes of position, criticism, sometimes unreasoning, and commendation sometimes equally unreasoning -without recalling those beautiful words of Shelley. I believe upon this occasion I might well repeat them as indicating what must be the position of those who, in the midst of their public duties, are struck down and go to their reward:
He hath outsoared the shadow of the night;
Envy and calumny and hate and pain.
And that unrest which men miscall delight,
Can touch him not, and torture not again;
From the contagion of the world's slow stain.
He is secure, and now can never mourn
A heart grown cold, a head grown grey in vain.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I simply
say that we in this corner of the house join with other hon. members in expressing our regret at the passing of our late colleague.



CANADIAN RADIO COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher) presented the second report of the special committee appointed to inquire into the operations of the Canadian radio commission and its administration of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act of 1932 and amendments, and the regulations made under authority thereof, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

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

Miss MACPHAIL:: What was the total sum of money spent in the last three years on Royal Canadian Mounted Police barracks, officers' residences and furnishing of same?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: 
GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY STOCKHOLDERS
Mr. STEVENS:: 
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Proceedings have been undertaken on behalf of all of the stockholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, seeking an adjudication by the Canadian courts of the rights of the stockholders. The government does not consider it advisable to submit the petition to a committee of the house.


SMALL LOAN COMPANIES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What are the names of the small loan companies incorporated by federal authority, the past ten years, whose head office is located in the city of Toronto?
2.	Have any complaints been received in reference to the high rates charged by these money lenders on small loans?
3.	Who are the directors of these companies ?
4.	What rates are they allowed to charge by
law ?
5.	Will any steps be taken by the government to cancel the charters of money lending companies charging exorbitant rates of interest, or to further regulate such matters?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Central Finance Corporation; Personal Finance Corporation and The Small Loan Company of Canada.
2.	Yes.
3.	Central Finance Corporation, directors:
B.	E. Henderson, F. B. Hubachek, A. P. Reid, D. D. Macleod, and W. H. Despard. Incorporated June 11, 1928.
Personal Finance Corporation, provisional directors as at date of incorporation July 3, 1934 (not yet organized): Albert Burton Rose, Morris Jacob Weiss, and Sidney Druck-man.
The Small Loan Company of Canada, provisional directors as at date of incorporation July 3, 1934 (not yet organized): R. J. Cutten, E. L. Chudleigh, A. D. H. Cutten,
C.	L. Dunbar, and A. C. Dunbar.
4.	(a) Under the acts of incorporation of the companies: interest, 7 per cent per annum in advance; expense charge, 2 per cent of the amount of the loan; chattel mortgage fee, actual disbursements not exceeding $10. (b) Under the act, chapter 56 of the statutes of 1934, the foregoing charges must not exceed 2i per cent per month of the monthly balance owing by the borrower.
5.	The government has no power to cancel the acts of incorporation of companies restricting their charges to those mentioned in No. 4.


CARRIAGE OF SECOND AND THIRD CLASS MAIL
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What loss does the Post Office Department sustain per annum in carrying newspapers and other similar periodicals at a cut rate for this class of mail?
2.	What is the difference between the actual cost to the department, per annum, and that received for transmitting second and third class mail accordingly?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	Second class matter:-
Cost	 $5,958 754
Revenue	 1,680,500
Loss	 $4,278,254
2.	(a) Second class matter:	difference$4,278,254.	(b) Third class matter:	exact
figures from year to year as to the revenue derived from third class matter not available. Postage stamps are used to prepay postage on third class as well as first class mail, and it is not economically practicable to separate the revenue derived from these two classes.
Note:-Postage on newspaper mailings is paid in cash and can be readily kept separate from postage on other classes of mail paid by postage stamps.


POST OFFICE RENTALS FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Does the Post Office Department pay rent for the use of public buildings under the Public Works Department, and are any fixed charges on the capital involved as a rent?
2.	If not, what other departments besides the post office pay no rent for the use of federal property given them for federal services ?
3.	Will the government consider a new policy to have each department bear a share of the cost on a unit system for the use of federal public buildings for departmental work?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1. (a) No; (b) no.
2.	No department pays rent for use of federal property.
3.	Matter will have consideration.



PAYMENTS UNDER MARKETING ACT

Mr. BOTHWELL:: 1.	How much has been paid to the Alberta Live Stock Marketing Board, or to anyone on its behalf, under the provisions of the Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934, and amendments thereto ?
2.	To whom and for what services were such payments made?
Questions


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	$9,000.
2.
Office Expenses-
Calgary Water Power Co. Ltd.-[DOT]
light	$	11 08
W. R. Hall, Ltd.-office rent. . ..	287 50
Garbutt Business College-typewriter rent	 25	70
Office Specialty Company-rent of
furniture	
118	75Stenographers' wages	
814	75
Postmaster, Calgary-post office
lists	 17	50
Toole, Peet & Co., Ltd.-'bonding
secretary	
5	00Hotel Palliser-rent of board room	19	20Bank interest	
50A. C. MacKay-publications....	1	00Postage	
86	25Sundries	
22	05
Stationery and Printing-
The Willson Stationery Co.,	Ltd..	127	26Albertan Publishing Co	
7	98Office Specialty Manufacturing Co.	2 32McLeod Letter Service	
7	30Examiner Press	
12	72Public stenographer-mimeographing	
3	00
Organization Expenses-
McLeod Letter Service-printing
proposed schemes	 31	10
Hotel Pallister-rent board room.	12 70
A1 Azhar Temple

rent	 32	50
John Kovsher-registering names.	1 50
Peter Kovsher-registering names.	1 50
George Grafton-registering names	1 50
E. H. Morgan-registering names.	2 50
Fred Johnston-registering names.	2 50
E. S. Brunsden

secretary office
expenses	 44	56
A. Speakman-expenses Calgary..	11 00
Telephone and Telegraphs-
Alberta Government Telephones.	243 37
C.P.R. Telegraphs	
107	60C.N.R. Telegraphs	
57	14
Expenses of Delegates to Ottawa-
A. Speakman-part share	
79	86W. C. McKenzie-two trips, December, 1934 and March,, 1935..	600	77R. P. Gilchrist-two trips, December, 1934 and March, 1935.. ..	633	83E. W. Brunsden	
296	40G.	H. Rose	
234	35A. Speakman-30,000 copies of speech on Natural- Products Marketing Act, at cost from King's Printer, plus exchange on cheque	
100	15

Expenses of Provisional Local Board Attending Interprovincial and
other Meetings-
W. C. McKenzie	
471	47R. P. Gilchrist	
594	95T. R. Murray	
371	40L. McKinnon	
108	05E. W. Brunsden	
231	01Stephen Lunn	
262	72H.	R. Boutillier	
323	99Alex Craig	320 60E. Fulton Thomson	
170	10George C. Millar	
172	85George G. Ross	
303	40Charles H. McKinnon	
164	70Howard P. Wright	
180	15H. L. Taggart	
251	60Fred McDonald	
253	20C. R. Abbott	
437	40George R. Ball	
237	32J. M. Williams	
116	55Alberta provincial government- Department of Agriculture advanced for R.R. fares	
382	70
Legal-[DOT]
G. H. Barr	 1,000	00
Note.-Above payments include $1,418.85 spent by the Provisional Alberta Live Stock Marketing Board in addition to the amount of the grants received from the Dominion Marketing Board.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT

Mr. JACOBS:: 1.	What was the number of prosecutions under the Weights and Measures Act (a) during the first three months of the calendar year 1935 and (b) during the first three months of the calendar year 1936?
2.	What was the. number of convictions (a) during the first three months of the calendar year 1935 and (b) during the three months of the calendar year 1936?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	(a) 44; (b) 143.
2.	(a) 39*; (b) 111**.
*Four other cases were withdrawn or dismissed and one carried over.
**An additional fifteen cases for which information was laid in March, 1936 resulted in convictions in April. Sixteen cases are still pending and one case was dismissed.



ALLEGED COAL COMBINE

Mr. CHURCH:: 1. What action has been taken regarding prosecution or giving effect to the 1936 findings of a royal commission into the alleged combine in the importation and distribution of coal in Canada?

Further Legislation
2. What steps are being taken to protect the consumer from extortion and from these high prices in view of this report, during the next winter?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Several coal companies were prosecuted and fined following investigation made under the Combines Investigation Act in 1933. No findings have been made by a royal commission' in 1936 (but an inquiry into the anthracite coal trade will shortly be instituted).
2.	See answer to No. 1.



DECISIONS ON SUPPREME COURT REFERENCES

Mr. CHURCH:: Has the government any information to give the house as to when decisions may be expected on the references to the Supreme Court of Canada on whether several acts of the session of 1935 referred to the court are intra vires?


Ernest Lapointe: The government is not in possession of any information as to when decisions may be expected.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Since the change of government, has the Department of National Defence or the Department of Labour purchased canned goods for Valcartier camp?
2.	If so, what quantities of each kind?
3.	What were the prices?
4.	Were tenders called?
5.	If so, what are the names of the tenderers?
6.	To whom were the contracts awarded and at what prices?


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT LOANS
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	What is the total amount of loans granted under the soldier settlement board?
2.	What is the total amount of interest accrued on these loans?
3.	What amount of principal has been repaid?
4.	What amount of interest has been paid?
5.	What amount of (a) principal, and (b) interest, are now in arrears?
6.	What is the estimate of bad or doubtful accounts to date?
7.	What is the cost of administration of the soldier settlement board to date?


Mr. CRERAR:: Return tabled herewith.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BRASSET (for Mr. Gauthier):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the Department of Public Works, 12739-157
relating to Mr. A. Poirier, carpenter, 5892 Hutchison street, Montreal, dated from October 1, 1935, to April 28, 1936.



D. BROWN

Maurice Brasset: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the Department of Public Works, dated from October 1, 1935, to April 28, 1936, relating to Mr. D. Brown, stationary engineer, and the extension of time that was granted to him.



MAHONE BAY DREDGING

Mr. BROOKS:: For a copy of all correspondence and documents in connection with the cancellation of the contract of the Southern Salvage Company of Liverpool, with the Department of Public Works, for the dredging at Mahone Bay during the year 1935.



GOVERNMENT DREDGES-MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

Mr. STEVENS:: For a list showing the names and places of residence of mechanical engineers on government dredges or barges operated by the Public Works department or Marine department, who have received half-pay during the winter months, of the past winter of 1935-36; such list to show' the amount paid in each instance.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has asked on one or two occasions if I would inform him and the house what legislation remains to be introduced.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was about to do so again.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought so, it may be just as well to anticipate.
In addition to the bills and resolutions which appear under government orders and the budget resolutions which are to be found in the votes and proceedings of Friday last, there will be legislation based on the reports and recommendations of the several special committees-the committee on the Elections and Franchise Acts, the committee on pensions and returned soldier problems, the committee on the Canadian radio commission, the committee on the marketing of wheat and other grains, and possibly also of the committee on railways and shipping. How extensive this legislation may 'be it is of course, not possible to say until the committees themselves have reported.

Hudson Bay Route

The proposed additional legislation will include (a) bills respecting a national finance council, loan councils, based upon the amendment to the British North America Act, notice of which appears on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Justice; (b) amendments to the criminal code, including reference to section 98; (c) a bill respecting the national parks; (d) an amendment to the Customs Act; there may also be amendments to the Combines Act, the Post Office Act, the Relief Act, the Proprietary or Patent Medicines Act, the Dry Docks Subsidies Act, the Carriage of Goods By Water Act, and a bill respecting marketing. These will be for the most part minor amendments. Then possibly there may be supplementary estimates of limited amounts.
I wish to add this further reservation. I am giving to the house at the moment all that the government see as a possibility, but I should like to have the right reserved to introduce one or two other measures should this be found necessary between now and the time that parliament prorogues.



HUDSON BAY ROUTE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 

COPYRIGHT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if he will be so kind as to lay on the table of the house a copy of an agreement with respect to copyright which, to the best of my memory, was made between Canada and the United States in or about December, 1923. I think it may become important in the discussion of the copyright bill. I have looked carefully and I cannot find that it is published in the statutes or elsewhere, but I am quite clear in my mind that such an agreement was made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has a good memory and I assure him that if he is right as to the date I will do my utmost to get the agreement and have it tabled.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the permission of the house to proceed with a bill for interim supply with respect to the supplementary estimates which are now before the house. The bill provides for one-sixth of all the items in the special supplementary estimates, and an additional proportion, not exceeding one-half, of certain items. All of these calling for an additional amount are to cover payments falling due before the first of June on contracts which were made prior to April 1 or for payment of wages if the work was undertaken by day labour. There are a few exceptions to that statement to which I must refer.

Interim. Supply Bill
Relief for single, homeless men. The amount in the estimates covers the operation for three months only. Topographical and air surveys: A larger proportion is required in this case to equip and send out field parties as soon as possible. Of course provision is needed with respect to the general vote for grants in aid to the provinces to keep up with the monthly necessities in that regard. Another exception is with regard to the continuance of unemployment relief projects now organized which were covered by the special supplementaries for three months and which require to be spent regularly every month, and also to continue geological surveys.
If the house will be good enough to give unanimous consent, I should like to proceed. If that is impossible, this can stand as a notice of motion for to-morrow, but it would be more convenient to proceed with it to-day.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) spoke to me with reference to this matter before the house met and I intimated to him that so far as we were concerned there was no reason why he should not proceed at once. On the other hand, I should like to point out that by giving our consent to these appropriations we reserve our rights as though we had not given it, so far as the items are concerned.


Mr. DUNNING:: Quite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It also raises a question of some seriousness, to which I directed attention the other day. We are giving our approval to the passing for the second time by this parliament of estimates dealing with items contained in the supplementary estimates as well as in the Public Works Construction Act, 1934, and the supplementary act of 1935. In this regard I would direct the attention of the minister to the fact that the statute requires that the Minister of Finance should file within thirty days of the opening of the house a report showing what expenditures have been made under the appropriations of 1934-35. I do not know for certain, but my memory is that such a report has not yet been filed. In the multiplicity of duties that fall upon the minister, I can quite understand why that has not been done. Subject to our right to discuss the items as though this consent were not given and without prejudice to our position with respect to the other point I mentioned the other evening and speaking only for those with whom I am associated, I see no reason why the minister should not proceed at once with his interim supply bill.
12739-157*


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish to thank my right hon. friend and to say by way of explanation that from the accounting point of view the expenditures which are now made and have been made under the authority of the Public Works Construction Act are being transferred to these appropriations as fast as possible. Naturally when that is completed and the authority for these estimates has been given by the house, it will be possible to repeal entirely the Public Works Construction Act. This is just a transition procedure but it does produce the situation to which my right hon. friend referred. In dealing with these estimates we are dealing with amounts which have been authorized by parliament in a different way and in a different form but which are now to be authorized by direct appropriations, following which measures will have to be taken to repeal the former authority. I can assure the house that there certainly will not be double expenditures by virtue of proceeding in this manner.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved:
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
1.	Resolved,	that	a	sum	not	exceeding
?21,860.190.57. being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the special estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March. 1937, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1937.
Resolution agreed to.
2.	Resolved,	that	a	sum	not	exceeding
$2,418,809.33, being one-twelfth of the amount of eacli of the several following items to be voted, as set forth in the special supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1937, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1937, namely:-
Vote No. 326, Interior.
Vote No. 337, Labour.
Vote No. 342, Mines.
Vote No. 344 (1st and 13th items), National Defence.
Vote No. 379 (5th item). Public Works.
Vote No. 380 (9th item). Public Works.
Vote No. 382. Public Works.
Vote No. 383 (3rd item), Public Works.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The effect of making an appropriation against the fiscal year ending March, 1937, is to repeat a picture that might
245S
Interim Supply Bill

not be in accordance with what was intended by parliament when the Public Works Construction Act was passed. When we were considering the supplementary estimates we were told that they were the same amounts as had been contained in the Public Works Construction Act, that some of them had been expended and that the balance would be available for finishing the work, although not necessarily this year. Many of the works could not be finished this year. The result of this procedure is that the fiscal year 1937 will be charged for the whole sum, notwithstanding the fact that $30,000,000 was authorized previously, not by a blank cheque but by item after item passed through this committee. Every separate item was the subject matter of a separate discussion. I think it is a very dangerous precedent for an incoming government to repeal an act under which appropriations were made in detail and under which expenditures were made. However, that matter can be discussed later.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall not enter into
a debate with my right hon. friend as to provisions for future years. I may tell him that the plan of the special supplementary estimates, to which my colleagues were requested to adhere, was to make provision for such portions as would be spent during this fiscal year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In many instances the
whole sum has been appropriated.


Charles Avery Dunning: In cases where it is
expected to finish the work this year, so I am advised. I may tell my right hon. friend that I shall be very pleased if the aggregate stated to be required is not required. From the point of view of a minister of finance that will be an advantage rather than otherwise.
.Resolution agreed to.
3.	Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $315,G83.33, being one-sixth of the amount of [DOT]each of the several following items to be voted, as set forth in the special supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1937, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1937, namely: -
Vote No. 379 (6th item), Public Works.
Vote No. 380 (10th, 15th and 17th items), Public Works.
Vote No. 418, Railways and Canals.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
4.	Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $28,868.33, being one-third of the amount of each of the several following items to be voted, as set forth in the special supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1937, laid before the House of Commons at

the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1937, namely:-
Vote No. 344 (7th item), National Defence.
Vote No. 345 (2nd item), National Defence.
Resolution agreed to.
5.	Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $4,801,637.44, being one-half of the amount of each of the several following items to be voted, as set forth in the special supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1937, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1937, namely:-
Vote No. 316, Indian Affairs.
Vote No. 320 (10th item), Interior.
Vote No. 344 (6tli, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th items), National Defence.
Vote Nos. 346, 348, 354 and 356, National Defence.
Vote No. 371 (7th item), National Harbours Board.
Vote No. 377 (1st and 3rd items), Public Works.
Vote No. 378 (3rd item), Public Works.
Vote No. 379 (1st, 8th and 9th items), Public Works.
Vote No. 380 (2nd. 4th, 5th. 6th, 7th, 11th, 13th, 18th, 19th. 20th, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd items), Public Works.
Vote No. 381, Public Works.
Vote No. 383 (1st, 2nd and 4th items), Public Works.
Vote No. 384 (items: 1 to 4, 6 to 9, 11, 15 to 20, 22, 23. 25. 26, 28, 29, 33 to 38, inclusive), Public Works.
Vote No. 385 (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th items), Public Works.
Vote No. 386 (3rd and 4th items), Public Works.
Vote No. 387 (items: 1, 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 26, 28. 31), Public Works.
Vote No. 388 (items: 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 14), Public Works.
Vote No. 389 (the first three items), Public Works.
Vote No. 390 (2nd item), Public Works.
Vote No. 391 (1st item), Public Works.
Vote No. 393 (items: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19), Public Works.
Vote No. 428, Loans and Investments.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved:
Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1937, the sum of $29,425,189 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Motion agreed to.

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 58, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1937.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Other projects-amount required for new works to be undertaken in cooperation with the provinces, $9,200,000-
Mr. MacNICOL:: Would the minister give a list of the projects by provinces?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): I believe I pointed out previously that it was quite impossible to give a list of the projects to be undertaken under this vote. The reason lies in the fact that these projects are to be undertaken cooperatively with the provinces, and ;t is therefore necessary that we should negotiate with the provinces an agreement covering the work to be undertaken. Particular works to be covered by this vote will appear as a schedule to the agreement.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are these amounts to cover expenditures made by the previous government?


Mr. ROGERS:: No, these are new works to be undertaken in conjunction with the provinces.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: How did the minister arrive at the amount?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It was difficult to arrive at an amount which would suffice for this purpose. Obviously it was impossible to provide public works in cooperation with the provinces sufficient to meet their respective employment requirements. We looked back over what had been done in recent years and- tried to strike, on the basis of what we felt was fair and reasonable in the circumstances, an estimate of what would be an adequate amount for such works during the forthcoming year.


Ernest Edward Perley: Does the minister mean that he took the figures of the last few years and averaged them and decided on the amount on that basis?
Mr. ROGERS': This question was raised when the matter was before the house some days ago, and I suggested that this did appear
to be at least one method of approaching a sum which might meet the situation during the forthcoming year. Obviously it would be very difficult to get an exact estimate of what would be required or of what would be a reasonable amount to meet all the requirements of the coming fiscal year.


Ernest Edward Perley: In other words, Mr. Chairman, I judge from what the minister says that he is putting in this blanket sum without having any particular idea of how much he will require. We come again to the same thing we discussed last sitting in connection with another item, that this is a sum which is more than he expects to require, but he has put in sufficient to cover all possibilities; in other words, he has put in as large an amount for this purpose as the previous government spent for these same objects under the so-called blank cheque. It amounts to this, that this is another way of avoiding what has been styled a blank cheque, at the same time keeping it entirely within the hands of the government as to how much they wilt spend for these purposes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think there is this material difference between the two methods. Under the blank cheque legislation it might have been quite true that a sum of approximately ten million dollars was assigned during each succeeding year or upon an average during the last five years, but, as my right hon. friend understands, that was only a fraction of the total amount expended under the relief acts. Here we are restricting ourselves to a definite amount for public works to be undertaken in conjunction with the provinces, and elsewhere throughout these supplementary estimates we are setting definite amounts against specified items. My right hon. friend may object that the items are not sufficiently precise, but as I suggested some days ago, it is surely a misuse of language to say that this is a blank cheque in the sense in which that expression has been used during the last few years.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think in fact this may have very much worse results than the blank cheque. The previous government under the authority given them spent some-think like this amount on an average-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Just on these works.


Ernest Edward Perley: On these works. My opinion is that the minister is in a worse position with a fixed amount for these purposes than he would be under the legislation passed by the previous government. The reason I say that is that my experience taught me that when an amount is put in the

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
estimates for a particular thing, pressure is more effectively brought on the government to spend every dollar of that amount than it is under the so-called blank cheque legislation. If the minister will consult some of his colleagues I think he will find that when an estimate of $50,000 is put in for one department, the pressure is very great on the minister in charge of that department to spend the whole $50,000. Possibly when the estimate is made they think perhaps $30,000 or $35,000 may be sufficient, but they find it very difficult to keep the expenditure below the amount fixed in the estimate. The minister will find it almost impossible to resist the pressure to spend every dollar of this money. So long as there is any part of the estimate left how can he refuse an application from the provinces, and particularly from his friends in the different parts of Canada, to go on and spend money until it is all gone? In 1930 the previous government obtained from parliament a specific vote, I think it was $20,000,000, and I assure you that we found it easier under the legislation of the subsequent years, which has been called the blank cheque legislation, to resist applications for money for various purposes under the relief act than we did in 1930 when we had a specific sum appropriated for that purpose.
I do not propose to discuss the matter any further. I have already explained my view to the minister, and I know it was discussed the other evening when I was not present. I do not want to traverse the same ground aver and over, but I do feel that the present government are not putting themselves in any better position to resist unreasonable demands by this form of estimate than we were in under our legislation for the last four years.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Will a statement of the items be brought down before parliament prorogues?


Norman McLeod Rogers: To the extent that agreements with the provinces are completed before parliament prorogues, we shall, I think, be in a position to place the agreements before the house. In the relief bill as originally drafted there was a specific provision for the approval of the agreements by resolution of the House of Commons, but exception was taken to the inclusion of that clause in the relief bill and it was deleted.


Angus MacInnis: If no agreements are
reached with the provinces then we shall not know any more about these items than we know now. That is one objection we have; wre do not know that anything is to

be done; we do not know whether this amount will be spent. In regard to the blank cheque feature, for which the previous government were so much criticized, I always felt that the reason the blank cheque was asked for at the time was not to give the government unlimited scope but in order that they might restrict their expenditure. If we do not have the general items specified, is there any reason why this government should spend even the amount of the estimate? They may say that they did not come to agreements, and then nothing will be done. Again, we find the minister stating that the figures they have in the estimate now are arrived at from what the previous government did. Their criticism of the previous government was that it was not doing enough, was not dealing with the unemployment problem in a proper way. I have before me a newspaper report of one of the radio talks by the present Prime Minister during the general election, and one statement is, that "Bennett started too late to solve problem." If the present government are going to follow along the same line as the past government, what difference is the change of government going to make to the country?
I should like the minister to feel that we are not criticizing him just for the sake of criticism or in order to hear ourselves talk. He was rather annoyed on Thursday evening when there was some criticism from this corner of the house, but I should like him to feel that in no part of the house is he thought of more kindly than he is in this section. Not only in the house itself but in our group outside the house that is true. I have before me one of the papers that supports our movement, and in the notes from Saskatchewan I find this paragraph:	.
The Rosetown-Biggar M.P. had a few nice words to say of the Minister of Labour, Hon. Norman Rogers. The minister, said Mr. Cold well, was a man of vision and great ability, but was finding it very difficult to accomplish anything under the present order.
I also believe the minister has great ability, and it is because I want to continue in that belief that I suggest he try to get something done. On Thursday evening, looking at this section, he made this statement, as reported at page 2355 of Hansard:
I have no objection whatever to marching forward but I want to know where I am going. I want to know whether my next step is to be on firm ground or in quicksand, and I am not so sure that some hon. members are so anxious as to the direction in which they are going.
It is because we are anxious as to the direction in which we are going that we are criticizing. We are drifting; the minister cannot say where the next step is going to

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
be. No government can say where we are going so long as they leave the economic life of the country in the control of private individuals who exploit it for their own gain. It is to that we object. There is no reason why the government could not have a more specific program to place before parliament than that now before us. There has been plenty of time to produce it, although I have no doubt there are many things to do. Until we have some indication that something specific and ordered is going to be done we shall have occasion to complain, and I am afraid that under such circumstances the unemployed are not going to fare any better than they have fared in the past six years.


Mr. HEAPS:: I think the minister might
give a little more information than we have had up to now. This item and others connected with it represent a program of works which the government offer for the alleviation of unemployment. Speaking in this chamber on Thursday evening last the Minister of Labour said the government were undertaking an expenditure of about $80,000,000 on a program for the relief of the unemployed. Is that statement correct?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe that covered all
expenditures in the various departments of government mentioned in the special supplementary estimates.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is correct. I should like to have some break-down of these items, to know exactly what is being spent, not so much on public relief as on works to be undertaken to provide employment. In the expenditure of $80,000,000 works must be included which were started last year and are being completed this year. In it will be an amount the federal government will be giving to the provinces for relief purposes. At page 18 of the special supplementary estimates is found a summary, in which it is indicated that $30,418,341.66 is credited to projects already undertaken, and $28,430,401.76 to other projects. It is difficult for me, and I suppose for other hon. members, to ascertain how much of the first item remains to be spent in the present year. We may get an idea from the second item as to how much will be spent. I do feel that the minister is or ought to be in a position to inform the committee as to the amount of new works to be undertaken for the remainder of this year, and also the number of men the government expects will be able to find work as a result of expenditures undertaken in the supplementary estimates. I do not know whether the minister is in a position to give the committee that information, but if he is I certainly should like to have it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I regret that I am not in a position to give greater detail respecting expenditures than	is	set forth	in	thespecial supplementary estimates. The sum of $80,000,000. in round figures, to which I referred some days ago, was the sum which the hon. member has just described as being made up of sums	set	aside for	projectsalready undertaken but incompleted, and for other projects. Naturally I am under obligation in the supplementary estimates to deal with such items as come under the Department of Labour, but other ministers will deal with the estimates affecting their respective departments. That has been the procedure followed thus far,	and	it would	be	presumptuous on my part, for example, to deal with particular expenditures of the Department of Public Works, the Department of Marine or the Department of National Defence, except in so far as there may be some established connection between any of those departments and the Department of Labour. Relief camps would furnish an example of the kind I have indicated.The item before	the	committee	is	that
which deals with the .amount to be voted for works to be carried on in cooperation with the provinces. With no desire to withhold any information I must say we are not in a position to place details of these expenditures before the committee, owing to the fact that as yet we have not been authorized to negotiate agreements with the provinces for the construction of these joint works.
On former occasions we have emphasized that we were going to see that the dominion contribution to relief works so far as possible should be directed towards developmental activities. In other words we should have constantly in view some collateral employment or ultimate employment which might result through, let us say, the development of a mining area to which more satisfactory access has been afforded.
I regret to say I am not in a position to tell my hon. friend the amount of employment to be provided by these expenditures. I wish I had that information. I am bound to tell him and the committee that on the whole the results of employment under these relief works expenditures have been disappointing, in so far as their effect on relief rolls is concerned. I think we ought to understand that clearly, in order that we may not expect too great results from expenditures on relief works. I have no doubt the hon. member will have had information indicating the effect upon unemployment of large expenditures upon relief works in his own city of Winnipeg. I believe he will agree with me that the results of large expenditures on such works have been dis-

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
appointing, from the point of view of affording employment. All I can say is that we are giving very careful consideration to the feasibility of introducing into our agreements with the provinces clauses which will ensure that these relief works will have their due effect upon relief rolls. After all, we are approving the expenditures for that purpose, and I believe we are under obligation to see to it that in so far as the situation can be met in advance by means of explicit undertakings, we must arrange that these relief works shall provide at least a substantial quota of employment for those now in receipt of relief.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am pleased to have received an answer from the minister. I expected something along the same lines. My reason for putting the question in a certain way was to ascertain what works were to be undertaken. When I put my question I had in mind the fact that during the past two years, when equivalent amounts were spent by previous governments to take care of unemployment in Canada, such expenditures provided for only a small fraction of the men who were out of work. I have in mind the Winnipeg situation. In that city two public buildings were erected. In addition a sewage scheme was undertaken, through cooperation of federal, provincial and municipal bodies. The expenditure of about SI,500,000 in the federal project did not touch the fringe of the problem. It is true that we have a couple of new buildings. They are ornate and possibly a first-class addition to the city of Winnipeg, but despite this great expenditure of money we have reverted to the situation which existed prior to the erection of the buildings. If this government is going to spend an average of the amounts spent by the previous government in the last five years, as the minister himself admitted, we will not bring about anything in the way of improvement in the unemployment situation. That is why many of us have suggested that the government adopt a broader and more fundamental policy in dealing with this problem. When this government took office it believed that what the previous government had done ' was totally inadequate, and hon. members in this part of the chamber were in complete agreement with that view.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will the hon. member permit a question? A few nights ago did he not acknowledge that the provisions of public works was in itself no solution for the problem of unemployment? Certainly I understood him to say that he did not favour large expenditures on public works.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No; I said that public works are not a solution for the unemployment [Mr. Bogers.1
problem, and by that statement I stand. They are not a solution. They are a palliative, and sometimes not even that. In many instances they tend to aggravate the situation because many public works which are undertaken become a burden to those who have control over them. I have in mind, for instance, the erection of barracks which are not needed. Some years ago in Winnipeg as a relief project a huge barracks was erected on the outskirts of the city at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. I do not think a hundred people use it to-day. It is a huge building on the outskirts of the city, and although it cost a great deal it is of very little practical value, and is used by very few people. There are many such projects. I know public buildings that have been erected that are not in use to-day, such as a certain post office I have in mind. The Post Office Department did not know anything aJbout it; that is the information I have received. These buildings were put up and there they are to-day, almost unoccupied except for the caretaker. Projects of that kind cannot possibly help to solve the unemployment problem, and that is what I mean when I say that public works in themselves are no solution of the unemployment problem. They may give temporary help to men who have been out of work, and there is one thing we should bear in mind when dealing with people who have been out of work for months and months, some of them year in and year out: that there is nothing more demoralizing to the individual than that he should become continuously in receipt of relief. That is why it is desirable to have work made available as soon as possible, particularly for those who have been recipients of public relief for a number of years. Nine million dollars is totally inadequate for that purpose, because it can take care of only a very small fraction of the number of people who have been out of work in our large industrial areas in the past few years. The two projects in Winnipeg that I have named, the barracks and the post office building, did not take care of five or at the most ten per cent of the building trades mechanics who were out of work in the city, men who had been out of work for years and with very little hope of obtaining employment.
I would much rather see this amount of money spent on a class of work which will not only give useful employment but provide the community with something which is much needed and has been needed in this country for a number of years. I refer to a large scale federal housing scheme. I would

Supply-Labour-Reliej Works
rather see this amount and all these estimates used on a project of that kind than for. the erection of barracks and other buildings which have very little community value. The expenditure of twenty or thirty million dollars on a housing scheme in this dominion would give far more work than would be provided by certain types of public buildings that are to be erected under these estimates. Not only would it provide something that is immediately needed, but it would be a self-liquidating project, whereas the buildings to be erected under this vote are not. The people of this country need homes. It is one of the few things in the construction line that is needed, and that is why I am disappointed in the attitude of the government. I would much rather see them spend far more than the amount of all these estimates upon a comprehensive housing scheme for the dominion somewhat along the lines that have been followed in England and many other countries. That would set the wheels of industry turning again much faster than will the projects to be undertaken under these estimates. In Great Britain they have been building houses for the last fifteen years, and still they are not through building. In this country, from reports I have received, there is an acute shortage of houses in many of the larger industrial centres, and that acute shortage is having two effects. It is making the poor people double up in homes; it is resulting in an increase of rents. When people are unable to pay these rents it leads to overcrowding and to the many other problems that go with overcrowding. Public buildings do not provide even a partial solution of the unemployment problem, and that is why I urge the government so strongly to try new remedies which would be of more value under present economic conditions.


Mr. CAMERON (Cape Breton):: While I appreciate the impossibility of the minister specifying the exact projects to be undertaken, I would ask on what basis will agreements be made with the provinces. Will the cost be on a fifty-fifty basis?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The practice has varied
somewhat in past years as to the distribution of the financial responsibility. For works undertaken jointly by the dominion and the province the division of cost has usually been on a fifty-fifty basis, but in some cases the dominion has contributed forty per cent and the province sixty per cent. Where projects have been undertaken to which the municipality within the province has contributed, the dominion contribution has been proportionately less. All I can say at the moment
is that in working out these agreements with the provinces, where the proposed expenditures relate to highways, we shall be governed by what has been the well established practice under which the dominion contribution to a provincial highway shall not be in excess of fifty per cent of the total cost.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: My real
object in asking the question was that I had information that similar projects carried out in different provinces received a different percentage of contribution from the federal government, one province receiving a greater percentage than another. Speaking for the province from which I come, I want to guard against any unfairness in that regard.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In dealing with the provinces we shall seek to avoid any reasonable ground for complaint in that regard.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: 
Norman McLeod Rogers: Exactly.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: In the development of these expenditure schemes does the minister anticipate that in each case the initiative will be undertaken by the province?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


James Samuel Taylor: Then following up what the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) has said, I suggest that something be done to guarantee the interest on housing schemes undertaken by municipalities and cooperatively. If the capital is found for the purpose and the government is prepared to guarantee the interest, it seems to me that the revolving nature of the loan would enable these cooperatives to borrow at a very much lower rate than they can now when they have to pay both interest and capital. I think interest is the most distressing part of any business undertaking and sooner or later we will have to get away from it entirely and follow the teachings of Ruskin.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Chairman, I saw a May day parade in Toronto last Friday and if the minister had been there I am sure he would have been impressed with the magnitude of the task in front of him in providing employment for the unemployed of Canada. I do not wish to minimize the task he has before him; it really is colossal. In fact, I saw three different parades in Toronto, and if they are an indication of what this country is up against, this $9,000,000 is going to be

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
a mere bagatelle in taking eare of the people. As far as I can figure it out, this expenditure of $9,200,000, plus the expenditures by the provinces-I understand the provinces are to spend an equal amount?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Probably an equal amount; it is on a fifty-fifty basis.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That will make a total of $18,400,000. That should give direct employment to approximately 9,000 persons and indirect employment to an approximately equal number. This makes a total of about
18,000	to whom employment may be given, provided that materials do not use up too much of the vote. I quite agree that this is a substantial contribution, but it is nothing like what should be done to reduce the ranks of the unemployed.
I	was just wondering where the provinces are going to get the money. Ontario, Quebec and some of the other provinces may be able to obtain money on their bonds, but what about the provinces of which we have been hearing during this session? The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) has said that the province of British Columbia may be bankrupt, but that does not fit in with the statement in the paper this morning that that province is going to pay the interest on its bonds as well as the bonds which are due very shortly. The province of Alberta would appear to be bankrupt, and Saskatchewan does not seem to be very far behind. If the dominion must put up $9,000,000, plus another $9,000,000 in loans to the provinces, it is going to make it rather difficult for this government to carry on.
I want to support the minister in every possible way. I come from an industrial city with, including suburbs, about 800,000 inhabitants in which very many men and women have been unemployed for years. I wish the minister would come out boldly and announce some great big measures to provide more work. It seems to me that we are more or less playing with this problem. Ottawa is so far from the cushion, to use ordinary language, that it cannot get an accurate impression of conditions outside. After I am here a week I go away with a smile similar to those seen around Ottawa, but when I get back home I lose that smile very rapidly. There I am right up against the cushion and I know what the conditions are. The minister would have the support of this country if he grappled with this question in the largest possible way. This is not a question of politics; it is not a question over which this house should quibble about spending a few million dollars. During the election it was said that this

question would be grappled with in a big way, and I am sure the country will support
any measure the minister thinks necessary to provide work for the people.
Men and women must be given work. They are willing to work but they cannot get it. I can remember when I was a lad there were two or three jobs for every boy who wanted one. To-day we have a great multitude of the finest young men and women in the world, young Canadians, who are anxious to work. They are healthy, and the majority of them are very well educated. It is necessary to have a matriculation certificate to get any kind of job to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: Even a pick and
shovel job.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Even a pick and shovel
job, as someone suggests;. I am sure these young people and their parents will support any measure which the minister or the government of which he is a member may suggest in order to provide employment. I appeal to the minister to go the whole way. Let us get on with something in this country. We have been fooling with this matter altogether too loDg. It will be said: Where is the money going to come from? I have said that sometimes, but if war broke out to-morrow and Canada had to take a part, this government would soon get all the money required.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And the next generation
would pay for it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It will have to pay for
it anyway.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps the hon. member
was impressed with the amount stated the other day as being necessary for interest on outstanding debt. As I recall it, $136,000,000 was necessary to pay the interest on loans, most of which were incurred during the war years.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was not here when
the budget speech was delivered, but I have since read it. In spite of what was said, my statement is not altered. If this country became involved in a war, which I hope it will not-I always contend that those who want war should be put in the front lines where they would be the first to suffer-the government would find the money. We are in a war, a colossal war against unemployment. Many people are suffering the pangs of war; they are suffering starvation and from depressed minds through inability to get work. This is particularly so of the young

Supply-Labour-Eeliej Works
folks. If war broke out to-morrow, the government would call them at once, so why not call them to work?
There is a great deal of necessary work to be done in this country. When the estimates of the minister in charge of lake levels and so forth were up the other day I stated that a tremendous amount of work was needed to be done in this country in that regard. Only yesterday I made a brief trip and I noticed that many of the rivers east of Toronto had overflowed their banks during the spring freshets. In the town of Port Hope alone over $100,000 worth of damage was done by the small river that flows through that municipality. Something ought to be done about it. The Ontario government does not seem to be big enough to grapple with it and it is up to this government in the last analysis to take steps to cope with this problem. The minister has a chance to live up to the reputation which the newspapers have given him and the nice things that have been said about him by members on all sides of the house. We all want to encourage him, for this is a time when any man who tries to do something should be encouraged.. Anything I say is not by way of criticism because I want to help the minister if I can. I say this to him however: Grapple with the subject in a big way. It is not for me to tell him how to do it; he can devise ways and means himself, and the government is strong enough and I believe big enough to grapple with it. I say, get after this problem in a big way. The sum of $9,000,000 is a very small one if the government is going to deal with this tremendous problem.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is one of the many
items in the estimates.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know, but this is the
item that has to do with new works in conjunction with the provinces. There is little leadership in the provinces; they are so overwhelmed with financial troubles that they are afraid to tackle anything big. I say therefore that this government should get in touch with the provinces and with those bodies throughout the country who are willing and anxious to suggest ways of providing real employment so that our idle men may be put to work. My hon. friend from Winnipeg referred to public buildings. That is one way, but personally I should like to see some works undertaken that would provide greater employment, and I should like to see more of the money voted paid out directly in wages. If we can save the country for another year or two I believe it would get on top again; but we must do everything we possibly can in the present trying period which we are passing through. I am not one of those who think that the depression is over. The parade in Toronto the other day -perhaps the same thing occurred in Montreal and Winnipeg-indicates clearly that there are still thousands out of work. The minister has behind him the best country in the world and the strongest government numerically this country ever had. He has only to ascertain what is to be done to be effective, and the house, irrespective of party, will support any measure whatever that has for its object the employment of Canadians.


Ernest Edward Perley: What will be
the function of the national employment commission in regard to this item?


Norman McLeod Rogers: This question was put in
a somewhat different form when the bill creating that commission was before the house. If I remember rightly I said then that if the commission were in a position to assist us in indicating the direction in which money should be expended, we should be very glad indeed to have their advice, but that with regard to expenditures for this year we should have to make provision ourselves and profit by the experience not only of the late administration but also of those provincial governments that have had to deal with relief works during the depression period. I think it is quite obvious that with respect to these particular expenditures they will be devoted in the main to highways, as has been done in past years. That is to say, under this item the works will be carried out in conjunction with the provinces, and the national employment commission will not be particularly concerned.


Mr. LENNARD:: I suggest that when the agreements are being entered into with the provinces consideration be given to spending a portion of the amount in the elimination of railway level crossings.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Under the Department of Railways there is a special vote in connection with level crossings.


Mr. NEEDHAM:: I have listened for
several days to a discussion of unemployment and have not said much, but there have been going through my mind certain ideas which I wish to place before the committee. It seems to me that the whole question is, how can we get our people back to work? Have we asked ourselves the question why there are so many unemployed in the coun-
Supply-Labour-Relie/ Works

try? What is the cause of this unemployment? If we could analyse the whole situation and find the cause we might decide on a remedy. It appears from the statement of the Minister of Finance that our hope of recovery lies in increased export markets. Is the loss of export markets the cause of unemployment? If so, why did we lose those markets? There is a reason. I think the committee will agree with me that the reason is that other countries began producing more of the goods which they needed and therefore there is not now the demand there used to be for imports from Canada. Not long ago I was reading a report from England which impressed me with the progress which the Minister of Agriculture there has made in the production of foodstuffs in England. There has been a vast increase. I was startled however to learn that during 1934, which showed very considerable progress as compared with 1933, there were 288,011 fewer people employed in agriculture in England than in the previous year. That report indicates that England at the present time can provide food for her own use for a considerable time-I forget how many days, but almost two hundred in the year. Compare that with production in 1913, when she could provide food for about thirty days only. That gives some idea of the progress that has been made there, and that with fewer people employed. I suggest that we should analyze the unemployment situation from that angle.
We have heard a good deal this session about the trade agreement with the United States and the great benefits that we shall derive from it. There may be more exports, but when there are more exports there must be more imports. We have found that already in the last returns. In the Easter recess I was out west where I talked to farmers who had fed cattle during the winter. They had stall-fed cattle and they told me that if instead of shipping them they had taken them out and shot them last fall they would be further ahead, for they did not receive the price of the feed. And since coming back I have heard the same story from several members. So that if a larger export market is to be the solution, things do not look very hopeful from that point of view.
I believe that the chief cause of unemployment in Canada is the advent of machinery, which has taken the place of workers. It is being done day by day in increasing measures all over the world, and if prosperity returns you will find machines coming in faster than ever they did in the past, with more employment as the result. The best brains in the

world to-day are trying to create unemployment by the improving of existing machines and the creating of new ones, and here we are, trying to solve the problem. It follows that there would be no unemployment if there were no machines. You must recognize that if the machine is here to stay we have to grapple with its products, and the first product of the machine is unemployment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Has my hon. friend ever looked into the history of the poor law in Great Britain before the industrial revolution?


Mr. REID:: And the days of Caesar, when they had no machinery?


Joseph Needham: I am thinking of our own times. The hon. member who sat down a few moments ago referred to the time of his youth, and those of us who are threescore years old are in a position to compare the condition of youth then with its lot to-day. Forty years ago anyone who was honest and industrious could look forward to a measure of success. The youth of to-day has no such outlook.
How many members noticed in the press an account of the discharge by the Bank of England of one thousand of its clerks? The fact was reported in the Winnipeg paper two days before his late majesty King George gave his jubilee address. The bank laid off at one time a thousand clerks between the ages of twenty-six and thirty-four. The management had installed machines to take the place of those employees, and they said to them: We are laying you off, but we will give to each of you either ten thousand dollars or ten dollars a week as long as you live. Seven hundred of them took the ten thousand dollars; three hundred took the ten dollars a week for life. According to British insurance rates the life expectancy of those three hundred would be thirty-seven years, so at the rate of ten dollars a week the Bank of England will have to pay to them $5,500,000, and we know they will have to pay to the seven hundred $7,000,000. So they will pay in all $12,500,000 as retirement alowances because they have put in something to take the place of those men. It is a very generous offer, and indicates, I think, something that will have to be recognized by every country in the world, that if a machine takes the place of a worker, the machine must contribute in some way to his livelihood. That is something for the government to find ways and means of doing. The article went on to say that in the thirty-seven years that the

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
bank would pay out $12,500,000 it would make a gross saving in clerical wages of $55,000,000, the amount being based on what they would [DOT]otherwise have to pay to their staff.
The purpose of putting in a machine anywhere must be to save money. If money is saved by laying off workers, surely the replacing agency has a responsibility to the state. If someone robs a man coming from his work he is put in prison, but if a man puts in a machine and prevents someone from getting wages, he is banqueted and called a success. Therefore I say that the first product of the machine is unemployment. Whether or not the government can solve it by putting a -production levy or something of the kind *on the product of machinery to take care of men deprived of work, there is some ground, surely, for investigation, because the government has to take the first product of the machine-unemployment-and care for it, while the man who has caused that unemployment through-* the use of the machine is allowed to make what he can. The effect is very serious. We have heard a lot about it already during the session. The first object of a discharge worker is to try to find another job. His chances are remote, and even though he is successful in securing another position it is almost always at a reduced wage. The effects of this wage cutting are also very serious.
Consider, too, the youth problem, which has already been referred to. The effect upon the health of the people has been tremendous. I have just put in six years as superintendent of a hospital, and I tell you that if you want to find some of the results of unemployment you will find them in our hospitals, including those which deal with mental patients. And what effect is unemployment having on crime? I think it will be admitted that the consequences in this direction are very grave. If we find the cause of unemployment we should be able to arrive at some form of cure. The member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), in a speech the other evening, urged that production and consumption should be brought into equation the one with the other. There is the only solution that I know of-the monetizing of the productive wealth of this country and its distribution to the people according to their need. I do not want to go any further into that at the present time, except to say that the government should find a way to do it. A solution is possible; there is no doubt about that. Our late King George said "Surely the people of this country can solve problems like this." It is no use
drifting; it is no use going on with palliatives, which are only temporary; some solution must be found, but whether by way of the machine, as I have suggested, or otherwise, the government should get right after it.


Mr. STEWART:: Consideration of this item brings to mind the total of the items specified for the Department of Labour, and also brings into view the aggregate amount provided for in these special supplementary estimates. In round figures the total amount assigned to the labour department is $19,500,000. Of that amount, nine million dollars odd, the item under consideration, which is a very substantial part of the whole, is to be expended in cooperation with the provinces. That brings me to the total of the estimates as shown on page 18, and we find that it is made up of three columns, "projects already undertaken," "other projects," and "total." The grand total of all these is $131,161,143.42. I wish to point out to the committee that included in that grand total are two items, one, an amount of about $29,000,000 which it has been, pointed out has already been voted by this committee, so that as far as making provision for this year is concerned it may be disregarded. It is not new money, provided this year. Another item is the deficit of the Canadian National Railways, $39,000,000. Those two added together make about $69,000,000. That deficit of the Canadian National Railways has never before been considered as part of any scheme for the relief of unemployment. Therefore that $59,000,000 is to be taken off this total of $131,000,000. Then there is a further amount of $26,000,000, grants in aid of the provinces which may be for the relief of unemployment, but which in the past has been treated as a contribution for direct relief. With these sums subtracted the balance remaining is very small. The minister has said that he desires to be on firm ground, and that the amount provided in this item is based roughly upon an average of the expenditure of the last five years.
The minister wrote a biography of the Prime Minister, which I have read with a great deal of interest; it is an excellent work. In that book he pictures the right hon. gentleman as an expert in labour legislation and social questions, matters of this kind. His entry into the public sendee was as Deputy Minister of Labour, and the Minister of Labour tells during the many years which have intervened that the Prime Minister has given special study to these questions. The Minister of Labour himself has also given special study to social and economic questions. During these five years this problem has been with us, and has received critical study. Yet
Supply-Labour-Relief Works

the minister, desiring to be on firm ground, has nothing better to offer to this committee and this country than adopting for this item the average expenditure by his predecessors during the past five years, and if hon. members look back they will find that the expenditures follow along the same lines, farm placements and matters of much the same sort.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Has my hon. friend any
other suggestions to offer?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not offering any
suggestions, but I say that what was done in the past must have been fairly sound; we must have been proceeding along pretty sane lines-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Some were; some were not.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: 
Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not wish to deal at all with the general observations of my hon. friend. I may be permitted, however, to say this, without any complaint of unfairness, that this government in its general approach to the unemployment problem does not believe it can be dealt with immediately by any

single solution that might be devised. We did not come into office with any undertaking that we would end unemployment by such and such a date, or within any fixed period. We made it perfectly clear that we were going to try to deal with the problem upon the basis of reaching long range solutions by careful study of the entire situation. As a result of such examination of the situation as I have been able to give during the past few months I am convinced that long range study is absolutely essential. But is it not reasonable that in the meantime w7e should take such measures as we can to consolidate the existing situation-, having due regard to all that may be required to meet emergent . conditions, which we trust will not occur, during the coming year? We are doing that. AVith reference to these particular expenditures, we are proceeding, not in a way which the late administration discovered for itself, but along paths which -have been approved by the experience of, I might say, all countries confronted with the unemployment situation during the past five years. The late administration did not originate such policies as land settlement and resettlement, expenditures on highways, contributions to farm placement. There is little value in a controversy between this government and the late administration as to the credit for discovering this or that method for dealing with the unemployment situation, and I have tried to avoid a discussion on that basis. If my hon. friend wishes to discuss this whole problem on another plane I suppose I must meet him there, but I am not anxious to do so.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would think not.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But if I were required to do so I could, for example, take the blank cheque legislation, to which some references were made this afternoon, and I could suggest to him that under the present legislation it would not be possible in the course of six months to enter into with one province three separate agreements, one of which by order in council was dated October 22 of last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is to prevent the minister under this item from entering into more than one agreement with any one province during the coming year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Because we are limited to a definite sum set down in the estimates, whereas under the relief legislation of last year there was absolutely no limit of any kind.

Supply-Labour-Relief Works


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the minister think that because he keeps within the total of a limited sum he is prevented from entering into more than one agreement with a province, throughout the year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: For the expenditure of money, yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not understand so.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But under previous legislation, as the hon. member knows, the government might have reached an agreement with a province on July 10, as a result of pressure might have entered into another on September 20 and, as a result of further pressure, into another on October 22. That would not be possible under this legislation.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Why not? Will the
minister explain where in the statute or in any other provision there is anything to prevent him from making one, two or three agreements with a province? I think he ought to be able to do this, if conditions develop which render it desirable in order to accomplish the object he has in view.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think the limitation lies clearly in the appropriation. The appropriation is to be allocated to the different provinces. When we have entered into an agreement with a certain province, such agreement will exhaust the amount of the appropriation available for that province. But under previous legislation the amount available for any province was never exhausted, because there was no limit whatsoever upon what might be paid under the terms of the relief legislation.


Mr. MacNEIL:: I have taken little part in the discussion because I am not disposed to be critical simply for the sake of being critical. I have endeavoured to follow the statements of the minister to piece together the complete plan of the government with regard to unemployment relief, and to translate that plan into terms of immediate and actual benefit . for those now suffering the miseries of unemployment. I have in mind a statement made by the minister on a previous occasion to the effect that past methods have failed, and that unemployment in Canada has now developed persistent characteristics. I am at a loss to discover, and I should like some assurance from him in what respect the plan he has outlined represents definite progress.
I am exceedingly anxious that the expenditure of large sums such as that now before the committee should represent more clearly than before an investment in employment
rather than one in unemployment. For a moment I should like to consider not only the economic losses represented by unemployment, but the social losses, a phase of the situation which has not been given sufficient emphasis in our debates. The social loss is represented in the deterioration of the skill of our labour, the lowering of health standards and the general demoralization of our youth. Such losses demand immediate action and a definite mobilization of national resources.
I believe we should have some assurance from the minister that in the general policy now fully before the committee at least a substantial number of those now on relief in Canada will, before next winter, have an opportunity to secure that which they desire more than anything else, namely employment under proper working conditions and at a living wage. We should not be so reluctant to learn from the experience of other countries, and when I make that statement I have Sweden in mind. That nation has demonstrated its ability to maintain its living standards throughout the entire period of the depression. It has reduced unemployment to a point at which those unemployed represent less than one per cent of the population, and it has effected a revival of trade. I understand that part of its success is due to careful planning and coordination, and the central direction of expenditures such as those now under discussion. In the past the chief criticism of our policy has been lack of planning and lack of central direction and control.
The minister has suggested that there has been a lack of constructive criticism, and with that in mind may I remind him that on previous occasions we have suggested that the government should assume a more definite measure of responsibility in connection with the direction of expenditures of this type, having in mind the objective of a national plan. I have not yet discovered how these expenditures will be dealt with under the plan which, we hope, will be developed by the national employment commission. When I return to my constituency I shall have to meet the unemployed. Groups of them are organized at different points, and they will be anxious to know exactly what benefits will accrue to them and what opportunities they will be given to return to employment. I suggest that the minister should not complain if we ask of him a more definite assurance that in connection with the expenditures contemplated steps will be taken to work out a national plan to deal with a subject of

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
grave national importance, so that those now in distressed circumstances may receive promptly a measure of relief greater than that which has been given in the past.


Mr. FINN:: I am going to speak frankly
this afternoon, as did the Minister of Labour. As I read item 330-


Norman McLeod Rogers: We have passed 330.


The CHAIRMAN:: We are considering
item 335.


Robert Emmett Finn: I stand corrected. I was not
in the house for the first hour this afternoon, and I sought information from some hon. members sitting round me. It was on that information I proceeded to speak. What is the number, sir?


Frederick George Sanderson: Item 335.


Mr. McIVOR:: Carried.


Robert Emmett Finn: Apparently the hon. member
does not come from the maritime provinces.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the item carried?


Robert Emmett Finn: No.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I do not come from the
maritimes; I come from a place that does not like to ride a merry-go-round, and if this debate is going to go round and round and round I should like to see it stopped.


Robert Emmett Finn: All I would say to the hon.
member who makes reference to a merry-go-round is that if he comes from the west he must know that amounts voted in this house for the prairie provinces would enable nearly everybody out west to get on the merry-go-round every day while we in the maritime provinces would have to walk.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I would inform the hon.
member that I do not come from the west, just now.


Robert Emmett Finn: Well, he may not come from
the west "just now," because he is here. The question is: Where did he come from? I do not know what constituency the hon. member represents.


Charles Avery Dunning: From Ontario.


Robert Emmett Finn: Well, that may be a little
better, but I would have to take it into consideration. Under item 335 I would say-


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Robert Emmett Finn: "Carried" again, eh! Well, one thing they cannot do, they cannot carry me out. Mr. Chairman, would you mind having the assistant clerk read the item? I cannot find it.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is item 335.


Robert Emmett Finn: I have it under my thumb
now.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Do not let it get away.


Robert Emmett Finn: There isn't a possible chance.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will the hon. member
be good enough to proceed with his observations.


Robert Emmett Finn: I believe any member of the
committee has a perfect right to discuss any item of these or other estimates, or to discuss any matter involving the government and the people of Canada, I do not propose by such utterances as "hear, hear," or "carried," or by any other articulate sound to be prevented from expressing my views concerning any matter. As was stated by the Prime Minister, our great party stands for democracy; democracy is liberty, and liberty is the right to speak. If I did not come here to speak I should have been tongue-tied, and under those circumstances I would not be here because I would not have been able to talk to my constituents.
Although I do not speak in criticism of the Minister of Labour, it seems to me that we cannot get information concerning agreements entered into with the provinces. I am interested in all the provinces, in their progress and development and in their relief problems. I am not narrow, nor do I-come from a province that is, nor do I think any province is particularly narrow. But the point is this: Surely I am within my rights in asking the Minister of Labour what agreement has been entered into with the government of Nova Scotia, either through the premier or the attorney general of the province or the gentlemen who came here two or three times to sit down and discuss the basis on which these moneys were to be spent. I would like to know in a general way w'hat agreements have been made with the government of Nova Scotia. The premier of the province is the Hon. Angus L. Macdonald. I would be slower to speak if his was a Conservative government, because it might be thought by some hon. gentlemen opposite that I was doing so for the purpose of embarrassing the government, but the government of Nova Scotia is friendly to the government here, which is friendly to them, and therefore

Sup-ply-Labour-Relief Works
any question I ask, if it carries with it a criticism, applies to one of two Liberal governments. So, as a Liberal myself I think I am fairly broad-minded. I should like to have that information from the minister so that I may be able to send an intelligent answer to the many letters I have received from my constituents, to whom I have been able to reply up to date in acknowledging their letters, only; "The information will later be forthcoming. Yours truly, R. E. Finn."


Norman McLeod Rogers: In answer to the question put by my hon. friend I may say that no agreement has been entered into as yet between the dominion government and the province of Nova Scotia. The preliminary conversations have not yet been concluded. The negotiation of these agreements, as hon. members will understand, occupies some time, but we are proceeding as rapidly as possible with the preliminary discussion.


Robert Emmett Finn: In reply to the hon. Minister of Labour I would use the words of the emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie, "I will wait. I will fight on. I expect my tardy allies will soon arrive," for, he said, "I am fighting for a principle, and that principle is collective unity."


An hon. MEMBER:: Collective security.


Robert Emmett Finn: Collective security or unity, because you cannot have security unless you have unity. It seems to me, so far as the unity between the provincial governments and the federal government is concerned-


An hon. MEMBER:: Ethiopia.


Robert Emmett Finn: I heard someone interject, "Ethiopia." What happened there? The best that England could do was to send a British destroyer to Djibouti in French Somaliland the ocean terminus of the Addis Ababa-Djibouti Railway after the emperor had left his capital seeing it in flames through the aggression of Mussolini, and his temporary success made of him a Caesar.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Robert Emmett Finn: That was just an interjection, Mr. Chairman, and if it is not in order I shall be pleased-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Strike it out.


Robert Emmett Finn: I will strike it out so far as the report goes, if it is the order of the chairman, but it is not struck out of my mind. I would ask the Minister of Labour when these agreements are going to be 12739-158
entered into, and whether the votes of money can be utilized and expended before the agreements are entered into.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The agreements will be
concluded under the terms of the relief bill which has not yet received royal assent. As a matter of fact I am informed that i.t has not yet received its final reading in the senate, but we anticipate that the legislation under which the agreements are to be concluded will be passed within a very short time. We shall then be in a position legally to enter into agreements with the provincial governments. I am unable to give my hon. friend an assurance as to the precise date when it will be possible to conclude an agreement with Nova Scotia. We are meeting with the provinces in the order of their requests, and we are hastening the negotiations in order to have this work undertaken at as early a date as possible.


Robert Emmett Finn: If, as the minister says, the expenditure of this money is contingent upon the authority given in the relief bill, and agreements can be entered into only when that bill is passed-


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is only the preliminary
conversations we are having now.


Robert Emmett Finn: There cannot be finality until the relief bill is passed by the senate and receives the signature of the governor general; is that correct?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Robert Emmett Finn: Then I would ask the minister this question with regard to my own province, and I speak of my own province because there are hon. gentlemen here to look after their own provinces. I speak more particularly for my own county, because I do not represent the province. The province is represented, and well, I believe, by my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley). He can speak for Nova Scotia as Nova Scotia. If the government of Nova Scotia says that it will not contribute fifty per cent, can the minister under the relief bill now in the senate go on with the federal expenditure regardless of the decision of any province not to contribute under this vote? Can the federal government go on and spend its own allotment?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The item itself states that the vote is for new works to be undertaken in cooperation with the provinces, and I take it that the dominion government is restricted by that phrasing to works to be carried on

Supply-Labour-Relief Works

in cooperation with the provinces. It is open for us, however, to determine the amount of the dominion contribution to a joint work. I have indicated earlier this afternoon that it has usually been on a fifty-fifty basis, but that is a matter for negotiation as between the dominion government and the provincial authorities.


Robert Emmett Finn: I would ask the minister
another question. Are these votes in the special supplementary estimates for agriculture in the western provinces on a fifty-fifty basis, or are they a straight vote?


Norman McLeod Rogers: They are a straight vote,
I think.


Robert Emmett Finn: Are not these votes to be used in connection with relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Many of these items are
straight votes but are designated for relief purposes.


Robert Emmett Finn: Very large sums, amounting to one and a half million dollars, have been voted in these estimates for agriculture. Then, under Labour, we find direct votes of large sums of money to be used for relief purposes in connection with agriculture in the west, but if I took a microscope I could not find what is going to be spent in the east. I should like to know whether representations have been made to the Minister of Labour by the governments of Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces with reference to this particular matter? There is a great deal of suffering in Halifax and along our shores where the fishermen reside, we have dealt with this only half-heartedly already. I do not desire to take up the time of the committee in discussing this matter; perhaps I could take it up by correspondence with the Minister of Labour, but the principle has been established of voting vast sums to the prairie provinces without any strings attached whereas definite restrictions are placed upon the votes to the eastern provinces. I believe that the government is serious; that it wants to help the people who are on relief and that it wants to let them do something constructive. That was the understanding upon which I was elected and if this is not done, then I should not be here. The condition precedent in the case of Nova Scotia is that that province must make an equal contribution before any work is started; if it does not, then no money is to be spent. The Minister of Labour says, "It may be possible," but "may be" is not good enough. If you say, "may" in a statute, what is provided for is very seldom done, but if you say "shall," it

must be done. We should know what we can expect for the people who need assistance in Halifax county and that is why I ask the Minister of Labour these questions. I appreciate his difficulty because of his newness in the position, but he is a master of the subject of economics. I do not think hon. members are taking up the time of the committee when they endeavour to find out upon what basis these contributions are being made. They want to be able to tell the people who are suffering that there will be an opportunity for them to go to work and earn an honest dollar for an honest day's work. If that were possible much of the dissatisfaction in my constituency and throughout Nova Scotia would be cured.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. MaoNEIL: May I remind the minister of my question?
Frederick George Sanderson: I am in the judgment of the committee, but I believe the item has been carried.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be glad to revive the discussion on another item.


Robert Emmett Finn: Will you pick mine up on the next item?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Certainly.
Amount required to provide for unforeseen contingencies, $500,000.


Charles Grant MacNeil: May I repeat my question addressed to the minister?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As I understand the question of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), he wishes to know whether these estimates represent the total amount to be available for public works during the fiscal year. I may say that these expenditures will represent all that will be available for public works during the coming year. I quite appreciate the fact that this total will seem inadequate to provide employment for all those who are now without work. We understand fully that such an expenditure will not meet all the requirements of employment and that the expenditure would have to be multiplied in order to provide public employment for all who are out of work at wages which would be regarded as fair and reasonable. 1 can assure my hon. friend that during the coming year the entire situation will receive a more careful and concentrated study than it has so far received. When the house meets again the government will be in a better position to advise the directions in which

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
public expenditures may be made to assure the most satisfactory results. I quite realize that my answer will be disappointing to my hon. friend, but I could not make a different reply without misleading him.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the total to be expended this year be greater than the total expended last year? Will it be designed to work some improvement in the situation directly affecting those now on relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am informed that the total expenditure will be considerably in excess of that of last year. If we are able to reach agreements with the provinces, as we hope to, upon a fifty-fifty basis of contribution, this item of $9,200,000 will be increased to an expenditure of some $18,400,000. In answer to the question put by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn), I may say that most of the items in the special supplementary estimates provide amounts directly for certain projects and it is not contemplated that there will be any joint contribution by the dominion and provincial governments. I would remind him also that under other votes an amount in the neighbourhood of $2,000,000 is made available for the construction of public works of various kinds in Nova Scotia. He can add up the totals under the various departments to get the exact amount. Of course we shall deal with Nova Scotia under the item just passed, but that will be upon the basis of joint participation. In the case of the construction of public highways, the dominion is contributing to what has always been regarded as a provincial responsibility, but this would not apply to the construction of public buildings to maintain dominion services.


Mr. BOTIIWELL:: That means that work undertaken under the last vote, No. 335, and possibly under this vote, will be in connection with projects recommended by the various provinces?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Robert Emmett Finn: I do not want to prolong the discussion on this matter, but I should like the minister to explain his reference to the $2,000,000.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I was referring to all special supplementary estimates, not merely to those pertaining to the Department of Labour. As a matter of fact I have excluded items under the Department of Labour. I was referring to expenses under Public Works and under Marine.
12739-158*


Robert Emmett Finn: A moment ago the minister
said that these were the only relief estimates.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the hon. member
discussing item 336?


Robert Emmett Finn: I am discussing item 336 in the light of the answer given by the Minister of Labour. He said that under general votes other than public works there was $2,000,000 for Nova Scotia. That does not come within the item, and therefore I do not see why I should be singled out when I ask a question in reference to the statement just made by the minister. If he went outside the estimate why should I be ruled out of order? I wish to have certain information and I am sure I shall receive it from the Minister of Labour.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would point out to
the hon. member that we are discussing item 336, which is a vote for $500,000, an amount required to provide for unforeseen contingencies. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the item under discussion.


Robert Emmett Finn: With all due deference, sir,
to your ruling, which I accept, I wonder why it is that when the Minister of Labour himself went outside the item the fact was not drawn to his attention but is pointed out to me.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend will agree,
I think, that I had given an undertaking to answer his question in connection with another item, and if I went beyond the subject matter of item 336 it was simply because I was seeking to give him the information he desired. If the information I have given is not adequate and there is any further information I can give him, either in my office or here, I shall be only too glad to let him have it in so far as it is available.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am perfectly satisfied. What I am particularly interested in comes under any one of these votes; it comes under this very vote which is now being discussed, an amount required to provide for unforeseen contingencies. I think that description could be correctly applied to all the items that have passed, for they are all unforeseen or perhaps to be correct unseen, inasmuch as there are no agreements and no understandings on conversations between federal and local governments. What I want to find out is this: Under this vote, which will apply to my own province and perhaps to my own constituency, if the provincial government should fail to contribute fifty per cent of the cost, can the Minister of Labour

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
assure the committee that, so far as the federal vote is concerned, the money voted will be expended where it was intended to be expended, and will be expended absolutely under the control of the minister who is in charge of the department concerned with that particular vote? Am I to understand that, or am I to understand that, if the legislature or government of Nova Scotia decides to contribute only $100,000 where $200,000 is called for, the federal government being prepared to put up $200,000 as voted the vote will lapse and the money will not be expended? If that happens, owing to the fact that the province either will not join or has not the money, the people who are in need will stand, when parliament prorogues, precisely where they are to-day. Perhaps the minister is not in a position to answer the question until he has had an opportunity of discussing it with the government. I am content to wait, but it is only in the interests of people who, I know, are suffering and are ready to work but cannot get work, that I am now asking the minister this question. I do not for a moment wish to hold up the estimate, but I should like to get an answer in order to find out the policy of the government in reference to moneys which we vote, which this parliament votes. If the provinces for any reason fail to give fifty per cent, is it the government's intention to have the money expended notwithstanding that contingency, provided the relief act will permit of this being done? If that act does not allow this, then it seems to me there will be a stalemate and the act will have to be amended at the present session. I do not press the minister for an immediate reply, but I submit that there should be a reply within a reasonable time after he has had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Prime Minister and his colleagues with respect to general policy.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will any restrictions be placed upon the provinces with regard to the kind of projects which they can undertake?


Norman McLeod Rogers: We do not place any restrictions in advance upon the kind of projects that may be submitted. We rather deal with a program submitted by the province, the expenditure on which program in most cases would exceed the amount that would be available as a contribution of the dominion government. In other words, that would give the dominion government some opportunity to express a preference for one project rather than for another, because

obviously we must see to it that the projects which are adopted will be those that will contribute as far as possible to employment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Do I understand that in the final analysis it will be the federal government that will determine the projects to be proceeded with?


Norman McLeod Rogers: To this extent, that the federal government obviously determines the projects to which it will contribute, and in the nature of things if the provinces wish to secure the federal contribution they will try to reach an agreement. In fact, that will be the desire on both sides.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Suppose that in some of the provinces it is thought that as a relief project nothing will produce better results than, say a housing scheme; would such a scheme meet with the approval of the Department of Labour?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am unable to give an assurance on that point in advance of its being submitted to the federal government by a province, but I do not think there has been any anticipatory restriction upon the programs that might be submitted by the provincial government. It is for the dominion government to seek to work out, in cooperation with the provincial governments, a program of projects best adapted to improve the relief situation in the particular province.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are the municipalities being asked to share any part of the burden?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As my hon. friend is
aware, the dominion government has not dealt direct with the municipalities. It may be that in some provinces certain projects will be put forward which will involve the construction of municipal works, but when it has been proposed that the dominion government should contribute to municipal works the proposal has always come through the province, and the dominion contribution has always been upon a lower percentage basis.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask if the amount
being contributed by the federal government in regard to these undertakings will be by way of a loan or a gift from the federal authorities?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Under this particular item
the contribution is an outright one. It may be that it will be desirable to loan amounts to some of the provinces in order to assist them in meeting their share of what will be required for particular projects. Possibly that is not the point my hon. friend had in mind?

Supply-Labour-Grants to Provinces


Abraham Albert Heaps: I quite understand that the
amount which the federal authorities may be compelled to give to governments in order to finance projects would be a loan, but the fifty per cent contribution by the federal authorities to these relief projects will be an absolute contribution from the federal government?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.
Mr. MaeINNIS:	Could the minister tell
the committee if any of the projects authorized under these items will be carried out with what is sometimes referred to as relief labour, that is where the basis of wages is the amount of the relief plus a certain percentage?


Norman McLeod Rogers: So far as I am aware, no
projects covered by the preceding items have been dealt with in such a manner. In fact the agreements with the provinces under which these works are constructed require that there shall be paid to workmen upon those projects the current or prevailing rates of wages.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grants in aid-amount required to provide for monthly grants in aid to the provinces, $26,000,000.
Sir GEORGE PERLBY:: I should like the minister to place on Hansard some figures relating to the monthly grants that were made by the previous government-the total will do, I do not want them in detail-then the amount that this government paid from December to the end of March, and also the amount per month that they propose to pay when this legislation passes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I take it that my right
hon. friend asks for the total monthly payments of grants in aid in each case?


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The total monthly grant
in aid prior to December, 1935, was $1,751250. Under the increases authorized for the winter months, December to March inclusive, the total monthly grant in aid was $3,066,218.75. Under the revision following the reduction of fifteen per cent as announced on April 1 of this year, the total monthly grant in aid for the month of April is $2,606,285.94. That comprises the total monthly payments.


Ernest Edward Perley: What is $26,000,000 divided by twelve? I make it $2,166,666. How is the minister going to pay $2,606,285 per month out of $26,000,000 voted?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not sure that it is possible to give a definite answer to the question which is at least implied in what my right hon. friend has said. We are making here an estimate of what will be required for direct relief as a contribution from the dominion government during the coming year. There has been, as he is aware, a reduction of fifteen per cent announced for the month of April. We assume that some other adjustment may be desirable as the relief situation is studied during the ensuing months. We are resolved at all events to meet the situation as it develops. This sum of $26,000,000 is an estimate of what we hope and trust will not be exceeded as a contribution from the dominion government during the present fiscal year. I may say that it is considerably in excess of the amount that was paid under grants in aid which prevailed prior to December of last year.	,


Ernest Edward Perley: That is undoubtedly so. But the minister must have a lot of faith if he thinks he is going to pay $2,606,285 a month for a year out of $26,000,000. He has started on a scale that he cannot possibly keep up. It is quite true that the amount is larger than the previous government gave as a grant in aid. I am not criticising the increase. A large increase was immediately made by this government, and then, when March 31 came, they reduced it by fifteen per cent, but of course that still leaves the monthly sum a great deal higher than the previous government gave as a grant in aid. I think it is most extraordinary foi the minister to put in $26,000,000 for the year and then pay out over $2,600,000 the first month.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I can only remind the committee that the monthly contributions by the dominion to the provinces have not been fixed for the entire fiscal year. The reduction announced for April 1 was one which applied to that month and has been continued to date, but there was no assurance or undertaking that there would not be further adjustments of the dominion grant in aid to the provinces. I believe that in the past it was on a month to month basis; that is to say, there was no agreement that the grant in aid would be continued through the year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, we did make an agreement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: With some provinces, I believe, that was the case.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
2476	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Orants to Provinces
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Ernest Edward Perley: To complete the discussion of the point we were at when six o'clock came, even though the grant in aid for April is to be more than one-twelfth of the sum included in these estimates, will the minister give the committee an assurance that the grants in aid will not be more than $26,000,000 during this fiscal year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I doubt whether I can give such an assurance, and if I could I doubt whether it would be wise to do so. We must deal with a situation which, as my right hon. friend is aware, is not static but subject to changes from time to time. We have attempted to make an estimate of the amount which we believe will be required during the coming year as a dominion contribution to the provinces for direct relief. I should like to repeat this further statement, which I made before six o'clock, that we are at the same time resolved to meet the situation as we believe the people of Canada would wish us to meet it, as it may alter from time to time.


Angus MacInnis: Under the unemployment relief act as it now stands, can a grant in aid be made without having to come to parliament?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The relief bill of the present fiscal year, section 4, states:
The governor in council may enter into agreements with any of the provinces respecting relief measures therein and providing for any payments on account of such relief measures to be made out of moneys appropriated for relief purposes by parliament for the fiscal year 1936-37.


Angus MacInnis: But under the policy of the present government of having all appropriations passed by parliament, does not the relief bill as it now stands prevent the government from making any further advances in aid without coming to parliament?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Under the special supplementary estimates our grants for relief purposes are limited to the 126,000,000 therein stated.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think the hon. gentleman is trying to find out how it would be possible for the government under the bill to give a larger amount than $26,000,000 for grants in aid.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If that is the question, 1 can only say that parliament will be in session again before the close of the present fiscal year. I had that in view when I said that in any event the government is resolved to meet the situation as it develops.


Angus MacInnis: I am not objecting to this amount. As a matter of fact I think the government would be unwise to tie its hands so that in a very uncertain situation it could not deal with any conditions which might arise. Regardless of what the policy of the government may be I do not think it is so tied.
How does this amount compare with the amount of grants in aid during the past fiscal year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As they stood prior to December, 1936, the total annual contribution by the dominion government for direct relief was $21,000,000 in round figures. In December, as my hon. friend is aware, an increase was made amounting to seventy-five per cent of the existing grants in aid for the winter months. Then, from April 1 of this year there has -been a reduction of the total grants in aid in each case by fifteen per cent. So that upon the basis of the grants in aid as they stand since April 1 the amount for the twelve months would be twelve times $2,606,285, or something in excess of $31,000,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could the minister give the total amount spent for grants in aid during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1935?


Charles Avery Dunning: I gave the figure in the budget speech; it will be found at page 2374 of Hansard:
Direct relief, 1934-35, $19,211,557.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is not quite the same as grants in aid.


Charles Avery Dunning: The system evidently was changed during the fiscal year 1934, because I have here an item, grants in aid, in addition to the sum formerly mentioned. It is shown as from August 1, 1934, which I believe was the date of a change in system. That amount is $14,024,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Grants in aid from August until the end of March?


Charles Avery Dunning: Apparently that would
be the situation.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has the minister any
figure from the preceding March to the month of August?


Charles Avery Dunning: Only in so far as it
comes within the classification of direct relief then prevailing, the total of which is

Supply-Railways-Relief Works
$19,211,000. But it is not all in the form of grants in aid. There is some confusion in view of the change of system which took place in that year.


Angus MacInnis: Does the minister know
if any of this money, granted in aid, will be spent on work in the municipalities, or will it all go in direct relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: This amount is designated
for direct relief. That is to say, it is not available for relief works.


Mr. PURDY:: A few moments ago the
minister gave the figure of $2,606,285 for grants in aid. Can he break it down showing the amount for each province?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The total amount of
$2,606,285 was broken down as follows: Prince Edward Island, $3,160.94; Nova Scotia, $59,500; New Brunswick, $37,187; Quebec, $743,750; Ontario, $892,500; Manitoba, $200,812.50; Saskatchewan, $297,500; Alberta, $148,750; and British Columbia, $223,125.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: On what basis are those
moneys distributed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: When the policy of joint
contribution by the dominion, the provinces and municipalities was abandoned the late administration determined upon the basis of study of the relief needs of the various provinces the grants in aid paid from August, 1934, to December, 1935. When the present administration determined to increase the grants in aid for the winter months it applied the seventy-five per cent as against those formerly existing grants in aid paid to the several provinces.


Angus MacInnis: I suppose the grants in
aid paid have some relation to the number of persons on relief in each province.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: Has the minister the
numbers on relief in the different provinces for the month of April?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sorry we have not
the figures for that month.


Angus MacInnis: It is too early?


Norman McLeod Rogers: We have the preliminary
figure, but if possible it would be preferable if the hon. member would consult me in my own office as to those figures. It would be unwise to place inaccurate figures on Hansard. We find that sometimes they are subject to wide correction. I believe the figures as given in the report of the commissioner would indicate, numerically, the proportion of relief recipients in the various provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Projects already undertaken-to provide for commitments incurred under the authority of item 1, schedule "A" of the Supplementary Public Works Construction Act, 1935 (railway grade crossings), $958,416.51.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: May we have particulars of expenditures that have been under these commitments?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This item covers all the uncompleted work authorized in the year 193536. As the hon. member is aware, this fund is administered by the board of railway commissioners.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I was interested in the total, rather than in the details.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can give the complete information, if the hon. member wishes it. The amount expended out of last year's appropriation was $26,974.49. That was the amount out of an appropriation of $1,000,000. It is simply a sort of hang-over of projects started last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: So that again this is really a revote of an item which appeared in the Public Works Construction Act of 1935.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, entirely so.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Entirely so, yes. It is a balance of the commitments. Can the minister say what the commitments amount to? Are they for the whole of this sum?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, for the whole amount.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. Usually the returns Mr. STEWART: They cover all of it?
are about a month late; I speak of returns,	,	.
other than estimates. The February figures * Mr. HOWE: The entire amount is the exact were printed in the report of the commissioner total of the commitments froni previous of unemployment relief and have been dis- items in ^ the Supplementary Public Works tributed to hon. members.	Construction Act, 1935.


Angus MacInnis: Has the minister the Mr. MacINNIS: Could the minister say
figure for the month of March?	how much of this work is completed?

Supply-Railways-Relief Works


Clarence Decatur Howe: Some of the work has been completed on which an expenditure of $26,974.49 was made during 1935-36.


Frank Exton Lennard: Is this all for the elimination of level crossings?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Further on there is a vote of $1,000,000 to cover such additional appropriations as the board of railway commissioners may make for the same purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for commitments incurred under the authority of item 5, schedule "A" of the Supplementary Public Works Construction Act, 1935 (canals-repairs and improvements), $84,100.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is this of the same type as item 417?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, exactly the same. It is a clean-up of item 5, schedule "A", of the Supplementary Public Works Construction Act, 1935.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What was the amount of that item? I have not the act before me.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was $750,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And with the exception of $84,100 has it all been spent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It has all been actually paid up.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is just a revote of the balance of that vote?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is just a repetition of the performance we have had here day after day, namely that of voting money twice, and then creating the impression that this government is providing an enormous sum of money for unemployment relief.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Other projects-to provide for reimbursement to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and to the Canadian National Railway Company, upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, of expenditures to be made by each of the said companies for:
(a)	Labour in the employment of certain unemployment relief forces on special work in extension of the said companies' programs of maintenance of way and betterment works during the year 1936;
(b)	Workmen's compensation liability relative to such labour;
(c)	Certain allowances for transportation of such labour;
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
(d)	Certain other expenditures for labour, material and overhead incurred by the railway companies if such expenditures are made during 1936 in preparation for or in completion of work expected to be performed by the unemployment relief forces but not performed because of shortage of unemployment relief forces, not exceeding in the aggregate, $3,100,000.
Ernest Edward Perley: The minister
might explain this item at some length so that we may understand what is proposed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was decided as a matter of government policy that an attempt should be made to provide work for those single unemployed men who have been, some of them for some years, in the relief camps, and it was considered that at least one item of useful work would be to assist the railways in picking up their deferred maintenance work, such work to be in addition to the usual maintenance program of the railways. The government consulted the railways, and the respective railway managements stated that they could usefully employ about 5,000 men during the present season.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is 5,000 apiece?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, 10,000 in all. A good deal of discussion took place as to how this would work out from the standpoint of both the rail-ways and the government, and it was found that each would have to spend about an equal amount of money. That is, if the government paid the wages of these 10,000 men, the railways would be called upon to spend another $3,100,000 for supervision, supplies, materials, and other details having to do with work. So agreements have been entered into between the government and the Canadian Pacific and between the government and the Canadian National Railways providing that the government will furnish up to 5,000 men for each railway. It is understood of course that the 5,000 may not be available for each railway because the men might prefer other employment. The men will be employed by the railway at the standard rates of wages for the class of work they are called upon to do. The government will pay in full the wages of the men while thus employed by the railway on this particular class of work.


Mr. SENN:: For what length of time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: From the time that it is
possible to start the maintenance of way work and for as long as the weather will permit it to be carried on in the fall.

Supply-Railways-Relief Works


Mr. DONNELLY:: Where track has been laid, for instance, but no ballasting done, will the men be available for that class of work or only for the maintenance of old work already completed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know that there is any specific prohibition against using the men on new track, but this is chiefly for maintenance of way work on road already constructed and in use, such as ditching, track laying, and work of that sort.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As a matter of economy the railways reduced their maintenance staffs to skeleton crews some years ago, and the impression I have had is that during the last three or four years a large number of men who were formerly employed by the railways on maintenance and repair work have been unemployed. Are we now to understand that all these men who have been laid off by the railways themselves are to be reemployed and that in addition each railway requires
5,000	men?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a distinct understanding with the railways that they will engage their usual summer maintenance crews before any of these men are taken on.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I understood the minister to say that there were no restrictions on how the railways were to expend this money. If that is correct, it leaves a very wide opening for the railways to use the money for purposes other than that intended. I feel that the money should be used for the purpose for which the minister told the house on a previous occasion it was intended, and that it should be spent in such a way as to provide the greatest amount of labour. I wonder whether I am correct in my interpretation of the minister's remarks a few moments ago.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think I made that statement. The government is not giving money to the railways to spend as they like, but is giving them the services of these men to be employed at standard rates of wages for the class of work on which they are employed. These men are to be used for maintenance of way work. I said a moment ago that I did not know there was any specific prohibition against using the men on new work, the extension of a line, for instance, but I see that the agreement says definitely that it is for maintenance of way and betterment work.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What are the conditions under which this money is to be given to the railways? Is it a grant outright or a conditional loan?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We pay the wages of the men while they are employed by the railways. You might call it a gift from the government, if you like.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I understand that these men who are employed by the railways on maintenance work will have their wages paid entirely by the government as part of its policy of relief. If that is the case, would the minister inform the committee how much of this vote will be for labour and how much for materials?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The entire amount will be for labour. We are voting $3,100,000, and in addition to that the railways will spend another $3,100,000 for supervision and materials.


Ernest Edward Perley: The item itself does not say that the money will all be spent for labour. If the minister will read it himself he will find provision in the last clause for other payments.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In spite of the wording the only exception is allowances for the transportation of the men to the point of employment. Under the terms of the agreement there is nothing permitted for material.


Ernest Edward Perley: If that is the case, the item should be worded differently, because it says distinctly under paragraph (b) for instance that the money may be used for other purposes, and paragraph (d) says that the money may be used for "expenditures for labour, material and overhead incurred by the railway companies if such expenditures are made during 1936 in preparation for or in completion of work expected to be performed by the unemployment relief forces but not performed because of shortage of unemployment relief forces." If the minister is correct in the statement he has just made this item should be amended. I for one think it should not pass as it now reads.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have now the explanation. Assuming that the government can furnish
10,000	men the money is all spent for labour, but naturally the government cannot guarantee to furnish 10,000 men from this source, and provision is therefore made that if we furnish a lesser number, say 5,000, the railways shall be reimbursed for the expenditures they have made in preparing work for 10.000. Paragraph (d) is to cover that contingency because the railways in preparing a program of this kind must go to some expense.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister uses the word "furnish." I do not understand that the government is going to furnish la-

Supply-Railways-Relief Works
bour. As I understand it, each of the railways is going to engage this extra 5,000 men, and I was going to ask the minister if he has any guarantee from the railways that they will take as many as 5,000 each from the camps. The railways are going to engage these men and the government is going to pay their wages. That is the agreement in a few words. With all the unemployed there are in Canada, the minister suggests that the government may not be able to furnish more than 500 men, at least may not be able to furnish the 5,000 men. I say to the hon. minister that with all the unemployed we have in the country, surely 5,000 men can be supplied for each of the railroads and proper wages paid. I do not understand the suggestion put forward by the minister that the government might not be able to furnish the
5,000	men to each of the railways.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This item refers only to single unemployed men who were in the relief camps. The last figure I had showed that the number of men in these camps was something less than 15,000. This is an indication that, as usual, a number of men have left the camps and have found employment on the road. If another 5,000 men were to find employment without recourse to government assistance- we would be very glad to have that happen- obviously the government would not be able to furnish 10,000 men from these relief camps. This vote does not cover any men whom the government might care to send to the railways; it refers only to men from the relief camps.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Supposing 10,000 men cannot be furnished from the relief camps and the railways have made their preparations to take on that number for the class of work specified in this item, what objection would there be to taking single unemployed men who are not in the camps but who would be glad to have work of this kind during the summer months? Do I understand the government is going to tie its own hands and the hands of this house by refusing to accept men not from the relief camps?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As this item is closely related to a policy announced by the Department of Labour, perhaps I might be permitted to say a few words in answer to my hon. friend. When it was announced that the government proposed to close the relief camps conducted by the Department of National Defence, it was stated1 to be a definite part of that proposal that these men would not be turned out of these camps without some pro-

vision being made for their future. I think that was fully understood by the house and I am quite sure my hon. friend would be the first to accept such a view.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Absolutely.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There were two methods by which we could proceed. We could continue necessary work on existing projects until July 1 and pay the men an increased allowance during that period. At the time we made our plans there were some 20,000 men in the relief camps and we realized that it would be essential to make some large provision for additional employment after July 1, the date set for the closing of the camps. After careful investigation we concluded that work on maintenance of way upon the railways was a direction in which employment could be afforded to provide assistance to the men as well as greatly to improve the railroads which improvement in turn would add to the travelling comfort of our people. We have every reason to believe that the relief camps will be able to supply these 10,000 men. My hon. friend brings up the question of other men without employment not having the same opportunity for this employment-


Abraham Albert Heaps: Not exactly. What I said was: Assuming that there were not 10,000 men available from the relief camps, would persons not in the camps be debarred from making up that total of 10,000?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As I recall it, the understanding is .that the railway companies will take up to 10,000 men from the relief camps. If for any reason we should not be able to supply 10,000 men, I have no doubt that arrangements cam be made to supply from the relief hostels in various parts of the country an additional number of other single homeless men to make up that total. I state that, subject to correction as to the precise terms of the agreements to be made with the railway companies. What I wanted to bring out was that this is simply part of a general plan to bring the relief camps to a close.


Ernest Edward Perley: Have the agreements not been made?


Norman McLeod Rogers: These agreements will have to come under the terms of the relief bill of the present fiscal year and in a legal sense they cannot be completed until the relief bill has been passed.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the other unemployed men to be supplied to the railways, provided the camps cannot supply the required number, be selected by the government's own employment bureaux in the different cities?

Supply-Railways-Relief Works


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. This project is definitely for the purpose of finding large scale employment for single unemployed men who are now more or less wards of the government.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That would be the proper way to deal with the matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. STIRLING:: Do I gather from the
Minister of Labour that the railways are interested in .the source from which these men come and wish them to come from the relief camps? I think the men to be chosen should come under the much wider category in subsection 2 of section 3 of Bill No. 19 which reads:
-for the employment of persons who being available and competent are necessarily and properly in receipt of relief in the province in which such work or undertaking is to be performed.
There now seems to be some limit in connection with the 5,000 men to be supplied to each railway. Is it the understanding that they are to come from the relief camps lately under the direction of the Department of National Defence?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is definitely the
understanding. Of course we are contributing this labour to the railways. That is, we are paying the cost of it because we feel that this is a measure to supplant these relief camps.


Grote Stirling: Is the government paying the whole cost of the wages to these men?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, all the wages to the
men.


Mr. McCANN:: How much will be spent
by both railways and the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: About $6,000,000.


James Joseph McCann: Everyone who knows
anything about maintenance of way work on the railways knows that labour constitutes at least four-fifths of the cost of this work. I assume that if the railway companies are going to spend dollar for dollar with the government, they will employ considerably more than the 10,000 men to come from the relief camps, or they will be charging against their account exorbitant rates for haulage, shovels and the like in connection with the gravel pits. As I say, over four-fifths of the cost of work done on maintenance of way on the established lines is for labour, so in order to spend dollar for dollar the railway companies will have to employ at least double the number of the men that are to be provided by the government. If they propose to keep on the same number of men this
year as they have had in other years on maintenance work, this will necessitate their having at least 20,000 men. That would take up the 10,000 men from the camps, plus another 10,000 men. I should like to know if the government, through its employment agencies, is to have any say in connection with the extra men to be employed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend says "everyone knows," but I shall have to make some exceptions to that. The Minister of Railways does not know; his deputy does not know and his chief engineer does not know. We checked very carefully the figures that we put before us and we found that if the supervision


James Joseph McCann: The supervision will be
high.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There will be the men required to supervise the work; there will be the materials required for the work as there is a considerable amount of ballasting to be done, and there will be the cost of equipment. The figures I have given appear to present the true picture.


Mr. OOLDWELL:: Is any provision being made with regard to unemployed railway men in the various towns? If the railways are being subsidized to this extent-and I was not aware that the government was to bear the whole cost of the wages-I should think something ought to be done to try to get the railways to take on unemployed railway men. There are hundreds of them in the cities and in some of the smaller centres. Even in the little town of Biggar in my constituency there is a number of railway men who have been almost altogther out of work for several years. Cannot something be done in their behalf when the railways are being subsidized? If we are to embark upon the subsidizing of institutions for the purpose of employing men, the railways are not the only ones that should be considered. We have a bill for the rehabilitation of agriculture and I believe a great deal of unemployed labour could be used advantageously in assisting to clear land which has already been settled in order that the settlers may become self-supporting. That would be a valuable form of the utilization of such subsidized labour. However the specific question I am asking at the moment is: What is to become of unemployed railway men in these towns? Is anything going to be done to give these men employment in view of the subsidy given the railways?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a distinct understanding with both the railways that the ordinary maintenance crews will be employed before

Supply-Railways-Relief Works
this type of labour is utilized by the railways. I think my hon. friend will agree that the railway man who has seniority should be given the first opportunity of seeking employment on extra crews. I doubt very much whether the hundreds of men he speaks of will not be offered work on extra gangs during the summer months. That includes any man with seniority.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will a copy of the agreement be/tween the two railways and the government be tabled?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The agreement has not yet been executed. It has been signed by the railway companies but the government has not signed it because it has not the authorization.


Mr. GREEN:: Is each railway to get the same number of men?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is the provision.


Mr. MacLENNAN:: In many of the towns there is a great number of young single men, now out of employment who were employed by the railways some years ago. They were laid off and they have been waiting year after year for brighter times in the hope of being reemployed on the railways. I understand that in Nova Scotia at a certain point, the terminal at Point Tupper, there are many unemployed men who worked on the railways in years gone by, and under this scheme it is the intention to send men from God knows where, from the relief camps, to work at this point, while these men who have been" waiting for years with their mouths open will get no employment at all. I do not desire to criticize any scheme which the government is strenuously putting forward to alleviate the unemployment situation, but I really do not think it is fair that men who are now out of employment should be handicapped because they refused to become a public charge, to go into the camps or to take relief. It seems to me to -be rather unfair that because of this refusal, because of their independence and possibly because of a little pride-and I wish there were a little more pride left in many people-these men are now to be penalized. They did not choose to go into detention camps, though if they had gone there they would now be eligible for employment, whereas under this scheme it would appear that they are to be penalized for not having become a public charge.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: On the Canadian National at Fort William there are men working who have not worked so early in the season in

years. I know these men personally and I can say that usually they do not get work until well on in the summer. Now they are engaged in regular work with wages.


Angus MacInnis: I do not know whether it is wise to ask more questions on this item; the more questions I ask the more confused I am. Whether it is because I am dense or because the answers are not clear I do not know. Do I understand the minister to say that the whole of the item of $3,100,000 is to be paid in wages to the men who are to do the work?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Angus MacInnis: What is meant by paragraph (d) which has been read by the acting leader of the opposition? Where is the appropriation for that item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under certain conditions, to pay for materials?


Angus MacInnis: Yes. I am referring to paragraph (d), which mentions materials and certain other expenditures. If the whole of this money is to go in wages there will be nothing left for materials and there is nothing further on in the list.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What I attempted to say
was that that wras a saving clause for the government. In the event of our falling lamentably short of the supply of 10,000 men whom we have asked the railways to be prepared to use, we have provided for recouping the railways for such loss as they may incur in consequence of our failure to supply the number of men.


Angus MacInnis: Why should there be any loss even if the government could not find a sufficient number of men in the unemployment relief camps? Could not either the government or the railways advertise for men to do the work? Is there any reason in the present state of the labour market why they should not find the men? I assume that this work is necessary; that the railway companies must perform it if they are to keep their tracks in proper repair; if they are going to this expense it must be because the work must be done. Either that is the situation, or the government is making them a free gift of a certain amount of work, not necessary, in order to keep men employed. That seems to be the only construction to which this item is open as it stands. There is no reason in the world why the government should have to pay for materials. As

Supply-Railways-Relief Works
this item stands, the government furnishes the money to pay the men; the men do the work, and the railways are going to receive all the relief given.


Grote Stirling: I think the reason I
am under the misapprehension that the railways as well as the government were contributing to the wages to be paid is my misunderstanding of the statement of the Minister of Labour on February 26, in which he said in part:
This work will be in addition to the usual maintenance work of the railways. It will be undertaken on a cooperative basis, provision for which will be proposed in the emergency supplementary estimates. Men taken from the relief camps by the railroads will be in private employment and on a basis of work and wages.
I certainly took that to mean that under the cooperative effort the railway companies and the government were going to contribute to the wages. That apparently is not what the minister meant.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it is a cooperative
basis. My hon. friend, as an engineer, will know that to do work of any kind requires both men and material. In this case the railways furnish the material, the supervision and the equipment of all kinds and stand the costs in connection therewith. The government pays the costs of direct labour of the men it furnishes to the railways. Therefore I think the statement of the Minister of Labour was accurate.


Ernest Edward Perley: I should like
the Minister of Railways to enlighten us on this point. I know that the agreement cannot legally be put through until authority is given by parliament. But the draft is ready and has been signed by the railways. Does it provide that only men from the relief camps can be used for this purpose, or, as my hon. friend from Winnipeg North suggested, if there are not enough men from the relief camps, who are to work there? Is there any provision by which other unemployed men can be used for this purpose?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The railways agree to
utilize men furnished them by the government. We propose to take those men from the relief camps.


Ernest Edward Perley: Only?


Clarence Decatur Howe: But if we wish to extend
that further, there is nothing in the agreement to prevent our doing so.


Grote Stirling: Still, the government
will pay the wages.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite; if we furnish the men to the railways we pay their wages.


Ernest Edward Perley: What is the
purpose of the government with regard to this particular point? Do they intend to pay the wages only of men who have come from the relief camps, or, if there are not sufficient of those, do they intend to pay the wages of other unemployed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think it has been made sufficiently clear that under the work as contemplated we propose to supply these men from the relief camps up to a maximum of
10,000	men. If there should not be 10,000 men available from the relief camps, it is within the terms of the agreement as I understand it that they can be supplied from other sources, and I need not remind the right hon. gentleman that there are relief hostels in our larger cities from which the additional number could be supplied without any difficulty whatsoever. As a matter of fact, upon the basis of progress made thus far, we do not anticipate that there will be difficulty in supplying the 10,000 men from the relief camps. That was the original object of the plan. It is bound up in an integral way with our whole plan of closing the relief camps as from July 1.


Major James William Coldwell: Looking at this amount and all the items, including compensation, transportation, overhead, material and so on, the cost of the 10,000 men will run to about $300 a head. The question I am asking is this: Are these men paid wages and then will they pay the company board? Or will the company board them and the government simply pay an amount of wages? In other words, is the company making a contribution by way of board and lodging and the government paying the wages, or will the government also pay the board of these men? Or will the board be deducted from the men's wages? If so, has a basis of such deduction been arrived at between the government and the railway companies?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The men will be furnished in exactly the same way as any other people who are employed by the railway on the same class of work. There will be no special privileges or exemptions or anything else; they are just men returning to the ordinary occupations of life, employed in the ordinaiy way, paid wages in the ordinary way, exactly as any other men who are employed on extra gang work for railways.

Supply-Railways-Relief Works


Ernest Edward Perley: Could the
minister inform us whether under this item the railway companies could undertake such work as reconditioning freight and passenger cars, locomotives and equipment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The work is restricted entirely to maintenance of way work, extra gang work. In railway circles extra gang work is very clearly defined as work on tracks.


Mr. THOMPSON:: Is it the policy of the government to utilize all the men in the unemployment camps before any unemployed railway men will be taken care of?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We seem to be working in circles. I explained some time ago that all normal railway employment will be utilized before we recruit any men from the relief camps. That is just the opposite of what my hon. friend suggests.


Mark Cecil Senn: May I ask the minister if
under the terms of this agreement the railways will have the authority to dismiss men who are not found satisfactory? In addition to that, will they be replaced by the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of course the railways must be permitted to dismiss men who are not satisfactory. Whether they are replaced or not will, I suppose, be optional with the government. In other words, if they are not replaced we shall not be held responsible for the wages.


Howard Charles Green: What is the connection between this particular vote and item 427, which provides for a loan of about $1,100,000 to the railways, presumably for this same work? Is that $1,100,000 a part of the $3,100,000 which we are putting up under item 419, or what is the explanation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know whether it is in order to explain a vote that we have yet to come to, but I should be very glad to do so. The difficulty of making this agreement with the railroads was that when we first approached them they both had had their budgets for 1936 approved, and no provision had been made for the railroads' portion of this item, amounting to about $3,000,000 for the two railways. In order to facilitate the making of the agreements, we undertook to finance the railways for a short period for the portion of the railroads' part of the expenditure that will be for labour, that is the labour of supervision and the skilled labour

used in operating the equipment necessary to put these men at work. It is purely in the nature of a loan with interest to the railways for a short period to permit them to take advantage of this situation.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Another matter is not clear to my mind. I understood the Minister of Labour to say a moment ago that all the men in the relief camps would first be absorbed. Now I understand the Minister of Railways to say that the unemployed railway men will be taken care of first. I represent a large railway town, Smith's Falls, in which there is a large number of unemployed railway men. It would seem only right and proper that if work is to be done on the railways these unemployed railway men should be taken care of before outsiders are taken on. If I am not mistaken, the Minister of Labour said a moment ago that the unemployed men in the camps would be taken care of first.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Out of the 10,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I can make this clear. This vote has nothing whatever to do with the ordinary maintenance work on the railways. In other words the railways continue with ordinary maintenance work with their usual forces, and I think my hon. friend will agree that, as I explained before, any man with seniority on the railway has been employed during the last summer or two on maintenance of way or extra gang work. This procedure will be followed first; and it is entirely aside from this problem. This work is entirely apart and in addition to any ordinary maintenance of way work of the railways. The first men to be employed for this additional gang work, which is to be separately organized in every way, will be the men from the relief camps, as my colleague the Minister of Labour has said.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: Is it going to be the policy of the government to take men from the relief camps, place them in employment with private companies and pay their wages with government funds? If so, and if there is any surplus of men left in the relief camps, have the government any idea what they are going to do with those men? Would they consider putting them at work like farming and in that way subsidizing the farmers of western Canada? This looks like a gift to the railways as far as I can see.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe that same question arose during the discussion on the estimates of the Department of Labour. In addition to providing this extra gang work for 10,000 of

Supply-Railways-Relief Works
those formerly in relief camps, we are also making every effort to secure employment for the remaining men in the relief camps, and from the decrease in the strength in the relief camps during the past few months we have reason to believe that these efforts have been quite successful. Apart from that, my hon. friend will perhaps recall that the wage allowance for those who will be engaged in relief camp projects until July 1 has been increased, so that when the men leave the relief camps on July 1, they will at least have some stake for industrial reestablishment.


John Charles Landeryou: But what I want to know is whether the government's efforts will include the subsidizing of these men in employment, or is it intended just to let them shift for themselves?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not sure that I understand the distinction. We are maintaining employment for these men in relief camps until July 1, so far as they do not find employment with the railway companies under the plan now before the committee.


John Charles Landeryou: But the minister said that efforts would be made to place these men in employment. Does the effort include subsidizing some classes of society to pay their wages?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The answer is no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think we should let this item pass without frankly admitting that we are subsidizing the two railways to the amount of $3,100,000.
Mr. FINN; Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Namely, $1,550,000 to the Canadian Pacific and $1,550,000 to the Canadian National. It is a straight cash subsidy to the two railways in the form of wages of labour on maintenance of way work. We may as well frankly face the situation; this committee and the country ought to note that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is benefiting to the extent of $1,550,000. It is about time also that the Canadian people realized that the Canadian National has been vilified up and down the country for the last six years, antil it is to me amazing that the officers of that railway have been able to carry on at all. Furthermore we are subsidizing them to the extent of another million dollars by another item. That makes $4,209,400 that the government is giving as a subsidy to the railways.
The hon. member asks what I think is a very proper question. The government is going to subsidize the Canadian Pacific for its
maintenance of way work, which is two years overdue. Ride from here to Winnipeg on that railway and you get thrown out of your seat, whereas that road used to be in excellent shape. The Canadian Pacific is two years behind its normal track work program. To talk about this being extra, above all that is necessary, is sheer nonsense. The Canadian Pacific is being given a subsidy of $2,000,000 for maintenance of way work of which it is in dire need. It is time that the people of Canada know we are playing the part of a pretty good friend to the Canadian Pacific, and there is no reason why we should not subsidize some other industries, or the farm-era of this country, to take care of 5,000 men from the camps.


Robert Emmett Finn: And the fishermen.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And the fishermen, too. I deplore the suggestion that we are not giving a special favour to these railways, because we are. Of course to the Canadian National we hand out money pretty generously, in any case; we supply the capital, but we ought to make it abundantly clear that in this vote we are subsidizing the Canadian Pacific for ordinary maintenance of way work, long past due, to keep their trains from rocking off the tracks; that is what it amounts to. Furthermore, it will take a whole lot more than $2,000,000 to put their tracks into normal condition. I say that without fear of successful contradiction. I am not objecting to this vote at all; I would not object to doubling it; I commend the Minister of Labour for the scheme of getting the camps closed and the men into useful work. But I would enlarge that tremendously; I would subsidize the putting of men to work in this country, as my hon. friend from Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) said this afternoon. I would subsidize putting them to work on reforestation. Look at the pitiful little vote for grade separation, $1,000,000. Make it $5,000,000 and do a real job; save a few lives as well as increase employment. Before this session is ended I am going to have something to say about where the money would come from; I am not at all afraid of that. This talk about where the money is to come from, when human lives are going to the devil every day for want of a bit of employment, does not frighten me. It is about time, as the Minister of Finance said the other day, to look facts in the face. There are some other facts to look in the face; this fact that we are subsidizing the Canadian Pacific as well as the Canadian National ought to be noted and well noted in this country.

Supply-Railways-Relief Works
By the way, the Minister of Finance made the statement the other day that we have done everything the British authorities have done except balance the budget.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, I am not very far wrong. Read the words.


Charles Avery Dunning: I know very well what I said.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All right, we will pause for a moment and.find it. I am not far out, and I am quite willing to be checked, because I think it will sound quite as well in the minister's language as in mine.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am quite sure of that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister tell me what he did say?


Robert Emmett Finn: The hon. member had better read it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I have time to find it, I will read it. In any case the minister said that we had done virtually all the British had done, with the exception of balancing the budget. While he is looking his statement up-


Charles Avery Dunning: Let me read what I did say.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I refer to page 2384 of Hansard. Although this is not the budget debate, I believe I should be given an opportunity to make this quotation. I suppose these and other words of mine will be duly and extensively criticized within the next few days.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not criticizing them. I am citing them as an authority.


Charles Avery Dunning: The words are these:
I am well aware that this will be called a doctrine of deflation. Indeed, I have heard it said recently that Canada has been following a policy of "heroic deflation" and that she should take a leaf out of the book of the mother country. It is not easy for me to understand how departure from the gold standard, recurring deficits, financing by borrowing, of the magnitude of these which I have outlined, and a monetary policy which has allowed the Canadian dollar to fluctuate approximately at par with the managed Sterling standard and with the devalued United States dollar and which has made possible an expansion of the country's cash base just as rapidly as that of Great Britain, can be described as deflation. More careful analysis would rather appear to indicate that in those financial matters about the only point in the British program which we have not already adopted is her policy of keeping the budget balanced.
[Mr, Stevens.l


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is practically what I said.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Practically what I said.


Charles Avery Dunning: As a matter of fact, it reads better than I thought it did.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was written, so naturally it agrees. Let me tell the minister that I was citing it for this reason: We talk about doing what the British have done. The government is subsidizing the Canadian Pacific Railway to repair its right of way. That is what we are doing to-night. Why not do what the British have done and subsidize some of our industries to enable them to reemploy workmen in their industries? Assist them in going so far as to relocate; move them from one place to another. That is a part of the British program that we do not have.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will
appreciate that in this instance I specifically referred to the financial problem.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And that is her financial problem.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, I see.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is part of the British financial problem of which we are not taking notice.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not a financial
problem at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely, it is. It comes out of their general provision for financing for unemployment; that is what it does. We are doing nothing in that respect, with the exception of this matter for which I commended the minister some weeks ago. In so far as it accomplishes the return of men to normal employment, it is good and it is commendable. But do not let us blind our eyes to the fact that it is a straight subsidy to the Canadian Pacific Railway as well as to our own Canadian National Railways, and I can see no reason in the world why the hon. member's question, asked a minute ago, is not a reasonable one. Why should we not extend the subsidizing of private corporations from the Canadian Pacific Railway to other industries, if you like? It may be to the lumber industry; it may be to the factories and it may be, as I said a minute ago, by way of an enlarged vote for grade separation. Why should we not subsidize some of these almost bankrupt municipalities in which there are extremely dangerous level crossings? Of what use will $1,000,000 be in the work of

Sup-ply-Railways-Relief Works
grade separation? Some of this work is costly, and we could spend 85,000,000 to the greatest advantage. I should like to say to the government that I believe it is their duty earnestly to face that situation and to recognize the reasonableness of this question: Why should we not subsidize some other lines of industry, in addition to the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In fairness to the railways permit me to say that this is not a subsidy to the railways in any way, shape or form. This government had a serious problem on its hands. There were from 10,000 to 20,000 men in the relief camps, the numbers fluctuating with the seasons. Those camps cost the country 89,000,000 in the past year. The men are performing work which, to say the least is hardly commensurate with the cost of maintenance of the camps. For a number of years conditions in those camps have been the subject of complaint, and there has been considerable discontent in them. Some of our authorities consider them a serious menace to peace and order.
Faced with that problem the government went to the railway companies and asked their assistence. In handling the problem it was necessary to have large scale employment within the capacity of men in the relief camps, and by that I mean work which would require perhaps less than the average ability of the men. It is necessary to have the men work under supervision, and work under an organization capable of handling 10,000 men, using decent equipment and working under good conditions. As I say, work was required which would put the men on a basis of equality with other workers in the same class of employment.
We went to the railways with that problem and asked for their help. I may say that they found it rather difficult to help, because their budgets for the year had been brought down, and the employment of large numbers of men required large expenditures, for which they had made no provision. The railways went as far as we could reasonably ask them to go, and in order that they might be enabled to bear their full share we had to help them out by way of loans. But after the railways had come to the aid of the government, as they have, I must object seriously to any man saying in the House of Commons that we are subsidizing the Canadian Pacific Railway, or our own road the Canadian National Railways.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister may object if he likes, but that does not end the matter by any means. It is all very well for him to 12739-159
say that the government had a problem. Of course they had a problem. No person criticizes them in that respect, and I am commending the minister and the government for having worked out the problem, so far as it has been worked out. But to say that the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways are doing this country a favour by accepting 84,000,000 in restoration of their degenerated-I think that is the best word-


An hon. MEMBER:: Reconstruction.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -right of way is, I think, sheer nonsense. The minister may take objection to what I say, and to the way I put it, but I know what I am talking about. Both railway companies are in dire need of restoration and maintenance of way work. They are in very serious need of it, and everybody knows it. By the way, one or two members spoke aibout the placing at work of the maintenance of way gangs of the railways. I want to say to the hon. member who appeared to know what he was talking about, and to the hon. member for Fort William, that neither of these railways is restoring its maintenance of way gangs to normal conditions. They may be doing just about one-tenth of the normal work, as they have been doing in the last four or five years. But when hon. members talk about normal maintenance of way work carried on by the railway companies may I say that if it were undertaken it would easily absorb 10,000 men, without a dollar from the government. The railways are not doing that. If the agreement calls for it, and the minister and government will check on it, they will find that a few thousand more men will have work than those for whom provision has already been made.
The minister has objected to my observations, and I take just as strenuous objection to any person who gives out the impression that the Canadian Pacific Railway have come to us, like philanthropists, and have taken
5,000	men off our hands. What that railway is doing is this: It is accepting 82,000,000 from the taxpayers of Canada to help it pay normal expenditures incurred in connection with its right of way. That is what it is doing, and it is not fair to the taxpayers of Canada to suggest anything else.
I had no intention of making these observations, but to-day and other days I have listened to the suggestion that we, the parliament of Canada, were receiving some great favour from the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways because we were being permitted to pay the cost of their



Supply-Railways-Relief Works
maintenance of way work. I think it is about time that the country should realize that in this and in other respects we have been very kind to the Canadian Pacific. I am not criticizing that at all; I am quite willing to be kind, but I am not willing to be kind to the Canadian Pacific much longer if they abuse the Canadian National Railways the way they have been doing during the last four or five years. It is about time that the taxpayers of this country who own the Canadian National Railways should realize that they have a good plant and a valuable asset. True it was overbuilt, overextended, but let us look also at the overextension of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Some of these days, when I have an opportunity, I shall indicate some of those facts. I think it is about time that we had a little consideration for the Canadian National railway system, and that the country should recognize that it does not owe to the Canadian Pacific Railway any very great debt of gratitude for accepting two million dollars or so in this case, four or five million dollars in another case, and a loan of sixty million dollars in another case. Let us recognize that we have been a fairy godmother to the Canadian Pacific Railway as well as to the Canadian National Railways.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I have
listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the last speaker, but I scarcely think they are germane to the matter before the committee. I am intensely interested in the question raised by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacLennan). If I followed the Minister of Railways this vote is to take care of 10,000 men from the relief camps, and their employment is not to interfere with the ordinary maintenance work of the railways in each season. Along the line of railway with which I am familiar-and I suppose my experience is no.t different from that of other members-not only does that ordinary work include the usual maintenance work of the railway, but every spring a considerable number of extra men is taken on who, although not permanent, are dependent for employment on that class of labour. But during the last few years, owing to the economies put into effect, their employment has been more intermittent than usual. I am anxious to know whether this extra work will interfere with that class of labour.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I should read from
the agreement which has been signed by the railway companies but not by the government:
The company will arrange to extend its program of maintenance of way and betterment work during the season of 1936 so as to

provide employment on its line of railway for approximately five thousand men in addition to those who would otherwise be engaged in such work during the said season, and will as far as practicable carry out such work over a period of from four to six months but so that the wages of such additional men will not exceed in the aggregate the sum of $1,502,450.
So the agreement states definitely that these men will be in addition to the men who would otherwise have been employed during the season.


James Joseph McCann: What year do they base
that on?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know that they
base it on any year. It is 1936 requirements, I assume.


James Joseph McCann: Is the maintenance work
this year going to be equal to that of last year or of those years when times were good?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is in addition to the men
they would ordinarily have employed in 1936.


James Joseph McCann: There is a good deal of
difference between the number employed in 1929 and in 1935.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, may we
ask now that the minister table the agreement because it is one of the recognized rules that any document a minister quotes from shall be tabled? There can be no objection to tabling the agreement because it is signed by both companies and merely awaits, I suppose, the authority of the statute which is before the house. We would have a more intelligent idea of the matter if the agreement were tabled, and it would probably save a good deal of trouble.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be very glad to
table the agreement as soon as it is completed.


James Joseph McCann: Will the wage cheques be actually issued by the government or by the railways?


Clarence Decatur Howe: By the railways, and they
will be reimbursed by the government.


James Joseph McCann: Might I ask if the government has considered the plan of deferred wages such as they have now in the relief camps? I would suggest that this would be a good plan because after these men have worked a few months, if no part of their pay is held back, a great many of them will be back upon the country again; whereas under the deferred payment plan, if twenty-five per cent of their wages was withheld until the end of the season, and paid to them on

Supply-Railways-Relief Works
leaving when the work was all finished, they would have something to tide them over the winter months. If that is not done I am afraid that at the end of the season a great many of them will find themselves in exactly the same position as when they started work in midsummer, and the consequence will be that they will continue to be a charge upon the country and probably land back in the relief camps whence they came.


Grote Stirling: Does the agreement state what the rate of wages will be?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be the standard rate
of wages paid by the railways for the class of work the men are doing.


Grote Stirling: From the answer of the
minister to the question asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Riggar (Mr. Coldwell), I do not yet know who is going to pay the board of these men. Will the $300, roughly, which will reach each of these men be after board is deducted, or will they have to pay their board out of that $300? If the latter is the case, I do not think the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. McCann) need worry very much about deferred pay because the men will not have very much left.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How does my hon. friend
arrive at his computation?


Grote Stirling: Ten thousand into


Clarence Decatur Howe: This employment is from four to six months.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That makes it worse.


Grote Stirling: During the period each
will get about $300.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the ordinary wages for
track men, which I believe is twentydive cents an hour in some sections and thirty-five cents an hour in others; that is for ordinary labour. Board, of course, is provided by the men. I may say in answer to my hon. friend opposite that the question of holding back part of the wages was considered, but we decided that as we were trying to get these men back to active private life, it would be improper to distinguish between the men ordinarily employed by the railways and the men taken from the camps. We wished to rid the minds of these men, some of whom have been looked after by the government for several years of the idea that they were wards of the government. Otherwise it might be hard 12739-159i
for them to understand that they were on their own resources. If they want to squander their money, as my hon. friend suggests, they will have to reap the rewards of that sort of thing.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I object to being termed, "hon. friend opposite." Our criticism is intended to be helpful. I agree with the minister when he says that we cannot make saints of men, whether they are in the labour camps or on the railways. They have as much right as we have to be foolish in spending their money. My concern is that the labour situation, especially in the municipalities along the lines of railways, shall' not be made more difficult by bringing in? these men from the relief camps. I know it is a difficult problem with which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Howe) have to deal, but my contention is that the problem should not be made more difficult for the municipalities through which the railways pass.


Robert Emmett Finn: I did not catch the exact words of the agreement with the railways. The minister referred to certain specific purposes such as the betterment of roads and so on, but I should like to have the exact language.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The agreement reads:
The company will arrange to extend its program of maintenance of way and betterment work during the season of 1936 so as to provide employment on its line of railway for approximately 5,000 men in addition to those who would otherwise be engaged in such work during the said season.


Robert Emmett Finn: How much goes to the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Half of the amount, or Sl,-
550,000.


Robert Emmett Finn: I agree with many of th< statements made by the leader of the recon struction party (Mr. Stevens). It is quits true that that party is not very large, but while they did not succeed numerically, they sent the best brains in the party to the house. For that reason I compliment them. It seems to me that the leader of the reconstruction party is largely right and partly not wrong. He takes a view different from that which I take. I do not think this parliament or this country is under any obligation to the Canadian Pacific Railway to warrant our placing money directly in its hands. That railway is not poor; it never has been poor; it is rich in lands; it is rich in assets; in some directions it is rich in brains although to some extent the greatest brains are underneath the

Supply-Railways-Relief Works
ground. I am afraid that they are, shall I say, stooping to underground methods. What do we find when we read the annual report of the Canadian Pacific Railway? After applying $3,500,000 on the depreciation of their ocean steamships, which are under a separate corporation, the Canadian Pacific Ocean Steamships Limited, with a European manager who was recently knighited and who lives in London, they show profits of $1,348,526.


Frederick George Sanderson: In my opinion the hon. member is out of order. The time will come when he can discuss the Canadian Pacific Railway, but I think such a discussion is out of order under this item.


Robert Emmett Finn: As I said this afternoon, it seems to me that other hon. gentlemen are allowed a great deal of latitude, but I have to take the gun. My hon. friend opposite, the leader of the reconstruction party, has been longer in this house than I have; he knows the rules, and so do I, but when I speak I am 'he one who gets the gaff. I should like to know the reason why.


Abraham Albert Heaps: You are on the wrong side of the house.


Robert Emmett Finn: If that is the reason, if I have to take the gaff, I shall take it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. gentleman
should move to the northeast corner.


Robert Emmett Finn: The hon. gentleman will be lucky if he gets back into any corner after the next election.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My hon. friend should apply that statement to himself. I am safe enough; I shall be back.


Robert Emmett Finn: The hon. member may be back in Ottawa but not in the house. I do not desire to depart from the rules of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Emmett Finn: If that is a compliment, I accept it; if it is not, I reject it. I can quite understand giving money to the Canadian National Railways because that would be just taking it out of one pocket and putting it into another. It is Canadian money and it would be going back to the Canadian people, but as my hon. friend said-I was going to say my right hon. friend, and perhaps some day he will be-when you take a similar amount and hand it over to the Canadian Pacific Railway, they relieve themselves first and relieve the reliever afterwards. I can see many many ways in which that money could be better employed. As I say, this company wrote off nearly $3,500,000 as

depreciation on their steamships; they took that amount out of earnings and were still able to show a profit of $1,348,000. When they were asked why they did not declare a dividend they replied that they wanted some ready money. For what? It was not to be used in connection with anything in Canada; they wanted it in order to be ready to hand over to the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Robert Emmett Finn: Order, quite true. Furthermore, we have to deal with the facts. If they are not dealt with here, they will be dealt with under some other subject. There is no sound reason why, to use the words of the leader of the reconstruction party, we should subsidize the Canadian Pacific Railway in the manner indicated. The Canadian Pacific Railway is a private corporation; let it look after itself. The company's own statement shows what they have. Their ships are practically new. The Empress of Britain is just new, the Duchess boats practically new, the "M" boats are not yet in their prime, and the Beaver boats, 10,000 ton freighters, are absolutely new.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I must ask the hon. gentleman to observe the ruling of the chair.


Robert Emmett Finn: I respect your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member must confine his remarks to the item under discussion. He is entirely out of order and I must ask him to observe the rules of the committee and see that his remarks bear entirely on the item under discussion.


Robert Emmett Finn: The item we are dealing with is 419, which reads:
To provide for reimbursement to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and to the Canadian National Railway Company, upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, of expenditures to be made by each of the said companies for:
(a)	Labour in the employment of certain unemployment relief forces on special work in extension of the said companies' programs of maintenance of way and betterment works during the year 1936;
(b)	Workmen's compensation liability relative to such labour;
(c)	Certain allowances for transportation of such labour;
(d)	Certain other expenditures for labour, material and overhead incurred by the railway companies if such expenditures are made during 1936 in preparation for or in completion of work expected to be performed by the unemployment relief forces but not performed because of shortage of unemployment relief forces, not exceeding in the aggregate. $3,100,000.

Supply-Railways-Relief Works
Now I wish to ask a question and not to make a statement, and in that respect I do not think I shall be infringing the rule. In discussing an item which has to do with expenditures on maintenance of way, and other purposes to be determined by the governor in council, is it or is it not competent for me or any other hon. member to turn to the sheet in the company's annual report in which this very question is dealt with, wherein they appropriate certain moneys themselves, and to compare their program with what we are to give them, in order to ascertain whether they need more or less than is being provided? If I am to make comparisons of this sort it is necessary for me to look at the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's annual report, which has come into my hands. If I am told, in discussing this item, that I may not refer to that report in urging the Minister of Railways to exercise the discretion that remains in the governor in council, by order in council, to do certain things; if I may not, in my own feeble and humble way, offer what I regard as sound reasons why perhaps the matter should be reconsidered, but am told that I am out of order, then I respect the ruling of the chair. I respect the hon. gentleman who is in the chair, the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of this committee, and I shall always be prepared to bow to his ruling. But I ask the chairman now whether I am out of order when I use this report to assist me in giving my reasons why some change should be made in this particular vote.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have already given my ruling and the hon. member can appeal against it if he sees fit.


Robert Emmett Finn: Since I have been in the parliament of Canada I have never taken exception to any ruling of the Speaker or of the Chairman and I do not propose to do so now. I accept the ruling and will confine my remarks strictly to the subject matter within the four corners of the item. But as we all pray before going to bed at night, if we pass away before morning, that He be merciful to us all as sinners; with the generosity of a Nova Scotian-and I see two of my Nova Scotia friends across the way-I leaveit at that.
The Minister of Railways referred to squandering, and I think that is true. I was trying to find the cause, and I think I see it in the reconstruction act which is now up in the red chamber. As I see it, at the end of the season so much is paid to the men employed; whatever is due is paid in a lump sum. and that is to help to carry them over
the winter. Now we all know that everybody has good intentions and we know the name of the place the way to which is paved with them, and the suggestion I have to offer is this, that the balance should be paid monthly or weekly and not in a lump sum. In a great many cases they might not intend it, but when the grey cold dawn of the morning after comes they will find they have nothing. They should be protected against themselves; their families should be protected. That is the only suggestion I make. If the balance due were distributed over the period of time during which the men might not be working, it would help their families. It might involve a little extra bookkeeping, but if it brought a little more happiness to the homes it might well be considered by the Minister of Railways. I know from my short acquaintance with him that his ability is outstanding and his kindness of heart is not excelled by any hon. gentleman's in this house. With that last word I shall not intrude again into the debate on this particular item.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Before this item is carried there is one matter to which I wish to refer. I have no objection to this item. When the Minister of Labour brought it in a few weeks ago as part of the government's scheme to close down the relief camps, I was heartily in favour of the proposal. I felt it was a good thing to try to liquidate these relief camps as soon as we possibly could. But as the Minister of Labour has said on several occasions during the past few weeks, we ought to take the long range view of this problem of unemployment, and I want to apply that principle for a moment or two to these particular items which are now before the committee. If I recall correctly what was stated to-night, the men are to be employed, not for six months as the minister has stated, but for four months in these camps. They will receive on an average approximately $275 each in the form of wages for four months' work in the camps; it may not be full time; it may be short time, but if the whole of the $3,100,000 were to be divided among ten thousand men it would be approximately $300 apiece. From that sum, however, must be deducted transportation, probably costs of construction of the camps, maybe one or two other items. Therefore I think, when it is all boiled down, the average amount of wages received will be in the neighbourhood of $275. Out of that sum the men will have to pay for, say four months' board. I do not know what that will amount to, but I have an idea that it will be about $1 a day. Add to that other expenses incidental to staying in one of those construction camps, and I venture

Supply-Railways-Relief Works
to assert that when the four months have gone the minimum expenditure of a man in the camps will have been about $175. In that event, when he leaves the camp he will probably have $100 at his disposal. At the time the camps close down the winter months will be upon us, and the first thing those young men will require will be a certain amount of winter clothing. When the individual has equipped himself in that respect he will be left with a comparatively small amount of money.
Now, taking that long range view which the Minister of Labour has suggested to the house and to this committee upon so many occasions during the past few weeks, I am wondering what will happen to these men who will be employed on construction work after they have left the camps with a small amount of money in their pockets. Has the government any considered policy based upon what may be expected to become of these men once they leave the camps? Do ministers suppose that if the men leave with $50, $75, or $100, that will be a solution of the unemployment question? That does not seem to me to be looking so very far ahead. We are now in the month of May. The men will soon be working in those construction camps if they are not doing so now. When September comes round they will have to leave those camps, and their natural course will be to drift to the larger industrial centres. In September or October very few will be available for any farm work, assuming that farm work can be found for them. Has the Minister of Railways or the Minister of Labour any plans in mind or any suggestions to make as to what will be the policy of the government once these relief works close down? In asking this question I am merely adopting that long range view of the situation which the minister himself urged should be taken.


Ernest Edward Perley: I should like
again to call attention to paragraph (d). As I understand the explanations made by the two ministers in discussing the bill, the agreement is intended by the government in the first instance to take care of single men from these relief camps, and if there are 10,000 of them they will be used for that purpose. The Minister of Labour said that there was nothing in the bill to prevent the government from using other unemployed if it should turn out that there were not 10,000 men available from the relief camps for this purpose. In view of their effort to close the camps there is a certain amount of justification, so far as the government is concerned, for this item in the estimates, but paragraph (d), it seems to me,

should not be there. I do not think that, as has been explained by the two ministers, any part of this money should be used for anything but the payment of labour, wages to the relief camp men if they are available, or to others if there are not enough men from the relief camps. Why should the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian National Railways be paid for materials that are not used? Those materials will not be lost; they will be needed for other purposes. The expenditures made upon them by the railways will not be wasted if 10,000 men are not provided by the government; and on the minister's own explanation paragraph (d) should not be there. The purpose of this is to give work. All the money provided by the government should be used to pay wages. The railways should be perfectly willing to supply all the materials, and if by chance some of them should not be used this year they can be sold or used next year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is what the lawyers call a saving clause. The Department of Justice has put-


Ernest Edward Perley: Saving the railways.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it is a saving to this government. The department has to be very careful that it does not get the government into difficulties. Without that clause we might be agreeing to supply the railways 10,000 men, and in this free country it might be difficult to do that. We have no power to order these men as we like. If my right hon. friend will look closely at this paragraph he will see that it provides for this payment only in the event of our not fulfilling our agreement to furnish
10,000	men, and if we ask the railways to make elaborate preparations to receive men who are not supplied, we simply compensate them for expenditures they made, due to our fault or failure to furnish men. Common sense assures us that we shall be able to furnish a substantial number of men and there will be no such costs involved .to the railways as this paragraph contemplates.


Ernest Edward Perley: If there are not
sufficient men from the relief camps, are the government prepared to take other unemployed? They know 10,000 men can be provided, and I do not understand the object of this paragraph. If the Canadian Pacific buy ties which cannot be used this year because sufficient men are not supplied by the government, the ties are there, and they are worth the money; why should the government pay for them?

Supply-Railways-Relief Works


Mt. YOUNG:: I should like ho ask the minister whether there is any doubt that other labour will be employed provided sufficient men cannot ibe obtained from the oamps. It seems to me there should be no doubt at all on that point. In every city in this country we have a large number of men who are not on relief owing only to the fact that they have such a pride that they would rather almost starve to death to keep off, and for their pride or .patriotism they are being penalized under this legislation. To me that is the worst feature of it. Men who are not quite so patriotic, who more willingly went into the camps-and I know many of them are there against their will-are to be the first to get help, while these others, many of whom I know personally, who Struggled to keep out of the camps, are not going to get employment under this provision. I would like to have assurance from the minister that if there is any chance of the number of unemployed men in the camps not being sufficient to supply the number required on the railways, these other men of whom I speak will be employed. I recognize that the purpose of the government is to do away with the unemployment camps, and that is the reason for taking these men first. I think we all agree with that, but I want to be assured that these other men of whom I have spoken will have an opportunity of employment. All the more should that be done because it appears that if we are not able to supply the
10,000	men we must give the companies the money which they are supposed to be out of pocket in preparing for the work to be done. I say "supposed to be" because I feel that there is not going to be very much preparation in advance for this work except such as will -be useful later on. So if I can have from the minister the assurance that these men will be given work I shall be much better satisfied.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should be very glad indeed if it turned out that the government was unable to find ten thousand men in the camps for this work, a contingency which is contemplated in paragraph (d). Only a lawyer versed in technicalities would think of that, but I understand how a man who desired to ensure the protection of the government would foresee it. But I think I can assure my hon. friend that there will be no such difficulty.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: My point is that if they are not in the camps-


Clarence Decatur Howe: They will be furnished in some way.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My colleague has raised a question which has not been answered, and which I think should be answered. We are to some extent handicapped in this committee on account of the way in which the votes are divided up. On an earlier estimate we asked a question of the Minister of Labour and he said that he could not answer because certain matters came under other departments. Now we have come to one of these other departments, the Department of Railways and Canals, and although we are dealing with the estimates of that department I take it that we are in reality dealing with the question of unemployment. The only reason we have an estimate of this kind is that of unemployment. Now for some days we have been discussing the general question, how to deal with the large numbers of unemployed men. Apparently the scheme for dealing with the men now in the camps is to put 10,000 of them to work on the railways and hope that the remainder will go on farms. We are dealing now with the provision for the 10,000. I think the minister who is in charge of this estimate cannot avoid looking at the larger question of unemployment, with which the item is supposed to deal. I need not go over the ground covered by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps). This estimate, as he points out, makes provision for the men for a few months. They work; they get wages; that is an improvement on the old camp arrangement. But remember that the railways, including the Canadian Pacific, a privately owned road, get the dole. The railways get relief, their portion of the $3,100,000. And they take no chances whatever, they are protected fully, even against the possibility of loss. The men are employed for the time they can be used; they give something in return for their wages; they give something in return to the public road in one ease and in the other to the private corporation. Now, what is going to happen when they have done this four months' work? There is adequate provision that the railways may suffer no loss, but have we any way of providing for the men at the end of the four months? What does the government propose to do? Are these men to be turned out when the winter comes, as the contractors in the west used to turn out the horses, to forage for themselves? In that case, with the dismantling of the camps, the situation will be worse than ever. I think my colleague is quite within his rights in asking a question which relates to an essential feature in the whole scheme,

Supply-Railways-Relief Works
whether any provision is to be made for the men at the conclusion of the four or five months' work. That is a reasonable question on which we should have some information from the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is scarcely possible for a minister or anyone else to chart the future course of 10,000 individual men. The difficulty of the men in the camps-they have expressed it frequently in the public press and otherwise-is that in the camps their prospect is hopeless. They have no opportunity of securing employment and they receive no money. Now we are finding them employment; surely that is the first step towards rehabilitation. A great deal of concern has been shown here as to why these men should be picked out for this preferment as against other men. At any rate they are being provided with work, ordinary work that ordinary men can perform and live by. My hon. friend lives in a country where employment is seasonal and he knows that a great many men never do anything but this seasonal work, and in spite of that some of them raise families; yet these are all single men. I am confident that these men are similar to other men, who follow seasonal work and are never sure of employment for longer than a four or five month period, because construction work is always seasonal. I know that many men have done well in that class of work. We are starting these men in such work. Some may fail. My hon. friend is acquainted with the machinery for looking after the unemployed in this country; they are not going to be allowed to starve. We are placing these men's feet on the ladder of employment; we believe they will do as other men following the construction industries; when one project is completed they will find other employment. In other words we are establishing these men in employment for a period at least.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then the minister has no plan for continuing employment for the four months?


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Have you?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Has my hon. friend?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, we have not power, but this government went into power on the express understanding that they were to deal with this matter. Apparently they are dealing with it by exactly the same methods as employed by the late government, except they are trying to do it on a little cheaper scale. If anyone is to be helped by this arrangement is is the railways.


Eugène Fiset: And the men.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The railways are being protected against any possible risk. It is all very well to say that these men are having their feet set on the ladder, but are we going to kick away the ladder just when it is set up? Does the minister really believe that in four months, at the rate of pay proposed, these men can save enough to see them through the winter? I do not think he can really believe that. With the whole unemployment situation as it is

and a lot of us know about seasonal unemployment in the west-what are these men going to do when October comes, with no provision whatever made? Surely, if this is the government's plan, or an important part of their plan to deal with unemployment, they ought to be able to see things through a little further than four months.


Robert Emmett Finn: I should like to ask the
Minister of Railways a question. No doubt he believes in equity, yet I find the amount of money being paid the Canadian Pacific Railway is the same as is being paid to the Canadian National Railways, although the latter named system has a mileage of 24,000 as against only 17,000 miles of the former. Therefore there is a difference of 7,000 miles. Why should not these moneys be apportioned according to mileage, so that each railway would get its fair share, and the Canadian Pacific Railway would not get the unearned increment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount to be applied by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada towards the cost of actual construction work for the protection, safety, and convenience of the public in respect of highway grade crossings of railways, as the governor in council may from time to time determine, $1,000,000.
Ernest Edward Perley: Has the minister any particular schemes in view for the expenditure of this money, or will he simply pass it on to the board of railway commissioners? As I remember it, the Minister of Railways recommends the points at which this work is to be done. Is that the procedure?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My understanding is that application may be made by any one to the board of railway commissioners.


Ernest Edward Perley: Directly?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, either by the railways
or by persons. The board of railway commissioners examine the situation, and if they

Supply-Railway Commission
approve the work they make application to the Department of Railways and Canals for the expenditure. The million dollar fund will be administered entirely by the board of railway commissioners.


Ernest Edward Perley: The Minister of
Railways has to give his approval before any of these schemes is put into effect, does he not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Recommendation is made to
council by the Minister of Railways.


Ernest Edward Perley: The board of railway commissioners consider the application. If the minister receives one in the first instance he passes it on to the board; it is considered by them; inspection is made on the spot, and if they think the work may be done properly under this vote the recommendation will come back to the minister who has it in his power or discretion either to ask for an order in council approving, or to let the matter drop.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I assume that is correct,
although as a matter of fact, if a recommendation is made by the board, it is passed on automatically.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister has discretion which is not often used; is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Thomas Reid: Before the item is carried there are one or two figures I should like to lay before the minister. I do this in an endeavour to show where we are drifting in connection with money spent in the elimination of crossings. I do not know whether hon. members are aware that in the past twenty years, out of a total of 31,784 crossings only 1,252 have been protected, leaving 30,532 unprotected crossings. In that time the total amount of money spent in Canada on crossings has been $36,000,000. My reason for presenting these figures to the minister is that I am endeavouring to point- out where we are drifting, and I am asking if we are spending the money to the best advantage. A few years back the system was changed by the railway companies, at which time they displaced workmen by eliminating the watchmen and taking away barriers, instituting a new system known as the wigwag signal. May I point out to the minister that the installation of the new system costs about $5,000. an amount equal to a watchman's pay for eight or ten years. The strange point is that the change has not protected the lives of the people, at all. As a matter of fact deaths and accidents have increased since
the elimination of the watchmen and barriers and the installation of the so-called new system. I for one would like to know who receives the royalty on these installations, and possibly the minister could find out why the Canadian National Railways are charged more than the Canadian Pacific Railway for the installation. This is a serious matter. It is true that a bill has been introduced by a private member. I do not know whether it will bring about the desired result, but I know that after looking through the report of the board of railway commissioners I have come to the conclusion that never in the lifetime of any member of this house, nor in the time of any generation yet born will we eliminate railway crossings in Canada if we proceed at our present rate, unless we pull up the tracks.
The information in the publication by the board of railway commissioners shows that crossings are increasing rather than decreasing and yet we have spent only $36,000,000 in twenty-five years, and are spending only $1,000,000 at this time. We are satisfied with saying: Oh well, by spending a million dollars we are doing something to protect life and limb at railway crossings. The matter has only been scratched. I listened attentively to the observations of the hon. member for East Kootenay when he stated that $5,000,000 would not be sufficient to eliminate the great number of unprotected crossings. We must protect those crossings, if we are going to do the job properly. I would ask the minister to investigate the matter carefully. I believe we would do well to replace the barriers on our highways. It is true that most provinces have regulations stipulating that buses must stop at crossings, but I do not believe we will ever pass laws compelling every motor car to stop before attempting to cross. We may do that, but I have my doubts.
It is my view that the whole matter should be given careful consideration. When one considers the number of accidents which have taken place he is at once aware of the serious nature of the problem. In 1935 there were 242 accidents, in which 114 persons were killed and 304 injured. That is not a complete total of the injured people, because all the figures are not given by the board; only serious accidents and deaths are reported to them. If one examines the figures available for the period between 1915 and 1932 he will find that crossings protected by gates showed a death ratio of fourteen per thousand as against thirty-eight per thousand protected by the modern method.
As I have pointed out, crossings are increasing in number, and deaths are increasing. Yet
Supply-Railway Commission

we are spending these large sums of money. I know the minister is anxious to have the item passed, and I shall not hold- it up, but I thought it was my duty at least to show him that the matter is far more serious than has been hitherto indicated.


Frank Exton Lennard: Do I understand that none of this money will be used for the elimination of level crossings?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The whole sum will be used for that purpose. The board of railway commissioners will have the disposition of it, and I understand practically all of it will be for the elimination of level crossings.


Frank Exton Lennard: I am familiar with crossings along trunk roads in Ontario, and I know that those crossings have -been death traps for years. It is indicated in the vote that "the governor in council -may from time to time determine." He is baking a -mighty long time to arrive at his determination. I agree with the hon. -members for Kootenay East and New Westminster in their statement that the amount should be augmented ten or fifteen times. We should speed u-p the work of removing level crossings and death traps in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I add a word to my earlier observations. It must be obvious to hon. members that this vote does not represent a serious attempt to face the question of the elimination of level crossings. In the first place it is applicable only to places where applications are made and where local authorities are prepared to shoulder their share of the cost. The minister will correct me if I am wrong when I state that under the law the municipality, or the applicant, must pay one-third, the railway must pay one-third and the balance comes out of this provision. Some division of that kind is made, I believe. I may not be quite correct, but there is a division. It is obvious that it will be only certain municipalities or cities that will make application. As the hon. member said a moment ago there are within fifty miles of this city crossings that anyone who drives a motor knows to be veritable death traps, but the local municipality is either unwilling or unable to make application with respect to them, and so the death trap continues to exist. There is no impelling force to induce any authority to take hold of the situation, and so it just stays as it is, and that is all there is to it.
This is a great national problem. Canada ought to be ashamed of its highways in relation to grade crossings. My hon. friend said that $36,000,000 has been spent in twent-y-
five years, but he must remember that those tremendously expensive crossings in Montreal and at the station in Toronto come under this grade separation fund, and I imagine that the major portion of that $36,000,000 has been used in the great cities, which does not touch at all the situation we have described as it exists throughout the country. I am sonry that the minister and the government seem to resent suggestions of this kind. It is a vital matter. In the first place there is a tremendous need for employment, and this is a case where provision can be made not only for employment but for the elimination of one of the greatest outstanding, shall I say, national dangers.
When I said $5,000,000 I -think I put the arnount very low. I would suggest that the minister and the government consider increasing this expenditure by an additional sum, though perhaps not in this estimate, because I know a great many members of this house are very much in earnest about this particular problem. Members, particularly those supporting the government, do not like to embarrass it, but I want to say to the minister and the government that these are constructive and useful suggestions which catch the ear of the people of this country who understand the situation, and they are willing to support any government which will take the necessary measures. It is not a political question ; it is not a question affecting a-ny section ; it is a national question. This is a great opportunity to meet a great national need.
I urge upon the minister once again to consider a definite policy apart altogether from the present statute, which, although it may operate all right in normal times, is restrictive, and seriously to consider a forward movement and the establishment of a national policy in this matter.


Mr. MASSEY:: I speak as a prejudiced
witness, which I admit very frankly, in view of the fact that there are in my riding, which is the municipal riding of the east part of Toronto, three grade crossings, not only exceedingly dangerous -but also very important from the point of view of the amount of traffic that is compelled to pass over them. For many years the question has been discussed and rediscussed of the possibility of changing these grade crossings into subways or otherwise, and if my hon. friend from Broadview (Mr. Church) and my hon. friend from Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) were here they w-ould bear me out in what I have to say.
I would ask the minister if this vote that we are asked to pass to-night may be regarded

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
as simply the first vote along the lines suggested to him by those who have spoken during the last few minutes. One could say a great deal under this item on the necessity of such work as is here contemplated being done on a wide national scale, and I earnestly urge upon the minister that not only in municipalities but throughout the country, on the highways and byways, there is much work of this kind that needs to be done in the interests not only of safety but of subdividing traffic, which is something very much to be desired. I would ask the minister if this may be regarded as simply the first vote along these lines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This vote is supplementary
to the ordinary grade crossing vote, which as we all know is a statutory grant towards the removal of grade crossings. This, in the opinion of the railway commissioners, will cover the government's share of the applications which are made to the board and of which the board approves. If more money is needed I think the government will be glad to consider a larger grant next year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for repairs and improvements to the canals, harbours, and elevators maintained and operated by the Department of Railways and Canals, $167,600.
Ernest Edward Perley: This seems to be quite in order, but why should this item not appear in the ordinary estimates? Why is it in the special supplementaries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This amount is for work that could be done this year or could be deferred. While the work is necessary, it is not necessary in the immediate year. The item has been put in because the work covers a series of small projects that will employ considerable labour rather widely distributed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Deficit of Canadian National Railway Company
Amount not exceeding $39,900,000 to be paid from time to time, under such conditions as the Minister of Finance may prescribe, to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called "the national company") and to be applied by the national company in payment of the net income deficits arising in the calendar year 1936, including such supplementary contribution to the Intercolonial and Prince Erward Island Railways, employees' provident fund as may be necessary to provide for payment in full of monthly allowances under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act, notwithstanding the limitation contained in section four of the said act, and including such supplementary contribution to the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada superannuation and provident fund as may be necessary to enable payment to be made of monthly allowances under the rules and regulations of the fund, notwithstanding the limitation contained in section thirteen of chapter sixty-five of the Statutes of Canada 1874, and including profit and loss but not including non-cash items and interest on dominion government advances, of the national company or of any other or others of the companies comprised in the Canadian National Railways (as defined in chap. 10 of the Statutes of Canada, 1929), or any company controlled hy stock ownership or otherwise by any company comprised in the Canadian National Railways or by the national company in respect of any of the Canadian government railways entrusted to the national company, $39,900,000.
Ernest Edward Perley: Perhaps I am not thoroughly conversant with the matter, but is not this item the same as is covered by a bill which is now before the house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The same item is covered
by a resolution of the Minister of Finance, yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think this item should stand. Is it to go to the special committee?


Charles Avery Dunning: It has been to the special committee and was reported back to the house. I think the chairman of the special committee is present.


Eugène Fiset: The committee
reported to the house on April 30, approving this resolution.


Ernest Edward Perley: That is what I
thought, but it seems to me that the item should gtand until the bill has been passed. I am unable to see quite why there Should be both a bill and an estimate. There are so many of these things coming along just now that I find it a little difficult to follow them. I always thought that a vote in a bill was sufficient without an estimate. But here we have an estimate and we also have a bill by the Minister of Finance dealing with the matter. I would like to have my leader here to discuss it, and I would suggest that it stand in the meantime, and come up again perhaps to-morrow.


Charles Avery Dunning: The bill of the Minister of Finance based upon the resolution which I introduced the other day is still on the order paper, the debate on the second reading having been adjourned. That bill was to provide entirely for the capital expenditures of the railway, not for the deficit. The capital expenditures embodied in that measure amount to $9,959,000, which requires to be voted in a measure of that kind. The estimate before
Supply-R ailways-C .N.R.

the committee now is for the deficit only, and is not contained within the four corners of the bill to which my right hon. friend has just referred. I cam assure him that the procedure is quite regular, to vote this after it has been examined by the special committee and reported upon.


Ernest Edward Perley: I understand the explanation given that there is both a resolution and estimates, but it is an entirely new departure to have beforehand an estimate for a deficit. How does the minister know there will be no further deficit? Why does he not wait until the end of the year? Why change the system that has always been in vogue and ask for an estimate beforehand? There is danger in doing so because there will be an urge on the part of the railway authorities to have a deficit as large as the estimate. Human nature is the same all over the world, and I say to the minister that it is dangerous to ask parliament to provide beforehand a large sum of money for a deficit. At any rate, it is something new and I ask the minister to let this item stand as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) would like to say a few words on the subject.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall not oppose the request of the right hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) to defer consideration of this item in order that his leader may make some further remarks upon it. With reference to his last remark I would point out that even though no advance estimate was voted by parliament in previous years for Canadian National deficits, that did not absolve the Minister of Finance of the day from the necessity of endeavouring to forecast for his own budget purposes the amount necessary to take care of the Canadian National during the year. If the result feared by my right hon. friend had any real basis, it should have occurred ere this. In each of the last few years the Minister of Finance in presenting his budget has been compelled to make provision for a sum which could be known and was known to the Canadian National officials.


Ernest Edward Perley: But not voted.


Charles Avery Dunning: But not voted by the house. I can remember years ago when I was Minister of Railways and Canals that complaints were made in the special committee on railways that we were voting something which was relatively meaningless because the money had been spent anyway. I believe that nearly all hon. members who have had experience on that special committee will bear out what I say. By dealing with the 
matter in this way, it is possible to crossexamine the officials of the railway regarding their intended expenditures. In other words, they are put on the spot in exactly the same manner as the members of this committee put each minister on the spot with reference to the expenditures he intends to undertake. That is the whole principle involved in the change. While I appreciate that there may be something in the contention of my right hon. friend, after close examination of the whole matter I am convinced that by and large the balance of good will be on the side of this procedure rather than on the side of the former. It will give the committee examining in advance the expenditures contemplated the ability to ask: Is this wise? Should this be done this year? The operating officials will find it necessary to give reasons for contemplated expenditures rather than reasons for expenditures which have been made.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not been a member of that committee for a number of years, but I am under the impression that it has been the practice of the committee not only to examine the statements of the past year which were brought down, but also to receive from the officers of the railway estimates of their expenditures during the current year.


Eugène Fiset: I was chairman of that committee in 1927, 1928 and 1929 and I can remember that we had a discussion while my hon. friend was a member of the committee as to the advisability of examining any arrears in connection with the expenses of the Canadian National. The opinion was expressed that an estimate should be submitted to the committee. I have taken the trouble to look over the records of the past and I found that opinion expressed by my hon. friend, by other members of the committee and by myself. For the first time in the history of the Canadian National Railways, the officials are being asked this year to submit a detailed budget of their future estimates, upon which is based the estimate at present being presented to the committee. It was only because we had before us complete details of the proposed vote of $39,000,000, as included in these estimates, that the committee agreed to let them go through after full examination.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I agree entirely with the procedure of bringing before the committee an estimate of future expenditures. I think I recollect that when I was a member of that committee some years ago we discussed the matter and I believe the stand I took then

Supply-Railways- C R .R.
was as indicated by the hon. gentleman. I am not taking any great objection to this procedure, but I say to the Minister of Finance that it does not follow that it is necessary to vote an anticipated deficit in the current year. The deficit is not incurred until December 31. In the past the railway was always able to finance on short term loans for the accumulating deficit, and then at the end of the year when the full deficit was known they came to parliament and parliament usually voted it fairly early.


Eugène Fiset: The practice in the last three years has been just what the Minister of Finance is doing this year by resolution. A resolution was passed upon which a bill was based authorizing the railway to float loans in advance. In this instance there are only two special cases, amounting to $9,000,000, which are not provided in these estimates and which are to be submitted to the committee. They are to be covered by a resolution introduced by the Minister of Finance and upon which resolution a bill will be based. These special cases were dealt with in the budget submitted to the members of the committee for examination by the railway staff. My hon. friend will realize the great help it is to the members of the committee to have before them detailed estimates with which they can deal intelligently. They will know the specific amount to be provided for, just as is known in connection with every other branch of the administration.


Ernest Edward Perley: There are other things I could say to-night, but if the minister is willing, I should like to have this item stand.


Charles Avery Dunning: All right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no objection to its standing, but I must say that it is only a slight departure from the program of last year. Last year the resolution introduced by the Minister of Finance provided for capital expenditures and advances by the Minister of Finance to the railway up to a certain amount. The only difference this year is that we are substituting a definite vote for the provision for advances. If the right hon. member wishes the item to stand, it may.
Item stands.
Loans and Investments
To provide for advances by way of loans to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and to the Canadian National Railway Company with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council and upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine of expenditures for wages to be
paid by each of the said companies (other than wages to be reimbursed to the said companies as provided for in vote No. 419) to employees engaged in special works in extension of the said companies' programs of maintenance of way and betterment works during the year 1936, and certain transportation allowances in respect of movements of the unemployment relief forces from point to point during the progress of the special works, not exceeding in the aggregate, $1,109,400.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think the minister has already given an explanation of this. He is proposing to advance to the companies this amount of money in order to provide them with funds to meet the expenditures which it will be necessary for them to make for the purposes of utilizing the labour provided by the government under item 419; is that right?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct, about one third of their expenditure, their expenditure for labour in that connection. In addition they will have expenditures for materials and equipment which they will include in their usual budget.


Ernest Edward Perley: By way of loan.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This item is by way of loan.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The chairman of the railway committee told us that the Canadian National had given an estimate of the amount which would be required. Why was not this amount put into that estimate and included in the sum we have just considered? Why this separate item for the Canadian National Railways?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The budget of the Canadian National Railways had been submitted to the government and the budget of the Canadian Pacific had been submitted to that company's shareholders before we made this request to the railways to use this additional labour. I may say that the making of a railway budget is about as complicated as the preparation of the budget presented by the Minister of Finance; it is not done in a moment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But it seems to me that the Canadian National Railways ought to be dealt with as a unit. We have just had under consideration an item which has been allowed to stand, which it seems to me ought to include the total amount to be spent by these railways. I cannot see why we should have another item to put in later on. If we are to make a favourite of the Canadian Pacific Railway and make loans to that company without requiring interest for a certain period, then I say that we should let the Canadian Pacific Railway stand on its own feet as an independent entity. But let us keep the Canadian National Railways
Supply-Railways-C -P.R.

by itself as a government owned road. Let the Canadian National make its own estimate and put that in as one united estimate covering the whole of the Canadian National Railways. That would be a reasonable way of dealing with the matter, instead of introducing subsequent votes involving loans without interest. I should like to know why that could not be done in this case.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is an accommodation loan to enable the companies to do the work and not to charge it to their budget in the ordinary way. They are not in a position to spend for maintenance in one year all the money which would be involved, and there is an appropriation for maintenance of a million and a half in the case of each railway. We are lending them the money so that they can absorb the item gradually without disturbing the budget for this particular year. It is not at all a loan without interest; it is with interest.


James Shaver Woodsworth: For a time, I said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Interest starts from the day the money is borrowed. The loan in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway will undoubtedly be paid when due, and as regards the Canadian National, if they are not able to pay the loan, it will be absorbed into the deficit of the year in which the loan falls due.


Mr. LAWSON:: Despite the minister's
explanation I still cannot understand one phase of the matter. Under item 419 which we have already passed, paragraph (c) provides for certain allowances for transportation of labour, that is labour which the government really expects to supply. When we get to item 427 we find that it contains two clauses. Apparently it is to provide for two things: First, for advances by way of loans to the railways, and, second, certain transportation allowances in respect of movements of unemployment relief forces from point to point during the progress of the work. Is one not a duplicate of the other? If not, what is the distinction?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The first item we voted a little while ago is for the actual wages of the men at the site of the work. This item provides for the labour that will be required to supervise the men, and for the cost of transporting them from one locality to another. Naturally men engaged in maintenance of way cover considerable distances and this provides for the cost of moving them.


James Earl Lawson: Am I to take it then that the latter class to which the minister refers comprises employees of the railway companies?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, experienced employees.


James Earl Lawson: Apparently we are agreeing by item 419 to pay the wages of unemployment relief labour, and also to pay the cost of transportation from one point to another, and under these items we will loan the railways money with which to pay the cost of transporting their own experienced employees and to supervise the work to be done by relief labour.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


James Earl Lawson: Then the only comment I have to make is this: I by no means agree with all that has been said about these measures being a matter of subsidy for the railways, but I cannot refrain from saying that during the last election those most active in heckling me from the public platform were Liberals who howled to high heaven about the fact that the government of which I was a member had made loans to the Canadian Pacific Railway to enable them to give additional employment in their shops, every dollar of which loans I am informed has since been paid back. I want to make it clear that this government is doing the very thing for which we were so roundly condemned.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the minister say that the railways will be paid for transporting their own men? They travel free at all times now. Why should the government undertake to pay them? I should like to know why the fares of railway men are to be paid when railway men now travel free.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suppose it costs some money to transport men, whether they travel free or not. People do not exactly travel free; someone has to pay for moving them, I take it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It seems to me that this is going too far. In Washington they talk about pork barrels, but this whole matter begins to look more or less like a pork barrel. I cannot see any reason why this country should pay the railways for transporting their own men whom they now transport free. If they have certain employees moving from one job to another to-day they carry them free. This country, in the present state of affairs, desires to have every dollar find its way into the pockets of the men who are to be employed in this work; it wishes to give every unemployed man a chance to earn every dollar he can. But here we are proposing to pay the railways for transporting their own men. They would transport them free if they were transporting them to an employment job.

Supply-Railways-Reliej Works


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should explain to hon. members who, evidently, live in cities that these men on maintenance of way work live in cars; they sleep there and eat there; and as the work progresses these cars have to be moved, and the men in them. This procedure involves certain cost. An engine has to be brought out and hooked on to these boarding cars, in order that they may be moved to a place which is suitable as a camp for these men. That is the purpose for which we are lending the railways the money. It is a real expense to the railroads, and we are loaning the money, not giving it to them; they will pay it back.


Mr. BEAUBIER:: It is customary for employees on a railroad who are maintenance of way men to be transferred from point to point free of charge, as they are passed from one location to another. Do I understand that there will be a deduction from the men's pay for transportation; that that will be a charge against the men?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it is a cost to the railway. Of course the railway moves these men; it costs the men nothing when they are employed. The place in which they live is moved somewhere else, and they move with it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the minister give us some idea of the rate of interest to be paid and when payment is to be made? I see that all this is left to the governor in council. Surely this committee has a right to know, if the government is to be banker to the Canadian Pacific Railway, what rate of interest the railway is going to pay for this accommodation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway was that this loan should be a short term accommodation loan and that the rate should approximate what the government pays for short term money, that is, the cost to the government of a loan for an equivalent period. It was left to the Minister of Finance to determine what that rate would be, and I do not think it has yet been decided. I assume that it will be around three, or three and a half per cent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: For how long is this loan to be made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is payable annually over five years in equal instalments.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it the intention of the minister that unemployed men shall be engaged in this work? Is it an unemployment relief scheme?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is to cover the railroads' supervision for using the unemployed for whom we voted the $3,100,000 item a while ago.


Major James William Coldwell: To return for a moment to the question of interest. It strikes me that the railway company is getting a rate which is not accorded to any other group of employers or industrialists in the country. If the government is going into the banking business, giving loans at three or three and a half per cent to the railways, it would seem only right and just that the farm loan board, for example, should reduce its interest rates to farmers who are borrowing money and who are another type of employer, of course in a smaller way, but nevertheless, in the aggregate, larger employers than even the railway itself. I think this principle is all wrong. I think also the discussion to-night has brought out in relation to this agreement a number of points which cannot be defended in the light of what other people are doing in the country. Although I am in favour of finding employment for the men, I am not in favour of these heavy subsidies to the railway companies, and I believe that resolutions which have already been passed, to my own knowledge, by farmers' organizations asking for the same treatment as the Canadian Pacific Railway is getting, are fully justified by the discussion that we have had in this chamber to-night.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for commitments incurred under the authority of section 9, Supplementary Public Works Construction Act, 1935, and that the governor in council may authorize the Minister of Finance to sell or lease the railway equipment so acquired to either or both the Canadian National Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company under agreements whereby the railway company or railway companies shall reimburse His Majesty the full amount of the cost of the said equipment with interest except in respect of the first and second years covered by the agreement at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council and that such agreements shall provide that security be furnished to secure and indemnify His Majesty in respect of the debt due to His Majesty, $5,303,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister explain
what this item refers to?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is entirely a revote of
loans which were begun in 1936 as an employment measure, and which were repayable as the equipment was put into use. This is the balance of the moneys that will be expended for this purpose this year. Of course this money is on loan to the railway companies.

Supply-Railways-Relief Works


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the minister give us some details of the amounts and the dates? These arrangements were made at various times, I take it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: And both railways have them? The minister must have some statement giving the details and the dates on which these arrangements were made, and the amounts in each case.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This was work authorized
under the 1935 Supplementary Public Works Construction Act. This equipment was to be built and sold to railways on an equipment rental basis. It includes: Canadian Car and Foundry Company, 80 sand cars; expenditure last year, 8269,566.40; required this year, nothing. Canadian Car and Foundry Company, 250 automobile cars; expenditure last year, 8903,015; required this year, nothing. Eastern Car Company Limited, 200 refrigerator cars; expenditure last year, $900,793.60; required this year, $244,006.40. Eastern Car Company Limited, 250 gondola cars; expenditure last year, $834,657.25; required this year, nothing. National Steel Car Corporation Limited, 8 snow ploughs; expenditure last year, $75,457.44; required this year, nothing. National Steel Car Corporation Limited, 150 automobile cars; expenditure last year, nothing; required this year, $552,525. Canadian National Railway Company, 250 refrigerator cars; expended last year, 8901,000; required this year, 8424,000. Montreal Locomotive Works Limited, five locomotives; expended last year, nothing; required this year, $609,500. Montreal Locomotive Works Limited, five locomotives; expended last year, nothing; required this year, 8556,500. Canadian Locomotive Company, Limited, five locomotives; expended last year, nothing; required this year, $492,900. Contingencies this year, $36,078.91.


Ernest Edward Perley: Is that all?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the Canadian
National loans. Then the Canadian Pacific Railway have some: Montreal Locomotive Works, five locomotives; expended last year, nothing; required this year, $570,600. Stone, Franklin Company of Canada Limited, one electric locomotive; expenditure last year, nothing; required this year $89,500. National Steel Car Corporation Limited, four steel baggage and buffet coach frames; expended last year, nothing; required this year, $72,151.64. National Steel Car Corporation Limited, four steel mail and express cars; expenditure last year, nothing; required this year $148,559.04. National Steel Car Cor-

poration Limited, eight steel coach frames; expended last year, nothing; required this year, $140,063.28. National Steel Oar Corporation Limited, one hundred hopper cars; expended last year, $345,551; required this year, nothing. National Steel Car Corporation Limited, 170 gondola cars; expenditure last year, $728,019.80; required this year, nothing. Canadian Car and Foundry Company Limited, 700 box cars; required last year, $l,425,ltl6.24; required this year, $996,197.76. National Steel Car Corporation Limited, 150 refrigerator cars; expenditure last year, $860,524.50; required this year, nothing. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, completion of baggage and buffet cars, mail and express cars, and coaches, required last year, nothing; required this year, $353,716.64. All these contracts were made between August 26 and October 30, 1935.


Ernest Edward Perley: Do they all add up to this $5,303,000? That is simply to take care of commitments already made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is commitments payable this year. These commitments were payable in certain years, and the amount payable this year is $5,302,706.02.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 5, 1936