[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 42, respecting the Trust and Loan Company of Canada.-Mr. Vien.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Gerald Thompson Miltimore.-Mr. McKay.
Employment Commission

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. WILTON (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) if the federal fifteen per cent cut in relief grants to the provincial governments, passed on to the municipalities, applies only to the month of April, or is it made as a permanent cut? If so, is there any possibility of the cut being restored in view of the many protests made against it?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the fifteen per cent cut applies for the month of April inasmuch as it was indicated to us by the provinces that it was desirable that they should be advised as soon as possible of the policy which would be followed by the dominion government in relation to grants in aid during the coming months. There has been no assurance given as to the continuance of the present grants, its restoration or its further reduction. That matter is receiving consideration.


Herbert Earl Wilton: Might I further ask the minister if the government took into consideration the fact that the municipal tax budgets were struck on the basis of the original grants?


Mr. ROGERS:: Mr. Speaker, I take it that my hon. friend has completed his question. The increased grants which prevailed during the months of December, January, February and March applied only during the winter months, and the order in council made that clear beyond any question; so that if the municipal councils struck their budgets on the basis of the continuance of the grants which prevailed during the winter months they did so without any assurance whatsoever that those grants would be continued during the ensuing months.


Herbert Earl Wilton: Thank you.



ELLSWORTH ANTARCTIC FLIGHT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask if it is the intention of the government to honour Mr. Herbert Hollick-Kenyon, noted Winnipeg airman who flew Lincoln Ellsworth in his recent epic antarctic flight; also Mr. J. H. Lymburner, an associate of Mr. Hollick-Kenyon and an outstanding Canadian.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend was kind enough to tell me of his intention to ask this question, but I have to reply to him that thus far the government has not had an opportunity to give the matter consideration.
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l



EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. 14, respecting the establishment of a national employment commission-Mr. Rogers-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section 6, paragraph (a)-Registration and classification.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Johnston, Lake Centre):: When the committee rose last evening we were considering paragraph (a) of section 6 of Bill No. 14.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, there is one problem which faces Canada along with all other countries, the problem of youth. There is also another problem which faces all countries, namely, the problem of the reestablishment of soldiers in civil life. For eighteen years all countries have done their best to try to settle the soldier problem, but if we are to judge from the legislation about to be submitted to us and if we take into account the appointment of a special committee of this house to study the very important question of pensions for soldiers and their dependents, the problem is still acute. Up to the present the debate on the problem of youth has been rather academic, but it is most urgent that a close study of it be made. It is very difficult for a young man who is not an ex-soldier to be appointed to any position to-day because of the preference given to returned soldiers. One of my colleagues told me this afternoon that he had gone to the Langevin block to see about the appointment of a young man of twenty-one who was on the eligible list for mail carriers in one of our cities. The gentleman in charge of this matter told him that although this young man was well qualified it would be impossible for him to get anything for three years because thirty-three returned soldiers had preference over him. This problem is more acute because nearly eighteen years have passed since the close of the war and nothing has been settled. The children of soldiers have grown up and want these jobs but they cannot get them. They complain of this discrimination, but what can be done? I am taking the liberty of making a suggestion to the government, and especially to the very able Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). Is the government willing to appoint a committee of the house to be composed of members from each province to study this problem of youth? It seems to me that the question is a most urgent one which will become more serious as the years

Employment Commission
go by. I would be very thankful to the hon. gentleman if he would tell us what the government proposes to do.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour):	Mr. Chairman, so far as
the setting up of a committee of the house to study the problem of youth is concerned I must say that it is not within my power to give my hon. friend any assurance in that regard. I would point out to him that in the bill now before the committee there is a provision for a special study of the problem of youth in relation to the wider problem of unemployment. We recognize that the young men and women who have come of age during the past five years have been confronted with an extremely difficult situation, something for which I believe there is no precedent in the history of our country. The problem requires special investigation and we are providing in this bill that there shall be a special committee to consider the problems related to the employment of youth.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman. I have another observation to make, which I shall try to make as short as possible. Paragraph (a) reads:
The commission shall,
(a) carry out as soon as possible a national registration and classification of persons on relief in cooperation with the provinces, municipalities and private and public bodies;
We have to wage a war against unemployment. During the war the allied countries were fighting together. There was the British army, which included the Canadian corps; there was the French army, the Italian army and the armies of the other allies. It was not a case of the British army on one side and the armies of the allies on the other; they were all cooperating.
I understand that anything can be done by cooperation provided the parties concerned are willing to work together.
What was the basis of the British North America Act? That legislation was drafted by a very great Canadian, Sir John A. Macdonald. It was drafted in his own hand, and the original is specially kept in the dominion archives. Why was Sir John A. Macdonald such a great Canadian, and why is his memory still so much respected by our fellow citizens? It was because Sir John Macdonald, like Sir Wilfrid Laurier later on, was a great psychologist. He knew men and understood them, because he met them frequently and listened to them. That was why he was such a great leader of men. He had a wonderful experience and it is because of that experience that the very
principle of the most important section of the British North America Act can be summarized in these words-let everyone mind his own business. The idea behind the British North America Act was that the municipalities should be free to exercise all the powers that were conferred upon them. The same rule was applied to the provinces and it was also applied to the federal power. For a very long time, from 1867 until 1930, that spirit prevailed. In Nova Scotia, Joseph Howe; in Quebec, Mercier; in Ontario, Mowat; in New Brunswick, others-and they have had their disciples in each province- have fought for provincial rights. Why? They feared the encroachment of the federal power upon their own rights. Everyone was master in his own house, and did not tolerate interference from any neighbour. There was no superiority. The federal government had its own limitations and so had the provinces and the municipalities. So to speak, everyone was at home. Now everyone is living in other people's houses. That is the trouble. Why did it happen? It happened because in the fall session of 1930 and in the session of 1931 a tripartite plan was imposed upon this country, and in that plan everything was mixed up by the federal government of the time. It is one of the greatest errors that have been committed, because when it was done the federal power thought that they had authority over the provinces and the municipalities; and it shows that at the time the real spirit of the confederation pact was overlooked and ceased to prevail.
The gentleman who was quoted yesterday, Mr. Hirota, the new Prime Minister of Japan, said something that should be inscribed in every legislative assembly room in the world- there is no problem that cannot be solved by common sense. And it is only a repetition of what Marshal Foch said when he was leading the allied armies to victory by applying to modern times the principles of warfare laid down by the great Napoleon, namely, that war is common sense. It is just because the British North America Act was based on common sense that we cannot change that part of it without making the same mistake that was made in 1930 by the late government.
My hon. friend from Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) has given us his views in regard to currency. Some people regard them as extravagant but I am not going to pass any judgment on them now. On the other hand, the federal government has incurred a great responsibility in connection with some works which were not needed and which were

Employment Commission

imposed on the municipalities in a very careless and thoughtless way. The municipalities have accepted the burden; the provinces have accepted the burden; the railways have accepted the burden. But as the years have passed the burden has become heavier and heavier, and now, owing to that reckless policy, the provinces are bankrupt. Many municipalities are bankrupt and the great metropolis of Canada is in dire distress. And there is something else that was ignored in that special session of 1930 when those fresh from victory were claiming for themselves power and rights over the citizens of this country. They forgot that if the federal government has new sources of taxation, if the provinces have new sources of taxation on gasoline, liquor and so on, the municipalities have no more revenue from taxation. It is mostly the owner of immovable property who must pay his share of the responsibilities incurred by the municipality. All that has been said until now is clear to everyone, it cannot be denied by anyone; and to-day the owners of immovable property cannot get a cent from their tenants, or when they get something they get it out of taxes they pay for the support of the unemployed.
We hear about building new houses, about having housing schemes for tenants who will not be able to pay a cent in rent. Another thing that was forgotten by the late government in the special session of 1930 and in the session of 1931, a thing they did not realize during the five years they were in power-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friends make jokes about it I will name them in the house, in order that their names shall be kept on record to show in what spirit they take the truth. I know that the truth is very offensive to them, but they must listen to the end.
During those five long years it was impossible to obtain a decent answer from the then prime minister or his colleagues, including the ex-minister of labour. Also the prime minister was at one and the same time minister of finance and minister of labour, representing in that government both capital and labour. The first fundamental of a sound, red-blooded Canadian policy was entirely forgotten by that government. To-day we have to think about a policy. I wonder what kind of cooperation will be asked by the dominion government from the provinces and the municipalities. The municipalities have no means to pay, because the owner of immovable property cannot meet his taxes, he cannot get a cent from the unemployed who dwell in his houses, and he cannot be
TMr. Pouliot.]
taxed any more. In my humble opinion the first thing that should be done for the relief of unemployment is to get back to common sense as it prevailed from 1867 to the black year 1930 when the other government came into power.
I am reluctant to do anything that is not acceptable to the majority of the party to which I am proud to belong and on whose behalf I have spoken in several provinces besides my own. But, sir, if the Prime Minister is inviting suggestions from hon. members from Alberta who do not belong to this party, he must rejoice and be proud to receive suggestions from any private member wTho belongs to the Liberal party, who has done so all his life, and who will remain so even if he has to fight Tory policies under a Liberal disguise. I do not wish to offend any one on either side of the house, but mark you, at times wThen a general surrenders he is court martialed, and the court martial takes into consideration any error of judgment that he has committed. A general is not permitted to make mistakes of judgment; he is the less responsible if he takes the advice of those colleagues who are supposed to sit with him in council. At times, unfortunately for this country, that practice has not been followed. The advice came from outside, and it is to those who gave that wrong, pernicious and dreadful advice that I am so strongly opposed. They, it is true, are mere individuals, flies on the window, but with a very fat bank roll. But this is immaterial; individuals do not count, but if a man speaks as one on behalf of ten millions he must do his very best for all the others.
I would warn the government against continuing any tripartite policy of unemployment relief. It is my duty to do so, and I am not afraid to do it. I do not desire to put blame on the shoulders of anyone who is not responsible for the calamities that have fallen on this country for so many years. My suggestion is a very simple one. If we w'ant to have a strong, vigorous and efficient unemployment relief policy, first of all let every one be master in his own house. Secondly, for that purpose let us adjust the British North America Act in order that the spirit which prevailed with such fortunate consequences during so many years shall be restored. The most important committee of this house is the committee on the British North America Act. Their purpose should be to change it not for the sake of change but in order to make it workable in 1936 as it was in 1867, in 1896, in 1911 and until 1930. Perhaps there are sufficient reasons why the committee has not met until now. Per-

Employment Commission
haps it will be impossible for the committee to meet before the end of April, but as soon, as it is possible to call a meeting of that committee, the thing should be done. The provinces should be invited. I cannot understand how it is that, after so many conferences between the provinces and the dominion during the last five years, no agreement has been arrived at by virtue of which the matter could be settled. It is not settled, but it should be-and this is my last point- in order to adjust the problem of taxation. We hear a lot about taxes and about the Canadian taxpayers being overburdened. Some of them are; some others are not. I distinctly remember having suggested some years ago in a small village in my constituency, the beautiful village of Cacouna, that the sum of $500,000,000 should be spent by the federal government for unemployment relief. There was something else. At that time the interest on bank deposits had not been decreased, nor had the interest on bonds. It would have been possible to collect a tax of ten per cent on the interest on the savings deposits in the banks, on coupons, and the interest on mortgages. So far as the last tax is concerned it would have been very easy to collect it by using stamps just the same as we do on cheques and on notes. And, sir, I was greatly honoured when a few days later the exminister of trade and commerce took that suggestion for his own and repeated it in the city of Ottawa. This is my first opportunity of thanking him for doing so, and he mentioned exactly the same amount, $500,009,000 though the hon. gentleman did not mention that this amount should be paid out of an annuity fund to be made up from a tax on wealth.
Wealth exists; it all depends on the degree of wealth possessed by each individual. It is not the money that makes wealth; it is the circulation of money. If confidence is restored in this country the government will have to do very little in order to increase prosperity; confidence will do it. My hon. friends in the far corner will admit this: If one of them gives a dollar to his child, his boy or girl, the boy may buy a book. The owner of the bookstore will give that dollar to a clerk. The clerk will go to the market square and buy a piece of meat. The butcher will give that dollar in taxation; the city will give it to the unemployed and the money goes round and round, just the same as music. And the more it goes round and round the more advantage it is to people; it passes from one hand to another. Therefore it is urgent to restore confidence in this country; that 12739- J19i
is the more important point. The work was well started on October 14, and now we must continue in that direction. The Canadian people spoke very loudly at that time; they said, "We do not want any more of those expedient policies which are no good, which are disastrous and which have brought the country to the verge of ruin and bankruptcy. We need a change." Some very able men formed the new government, and they have been entrusted by the people of this country with the duty of formulating new policies to lead us on the way to progress and prosperity.
With these words, sir, I shall conclude. It seems to me that my views have been expressed very clearly, and I regret to have had to say such elementary and simple things to my distinguished colleagues. Let us all get back to normalcy, to common sense. That is all; it is very easy. Let us put aside all the theories that are pernicious and dangerous; let us consider only the interests of the Canadian people. If we continue to apply the policies that were enacted by the last government we might have civil war in this country in a very short time. Those policies were, wrong, and even the best men in the world cannot make them good. When I say that I do so to clear my conscience.


Mr. HEAPS:: If I may I should like to say just a word or two with regard to paragraph
(a)	of this section. Last night I raised a question with regard to the registration of persons who are unemployed, altogether apart from those on relief. As we were discussing this question with the Minister of Labour other matters crept in and I was not able to get a clear expression from the minister as to his attitude on this point. However, I understood this much, that the minister was quite sympathetic to something being done in regard to having a national registration of the unemployed in order to try, as best we might, to ascertain the number of men and women out of work to-day in the Dominion of Canada. As I understand the meaning of this bill this commission is to be of an advisory and supervisory nature. There is nothing in the bill that would prevent such a registration being made, and even if we did not have such a bill before us there would be nothing to prevent the government from making a classification of all the people on relief in Canada. I should like the minister to give the committee some assurance, not that he will take this matter into consideration; I should like him to go a little beyond that and give the assurance that something will be done with as little delay as possible, through the existing government agencies, to have some sort of voluntary registration of those who are out
Employment Commission

of work so that as of a given date we may have reliable data on which to work at some future time, in regard to how many people are really unemployed in this dominion.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I may say that when we
were making the arrangements for the preliminary registration and classification of those on relief the committee which drew up the forms for that purpose gave consideration also to the suggestion that we should secure a classification of all those who were unemployed, including those on relief, but the decision reached by the committee was that a compulsory registration, which would involve not only considerable expense but also, possibly, the imposition of penalties if it was to be effective, would be the only means of securing that information in complete detail. As I assured my hon. friend, we fully realize the importance of getting statistics with regard to the unemployed who are not on relief. My impression is that the existing machinery of the employment offices in the various provinces would probably supply what would be necessary in that regard, and I will say quite definitely that we will try to get that information as soon as possible.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am much obliged to the minister. As a further suggestion he might bear in mind what was mooted yesterday by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) that is, in case that is not done or is not feasible, the question of this new quinquennial census on the prairies might be taken into consideration.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be very glad to do so. I think the quinquennial census would afford an opportunity of securing that information in the western provinces.


Mr. McIVOR:: This is a very important point. Not long ago I addressed six hundred single unemployed; in the case of perhaps fifty per cent of them their folks would be on relief; but we know a good many whose parents are not on relief. I am sorry the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has left his seat; for I should like to congratulate him on his splendid speech-we could hear him. He is right when he says that we have to use common sense. I was just thinking what common sense is. Common sense to that hon. member might not be common sense to the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Common sense to an Irishman would not be common sense to a coloured gentleman. But if he agrees that common sense is Christian common sense then I agree with him. Then we shall have absolute honesty and fair play and unselfishness. I am sure the Minister of Labour will find hearty
[Mr. Heaps.1
support of this bill throughout the length and breadth of Canada. It is a step in the right direction.


Mr. MacNEIL:: I understand it is the intention of the minister to table at this stage a general outline of the form of questionnaire which is now being used in connection with the compilation of statistics required by the commission. There are three points in regard to which I should like some assurance. First, will the statistics that are now being compiled indicate the ratio of technological unemployment to general unemployment? Second, under this registration what will be the test for unemployability? Has the minister anything in mind as to some uniform test throughout the dominion? In reporting under this scheme of registration will it be possible to escape from the very haphazard methods now prevalent? Third, will the general inquiry enable the compilation of data that will eventually be required by the veterans' assistance commission? Will there be any segregation of statistics dealing with the special problems of ex-service men which undoubtedly will be required by the veterans' assistance commission? I hardly suppose a special inquiry will be undertaken for that commission, 'but it seems desirable that in the general inquiry certain statistics should 'be secured bearing upon that special feature.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the debate on second reading of this bill I think the same question was put to me, as to whether it would be possible to obtain figures differentiating cyclical unemployment and technological unemployment. I made inquiry at the bureau of statistics and was informed that up to this time no figures have been collected which would indicate a separation on the basis suggested. I was further informed that there are very serious practical difficulties in the way of arriving at that kind of differentiation. I am not prepared to say that those difficulties are insurmountable.
In answer to the second question, as to the distinction between employable and unemployables, I explained to the house on second reading that we had accepted perforce the definition of unemployability adopted by the municipalities and provinces. We have not sought to lay down a hard and fast definition. We have reason to believe that the municipalities have used physical or mental unfitness as a criterion of unemployability. I would take it that in connection with this whole task of registration and classification the commission itself, as a result of the experience gained thus far and to be gained later, will be able to discover ways and means of improving

Employment Commission
the whole body of data with respect to unemployment and relief. And I have no doubt that in seeking to improve the existing methods and to obtain more information the suggestions made by my hon. friend will be of much value. I cannot say whether it will be possible to make the distinction he has suggested between cyclical and technological unemployment. In a period of depression, under the impact of a combination of forces it is not always possible to distinguish sharply between the causes of unemployment. I am sure my hon. friend will appreciate that it would be extremely difficult to get any reliable figures on that point. But we shall be glad to look into it and see if progress is being made in other countries in that direction.
As to the third question, the bill provides that there shall be close cooperation between the national employment commission and the veterans' assistance commission, and I think I can assure my hon. friend that if the veterans' assistance commission feels that it would be of advantage to secure more detailed classification of veterans who are unemployed and on relief, the national employment commission will cooperate heartily towards that end.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Will the registration contemplated by this bill be a periodic registration, or will it be continuous?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The intention is to have these figures presented from month to month. The forms as agreed upon by the national employment commission will be sent to the provinces and the municipalities, and upon the basis of those forms they will receive monthly returns giving the classification of those who are on relief. So that we should be able not only to determine the changing character of the problem but also, I trust, to measure the progress that we have been able to make.


Angus MacInnis: That would mean that the only changes that would take place from month to month would be the new ones that had come on and old ones that had dropped off. It would not be necessary to have a full registration for each month?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No.


Mr. McDONALD (Souris):: I know the committee is anxious to get on with this bill, but I have not heard anyone say much from the farmers' standpoint, and I have still an idea that this unemployment question will never be settled until the primary producer and the labourer get a square deal. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) very properly told us yesterday that it was not a lack of
money; that the banks and monetary institutions of this country have plenty of money, but they will not lend it to the farmer or the small businessman. Why? Because the banker will tell you that farm lands, wheat, cattle, commodities of that kind, are not to-day the security they used to be. Now I would like to know who it is that says that farm lands, wheat, cattle and similar commodities are not as much needed in the world to-day as they ever were. I know in my own case that I cannot borrow hundreds to-day where I could borrow thousands ten years ago, and I ought to be a little better man to-day than I was ten years ago; if I am not I should not be here. Who is it that causes that lack of confidence? At the risk of giving the Minister of Labour a little more advice, I claim that until we restore confidence in this country we shall never settle the unemployment problem. I believe that if we could gather the employers of labour and the captains of industry around a table and they would put the cards on the table and talk matters over, the thing could be settled. We need houses, we need farms, we need the products of the farm and of the factory as we never did before. We need more to-day than we ever did before because for years we have not been buying. It will be the duty of the Minister of Labour to restore that confidence, and when that is done I think it will be found that a lot of our troubles are over.
I know the committee is in a hurry to get on with this bill, but I do feel that it is the great duty of the minister and of the commission he is setting up to bring together the captains of industry and labour, and my advice to him would be not to pay too much attention to the professional leaders of labour because if labour difficulties were settled these men would be out of a job. On the other hand I would not pay too much attention to those captains of industry who have no interest in their employees except that of making money out of them. I believe that will be' the problem of the commission which is to be set up, and which I am sure every member of this house is only too anxious to see solve some of the difficulties we are facing to-day in the matter of unemployment.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: This question of classification is important. In my opinion a registration of the unemployed who are on relief would not necessarily have to be compulsory, because the possibility of any benefit accruing from being registered would be sufficient inducement to bring almost the entire number of unemployed to registration. If a proclamation were issued and the time specified
Employment Commission

for registration, the percentage of those registering would be tremendously large because they would feel that by being registered they would be in a better position to secure employment.
I would also suggest cooperation with provincial employment service agencies, which might allow their cards to stand, and from those cards statistics could be compiled for the federal Department of Labour. Between them a fine registration could be secured. There are more pressing matters but I believe that this is one that the minister should keep in mind, because the inadequacy of the data available on this question is lamentable.
I would also ask the minister to keep in mind this question in classifying the unemployed. We hear a great deal about racketeering by the unemployed, but we hear very little about the racketeering that is done by large concerns which hire the unemployed to go out as salesmen, and pay them so little that the men are sometimes compelled to receive relief. That is not at all uncommon. It goes on right in the city of Ottawa and throughout Canada. Firms could be named, but that would be no advantage because the thing is being done on such a widespread scale. Door to door salesmen are engaged amongst the unemployed and are paid so little that they are compelled to receive relief, which means nothing more or less than that the federal government is subsidizing certain large firms.
Then as regards unemployability, there ought to be some uniform standard. I can see that for the next year at least it will be necessary, as the minister said, to leave it to the municipalities to decide whether or not a person is unemployable. If we are going to recognize as unemployable those who are mentally and physically unfitted to earn their own living, that is excellent; but if we are going to allow people to be classed as unemployable simply because they have been unemployed for a number of years, if we allow them to become chronically unemployed, if we fail to recognize that they are simply living at a subnormal level of society and should not be allowed permanently to assume that role, we are in real danger of developing a class of chronically unemployable who are handicapped merely socially and not physically or mentally.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be glad to keep
the suggestions of the hon. member in mind.
Paragraph (a) agreed to.
On paragraph (b)-Conditions to be complied with.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I notice that the commission has power to direct the attention of the minister to the conditions to be complied with by the provinces in obtaining grants for relief purposes from the government of Canada. I would like to hear the minister's opinion as to the possibility of rectifying certain injustices that have borne rather heavily on the unemployed on relief. It has been clearly shown during the course of this debate that a certain delay will be inevitable before any major project can be brought into effect by the employment commission, and in the meantime a vast number of people must remain on relief. I would bring to the attention of the minister the necessity in certain districts at least of insisting that the municipal and provincial authorities maintain at least a safe minimum! standard of living. As we travel throughout the country we find an absolute lack of uniformity in the payment of relief allowances, and in some districts advantage has been taken of the situation to reduce the payment of relief to a dangerously low level, with a resulting reduction in the standard of living of a large number of families to a point that is perilously low. The people have no opportunity of protesting, and I feel that at this time something should be done, until some major project can be started by the commission, to see that a safe minimum standard is insisted on by the federal government if grants are to be made to provincial and municipal authorities. Evidence was given in a special committee of the house this morning to the effect that a family of five in certain rural districts receives only something like $2.67 a week. In my own constituency, in the unorganized territory, I have been astounded to learn of some instances of unbelievably low payments of relief to fairly large families. A large district is placed under the charge of a provincial government administrator, who has no opportunity, in view of the size of the district, of ascertaining details of the circumstances of individual families living in remote sections, except perhaps through an annual call on the part of the administrator. I can assure the minister that great distress results from this condition. A safe minimum living standard should be established for those now on relief, until such time as the commission may launch a major project designed to deal more effectively with present conditions.
There is another point I wish to bring to the attention of the minister, and it is with respect to the exploitation of the unemployed on relief. There is a particular form of exploitation that occurs under the

Employment Commission
work for relief policy as conducted by some municipal authorities. The situation is not clearly understood. It is sometimes held that the unemployed are unwilling to work, but from my experience I assure the minister that more usually it is a case of their protesting against the exploitation of their circumstances by the municipal authorities. Very frequently they are required to work at heavy manual labour, on the regular maintenance work of the city, without any additional allowance for the protective work clothing that is required on work of this nature, and without any provision for the extra nourishment required for the satisfactory performance of heavy manual labour. To do this work satisfactorily they must receive a larger food allowance, and it means that the rest of the family and the children suffer in order that the head of the house may have adequate nourishment for the performance of the heavy manual labour required.	I think it is the duty of the
federal government to ask the employment commission to insist that proper working conditions be established for these men if they are required to work for their relief allowance; 'otherwise great distress results and a definite injustice is done to these men. If they are required to work when they are on relief and to attain to a proper standard of efficiency on the job, proper working conditions should be insisted on and some extra allowance made in the way of protective work clothing and the extra nourishment that is definitely necessary.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend has touched upon a very important and I may say a very perplexing feature of the relief problem. If I understood him aright, he suggested that there should be a uniform relief scale throughout the country. I suppose he is aware that uniform scales do not exist even within any one province. In the past the dominion government has contributed directly to the provinces and through the provinces to the municipalities, working upon the well established principle that the municipalities and provinces had organizations which had been accustomed to deal with this problem in the past. As a matter of fact the dominion has not sought to impose any definite relief scale upon any province or municipality. I am sure my hon. friend is aware that different standards of living prevail in different parts of the dominion and even in different areas in a province. For example, a scale of relief that might seem meagre in a city would be generous in a country district because of the difference in cost of rentals, food and so on. I recognize with my hon. friend that this is a
question which deserves careful study, but it seemed to me that he emphasized the need of a national employment commission to place this and other features of the problem in a national focus.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister deal with the work for relief policy?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think that would also fall under what I have just said. I quite agree that the policy of work for relief is one that deserves further study. As it stands now, each province has followed its own policy and the dominion government has not sought to interfere in any way.


Mr. BENNETT:: The minister is not quite correct with respect to the dominion having taken steps. In connection with the dried-out areas in Saskatchewan the dietitians prepared a balanced diet and the allocation of food was based upon that diet. In Manitoba a great deal of care was taken by the officials in dealing with the matter, and in one other western province they dealt with it from the standpoint of what was a proper diet for those who were on relief, having regard to the conditions in which they found themselves and the work in which they could be engaged. It is well known that in the border cities, for instance, a great deal of time was spent in preparing a balanced diet, which had the most excellent results. I was told by one medical officer that the children especially emerged from the season on relief much better in point of health than they had been for many years because of the excellent care taken to provide a balanced diet in that locality.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Undoubtedly the entire question of what should be the minimum to provide proper health and vigour is very important. I agree entirely with my hon. friend that this matter would repay very careful study. At the recent dominion-provincial conference I was impressed by the fact that the delegations from the various provinces had very little information as to what was going on in other provinces. Each province was working out its own problem in its own way. I am quite convinced that some disparities must continue to exist, especially with regard to administration and probably with regard to relief scales. There must be considerable flexibility, and it is set out clearly in the bill that it is the view of the government that this entire problem should be considered in the terms of its national implication.


Mr. PELLETIER:: It is apparent from what has been said that the conditions to be
Employment Commission

complied with will be physical conditions in the matter of administration. I wonder if there are any other conditions which the minister had in mind when this clause was drafted?


Norman McLeod Rogers: At the present time the conditions, so far as they relate to grants in aid for direct relief, are set out in the order in council. They are very brief and perhaps I might place them on Hansard:	They are:
(a)	That the said grant will be used solely for the purpose above prescribed without any discrimination as to race, religious views or political affiliation of the recipients of the said relief;
(b)	That in respect to the continuation of the dominion's measure for the relief of single homeless men, the province agrees to cooperate by complying with the conditions set forth in appendix 1 hereto attached;
I do not think there is any need of placing the appendix upon Hansard at this time. I continue:
(c)	That the province will furnish to the dominion government on request, such statistical or other information in respect to said grant as may be required.
The province gives an undertaking that it accepts the dominion grants in aid for direct relief upon this basis.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the date of that order in council?


Norman McLeod Rogers: This is dated November,
1935.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the last one?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are all practically
the same.	.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For years before that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. It is quite conceivable that as the result of a further survey of the problem it may be found desirable to add further conditions to dominion grants in aid. The wording in the bill is not restricted. It will be for the national employment commission to study the matter and advise the government as to what conditions ought to be attached in the view of the commission. It will then be the responsibility of the government either to accept or to decline that advice.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Could the minister tell us what is in the appendix to the order in council to which he referred?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The appendix has to do
with single homeless men for whom the dominion government accepted responsibility in so far as they were in camps operated by the Department of National Defence.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Paragraph (b) of section 6 of the bill, reads:
(b)	recommend to the minister conditions to be complied with by any province obtaining grants for relief purposes from the government of Canada.
No other possible meaning can be taken from that than what the minister has just said. It will be practically a physical supervisory condition that will be applied.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As I have said before, there is no restriction whatever upon the wording. The conditions may relate to administration; they may relate to a more effective supervision of expenditures, and they may even relate to some of the matters brought up by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil).


Mr. KINLEY:: Reference has been made
to balanced diets; if the minister would include fish in these diets he would be doing something to improve the health of those on relief as well as helping to relieve unemployment. I think the people who come from the maritimes Show the effects of their splendid diet. They eat plenty of fish which is rich in protein. You can eat your fill of fish and still be streamlined as people like to be at the present time. We feel that the institutions of Canada and the relief camps should have fish upon their menus. Some years ago we found that no fish was being used in the penitentiaries in Canada. In the drought areas of Saskatchewan I believe the people suffer from diseases such as goitre; these people need iodine, which is present, in fish. The minister might well see to it in the interests of unemployment relief and from the point of view of the health of these people that they receive more fish.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I would remind the minister that in Saskatchewan in the drought areas they cannot catch fish, and fish is more or less a luxury. As a matter of fact, fish costs there per pound approximately twice as much as meat, and that really is a barrier to the use of fish to any considerable degree as a part of the diet. There is much to be said for the point of view of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), and I have risen to emphasize it. There is the greatest discrepancy between relief schedules in many of the rural areas and those in the cities. I have travelled extensively in rural Saskatchewan and from my own observation I know that the people in those areas are to a large extent forgotten. I think the difficulty in connection with all our relief methods at the present time is that there are three parties to the agreement. It is true that the local

Employment Commission
people know most about the condition of the unemployed, but they are largely the people who are feeling most the pressure of the incidence of debt, and consequently they endeavour to keep relief costs down to as low an amount as possible, with a deplorable result in many areas. I would suggest that this fact be taken into consideration in making the conditions for federal government grants.
I was looking through my desk for a budget sent me by a man in Saskatchewan whom I know. It outlines how the money is spent and, without clothing and so on, the amount allowed for food is most deplorable, and in some areas children are suffering. In some of the cities relief is well organized and the condition outlined by the leader of the opposition may be said to exist in some few instances where actually a balanced diet has been provided. But that is not true of the smaller urban communities or of the rural areas, and I would urge the minister to pay particular attention to those areas where the people are suffering on account of lack of clothing and because of insufficient food of the right kind. It has been said, and I know it is true, that in many areas in the west there are children who not only have not tasted fish but actually have not tasted an apple for a very long time, simply because there was not a sufficient allowance in the relief schedule to provide for such fruit.


Angus MacInnis: Subsection (b) is in my
opinion one of the most important provisions in the section. It can be used, I think, to the detriment of the unemployed and on [DOT]the other hand it is not very likely to be used in their favour. It provides that the commission shall recommend to the minister conditions to be complied with by the provinces in obtaining grants for relief purposes from the government of Canada. I think it will all depend upon the commission. If the commission is composed of men who have besides business ability a certain amount of the milk of human kindness in their makeup, and human impulses, then it is possible there may be nothing to fear from this subsection; there may be no abuse of it. If on the other hand the commission is composed of what we sometimes refer to as hard-boiled business men, then I am afraid the unemployed will not benefit greatly under this new set-up. We were told prior to the election that if a Liberal government were elected, and with Liberal governments in the various provinces, there ought to be no difficulty in these governments coming together and deciding upon what was necessary to meet any existing condition. Now we are in that fortunate position, for there are Liberal governments
throughout the dominion, and surely the government of the province should be in a better position to know the needs of the province than any commission could possibly be. Consequently if the federal government is to receive information and advice it should receive it from the provincial government. I recall that when the hon. member for Temiscouata introduced a bill to repeal the economic council act, the Prime Minister stated that he was in favour of the repeal of that act because he did not need a special council to advise him; he said he was satisfied with his own council. Here we are forming a commission of seven to advise the Minister of Labour of the conditions which the provinces must comply with before they can obtain grants in aid from the federal government. If the Prime Minister was satisfied with his own council, I think the minister should be able to obtain from the cabinet advice as to what is necessary in this instance. I do not like this subsection because I know the struggles which the unemployed will have before they can induce the various administrative bodies to give them such relief as will enable them to live in any sort of decency. However, if the government insists on retaining the subsection I hope that there will be selected to form the commission men who have something more than business ability.
Paragraphs (b) and i(c) agreed to.
On paragraph (d)-Proposals investigated.


Mr. GLEN:: There are one or two things
I want to point out in regard to suggestions that might be made to the commission. I need not dwell on the housing scheme, which is already on the statute books and with which the housing commission is dealing. Most of the efforts of that commission have been directed to two of the provinces, Ontario and Quebec; so far as the other provinces are concerned, no applications for loans have been received. There are one or two matters that ought to be brought to the attention of the commission which is to be appointed under this legislation. At the last session when the housing committee's report was submitted there was a strong recommendation for the rehabilitation of houses in the different provinces, and as a matter of fact one of the most emphatic statements in the report was that that should be the first duty of the commission. The commission also pointed out, and it is a well known fact, that many of the houses in the country are in just as bad a condition as any of the slum areas within the cities.
Employment Commission


An hon. MEMBER:: Worse.


James Allison Glen: The reason that these slum conditions obtain in the country is simply that the farmers are unable to find money wherewith to repair their buildings. Every member of the house who has any knowledge of the matter will agree that if even small loans could be made by the housing commission or the commission that is under discussion, a tremendous number of applications would be received. Sums of $300 or $400 or $500, if granted to a farmer for the rehabilitation of his buildings, would be gladly accepted by large numbers throughout the dominion. Such loans would mean that lumbermen, ironmongers, plumbers, carpenters, all men employed on construction, would be provided with work readily available to them within their own districts. I know it may be objected that, where the property is subject to a mortgage, the mortgage company or other mortgagor might take the position that the new loan would take priority over the first mortgage, and would oppose it on that ground. That certainly is an objection, but surely where a farmer wishes to recondition his buildings, and is willing to do so for such a small amount as from $300 to $500, arrangements could be made with the mortgage company or the mortgagee in order that the loan might go through for the benefit of all concerned. If the dominion government were to lend money for such a purpose it would be in the position of the holder of a first mortgage, and therefore, of course, its security would be ample. The mortgage company or other owner of a mortgage would find that its mortgage was in a much better position because of the fact that the buildings had been improved; certainly the mortgagee would be in no worse position, and the owner of the property by the improvement in his buildings would be given hope and encouragement to work out his salvation and carry on his operations in a much better way then he had hitherto done. I strongly suggest to the minister that the recommendation last year of the special committee on rehabilitation of housing be carried out. I see no difficulty in inducing mortgage companies or other owners of mortgages to give priority to the dominion in respect of such a loan. I am sure that the increase of business, the fact that the men on the farms could do very much of the repair work themselves, that the youth on the farms could be usefully employed, and that the dominion would not be likely to lose the money they advanced, as they might do under the Canadian Farm Loan Act, coupled with the fact that the mortgagor is better supplied with buildings and the mortgagee's security is improved, all justify a proposal of this kind.

I suggest to the Minister of Labour that this should be one of the first things to be brought before the commission, in order that the people of the country may find some employment right at their own doors, through an expenditure of money which would not involve any loss to the dominion. It was stated in the housing committee's report that eighty per cent of the cost of the construction of buildings went to labour. In the old country, according to the same report, labour costs in the erection of buildings represented sixty-four per cent. One can realize what that means in terms of wages. If that amount of money can be distributed under a scheme such as I have outlined, it will go to people who are anxious to have it and who must have it, and it will be a means of relieving not only the municipalities but the provinces of a great deal of the relief they are now paying. I repeat that this should be one of the very first projects that the new commission, when appointed, should undertake.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister be good enough to explain just what he means in paragraph (d), which speaks of the commission investigating and reporting upon proposals for the carrying out of programs of public works and other projects to aid in providing employment? Does that mean that the government will submit to the commission the proposals that are made for public works? In the public works department there is an accumulation of reports by departmental engineers on public works and undertakings. As many as could be have been dealt with, but there are still many reports of district engineers in every part of Canada, presented to the chief engineer and to the department, that have not been dealt with. If these proposed projects are to be sent to the commission for a report, I can understand that; but if on the other hand the commission is to investigate and make its report, then the services of those engineers and the reports that have been accumulating for many years would not be of very much value. I cannot quite follow what is meant by paragraph (d) in the only sense in which it can become a practical matter, and I should like the minister to give any explanation he has in mind in that regard.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The section as drafted contemplates that the national employment commission will, as stated, investigate and report upon proposals for the carrying out of programs of public works and other projects to aid in providing employment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where do the proposals come from?

Employment Commission


Norman McLeod Rogers: As my right hon. friend is aware, proposals for large public works projects come from many parts of the country in the form of communications addressed to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or the Minister of Public Works.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am bound to say that some of the proposals do not merit further study. On the other hand some of them obviously do deserve further investigation, and it would seem to me most useful that when such proposals were made for public works projects, let us say of a self-liquidating character, they should be referred to the national employment commission for further investigation. I doubt if it is possible in advance to indicate more precisely the type of public works program that will be either referred to the national employment commission or voluntarily brought by it under its investigation. As has been pointed out, many proposals for public works projects come from members of parliament. I can recall for instance a number of projects, said to be self-liquidating, that have been brought to my attention in the last few months. It is quite possible that engineers of certain of the departments, such as the Department of Public Works, may be able to determine their merits by investigation, but I think it is important that you should have some body which could consider these projects in relation to what has been done before, and in relation also to long range plans of development.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That displaces what has been heretofore done, namely, referring the matters to the engineers of the various departments and receiving their reports.


Norman McLeod Rogers: All that information will be utilized. As a matter of fact the national employment commission will have entirely at its disposal the engineering facilities of the various departments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One is responsible government and the other is not.


Mr. STEWART:: The Prime Minister indicated that supplementary estimates would be brought down providing for a program of public works of fifty, sixty, or seventy-five millions of dollars.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no, not all public works.
Mr.STEWART: Public undertakings,money devoted by this parliament to works that are to be carried on, as I understand it-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For relief and employment.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A certain amount is for
direct relief?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, certainly.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But a considerable share of the money will be devoted to public works. I should like to ask the minister if he thinks that an estimate which is brought down here and passed by parliament should be submitted again to a commission for approval.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As my hon. friend is aware, in respect of the estimates to be brought before the house this session it was not possible to have the advice of the national employment commission. In so far as the dominion government will be able to enteir into arrangements with the provinces for relief works during the coming year I trust we may have the benefit of the advice of the commission. As has been pointed out, the special supplementary estimates will include expenditures for direct relief, expenditures for public works solely within the jurisdiction of the dominion, and expenditures for public works to be carried on jointly with the provinces. So far as the public works that are solely within the jurisdiction of the dominion are concerned, obviously it has not been possible to secure the assistance of the national employment commission. So far as the others are concerned, as I have just said I hope we may have that assistance.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We will assume that a
municipality, a city, decides to embark upon a program of public works, perhaps the improvement of its utilities. It secures the approval and cooperation of the province in that undertaking, and the plan is sent down to Ottawa. Are we to understand that the whole matter would be subject to review again by this commission? It would seem to me that if any such procedure is adopted the minister is only inviting a lot of trouble and a lot of difference of opinion, and instead of helping to secure the result which he desires I am afraid the commission will be an obstacle. It will lead to friction, misunderstanding and delay.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would my hon. friend adopt such a course if he were administering the department?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not understand the question asked by the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point is
this: I think my hom. friend might assume that the present Minister of Labour will exercise as much judgment, wisdom and discretion in what he refers to the commission as my hon. friend would exercise if he were the minister. It is easy to put all sorts of imaginary questions, to assume the minister is going to act
Employment Commission

without common, sense and to say he is embarrassing himself, but a minister is not likely to do that sort of thing.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am only taking the
paragraph as it reads, and it says that the commission shall investigate and report upon proposals for the carrying on of public works and for projects to aid in providing employment. If it means anything at all it means that these projects, whether they originate with the municipality, with the province or with the dominion, will be referred to this commission for the purpose of seeing whether as a -whole they fit into the general scheme and whether or not they should be undertaken. If that is not the meaning what is the commission to do?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It does not say anything of the kind; my hon. friend is inserting words which are not there. According to his reading of the section the commission is to investigate and report upon every proposal, but there is no such word there at all. The section relates to proposals which the commission itself may wish to take under review, or proposals that the minister may wish to refer to it. It does not provide that everything has to be referred1 to the commission.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I did not suggest that everything should be referred to it; I did not use the word "everything,." as the Prime Minister knows.
_ Mr. MACKENZIE KING: That was the interpretation of my hon. friend.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I was trying to find out the plan of the government, whether they were going to refer all these propositions to the commission, or a half, a quarter or a third of them, or possibly none at all.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph (e)-Programs of public works.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is more difficult. It is quite obvious that as far as this year is concerned the proposals submitted to parliament in the supplementary estimates will have been dealt with without the assistance of the commission. This subsection contemplates that the commission shall recommend to the minister measures with respect to programs of public works and projects of the dominion, the provinces, the municipalities, 'and other agencies, intended to aid in providing employment in a manner which will serve to mobilize and coordinate their activities. In reading this one is almost driven to the

use of words that might not be regarded as very complimentary. Just what subsections (d) and (e) can possibly mean in the world of practical affairs I cannot understand. These people are going to recommend to the minister measures with respect to programs of public works and projects of the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities. The minister is not bound by such recommendations, and as far as this year is concerned he is not affected by the work of this commission at all. I confess that I find it difficult to see any practical value that attaches to these subsections.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would say that the first part of this subclause is controlled entirely by the latter part, "intended to aid in providing employment in a manner which will serve to mobilize and coordinate their activities." I would take it, for example, that a national employment commission, in reviewing the possible direction of the expenditure of money for public works, might very well advise whether from the standpoint of employment or from the standpoint of social utility it was better to erect a very expensive police barracks in western Canada or whether, on the other hand, it was preferable to put that same amount of money into community halls, let us say, in various parts of the dominion. It seems to me that is the kind of guidance that would have been very desirable during the past five years. Perhaps my right hon. friend will not acknowledge that, but I have a vivid impression of the kind of pressure that is brought to bear upon the Department of Labour, and I assume upon other departments as well, with respect to expenditures for public works, and as I review what has happened in the last few years I am not at all sure that all the expenditures for public works were well conceived.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not expect the hon. gentleman to think that; I would have been greatly surprised if he had.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I could go into details.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend will have the opportunity; at the moment I have the floor. The hon. gentleman referred to a barracks in western Canada. What he is endeavouring to hint at is the barracks erected at Calgary; that is the only place where barracks of a permanent nature were erected for the permanent forces of Canada. The position was simply this, that for long years an effort had been made to erect some sort of suitable buildings in which men could live. We had a permanent force; part of it was stationed at Calgary. They had no suit-

Employment Commission
able quarters. They had some land but they had no buildings. The conditions were unsanitary and unhealthful, and in every way the situation was unsatisfactory. When the pressure for the erection of these buildings reached the point it did, the question was as to where they should be erected. There were some barracks erected at Winnipeg, and they made up their minds that it was desirable to construct some buildings of this kind in Alberta.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I had in mind western Canada generally, Winnipeg as well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend had in mind these buildings at Calgary.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I said buildings in western Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were erected there
by means of substantial expenditures, and that work gave employment to a very large number of men. The material utilized also gave employment to large numbers of men in factories and mills, and the extent to which employment was provided by the expenditure of that money was very great indeed-for instance the steel, the fabricating of it, the concrete, which came from the Exshaw cement plant, and then the work of levelling and cleaning up the premises. I went over the whole work myself when I was there in the early part of the year to see what had been involved in the way of work, and I was amazed at the number of men who had been employed. That was an undertaking that had to be carried out, otherwise it would have meant the abandonment of the permanent force establishment as far as that community was concerned. And the men giving their time and being paid a trifling wage are the permanent police force of this country, men who may be called upon to risk their lives under certain conditions, as they have done in past years; they are entitled to a place to live in, and when the opportunity offered it was provided. To compare that with a community hall is not worthy of the hon. gentleman. To compare that with the erection of eight or ten community halls is entirely beside the question. This nation assumed the responsibility of maintaining law and order. To do so it maintains a permanent force, whose duties are fixed by law. These men have horses which must be properly stabled; the men are entitled to decent living quarters, and these have been provided by this grant. Whether it was ill considered or not, I know that the pressure for it has been going on for long years, and I believe it was as judicious and as wise an
expenditure as could be made. In addition it provides for the very matter that is in the estimates this year, namely an airport and additional accommodation and facilities for landing and taking off. It is all part of that self-contained unit. It is not completed, but if there was ever an expenditure warranted in the interest of the nation as a whole it is that expenditure, unless we are to shirk our entire responsibility and say we are protected by some other country in some other circumstances, as seems to be the method that is so much in vogue in this country. I notice that the United States spent large sums on works of this very kind, because they enable men who are charged with certain responsibilities to lead decent lives while carrying out the duties with which they are charged.
As far as other public works are concerned, it may well be that some do not commend themselves to the hon. gentleman, but in the main under the supplementary public works estimates they were discussed in this parliament at great length, and they were passed and became part of an act of parliament. It is true there were post offices, public buildings and various kinds of assistance given to different towns and cities and communities, but in every instance where buildings were constructed they were buildings that were required. None of them are surplus; none have been said to be surplus. It may be said by some that it would give more employment and take care of more unemployed if the money were spent in some other way, but the alternatives suggested have not been such, as far as the minister or the cabinet of that time could see, as offered any greater facilities for employment than the undertakings adopted.
There was for instance a building constructed in the border cities. They were without a building; they were demanding and clamouring for one, and its construction gave employment to large numbers of men and indirectly to hundreds of others in supplying the material that went into it. As to the building here in Ottawa, despite what may be said we have in rentals paid several times over for many buildings in this city. Another unit was added to the confederation building because it was thought desirable to do so. The same may be said with respect to the building in Edmonton for the mounted police. The dominion is under contract with the province to maintain the mounted police force for the preservation of law and order in the province as well as the laws for the enforcement of which the dominion is responsible. A suitable barracks was constructed there, giving em-
Employment Commission

ployment to a large number of people and providing an absolutely necessary service, because it is at a strategic point and there was no place in which the men could be properly cared for. In that city there was no proper place in which the accumulated records of the mounted police could be kept together, this being the central point from which the force is governed and directed. It was necessary that they should have a building of some sort.
Opinions will differ as to how this commission of seven men is going to serve any purpose, or be of any value. To refer these questions to them means what? Are they going to travel and look into things? Are they better able to do it than engineers of the public works department, men trained all their lives in such work? If the hon. gentleman will read the reports of the district engineers made to their chief during the last few years he will find that with great care and much precision and with a wealth of technical detail they have reviewed every project placed before the government and the public works department and have given good reasons why it should or should not be gone on with. I do not believe that any commission selected by any government, whether this or another, can do the Dominion of Canada any better service than these men, whose job it is and who have no thought of anything but public service.
As far as coordinating activities is concerned, in the end it always gets down to the governments, of the provinces, the municipalities and the dominion. Notwithstanding all the pious hopes and aspirations, if the seven men appointed for this particular purpose follow the usual course of political predilections, then you have substituted another form of political administration for the present form of political administration, and that is all it will mean.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps the
right hon. leader of the opposition will let me say a word as to one class of activities in which the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion are interested, and which might be co-ordinated for the benefit of all. The tourist trade is becoming a matter of increasing interest to municipalities, provinces and the dominion. It constitutes to all an important source of revenue. It is something we are anxious to develop, and to promote which every municipality and province as well as the dominion is doing what it can. As matters stand at the moment the activities of these different governmental agencies are not correlated. There is a considerable overlapping, a good deal of waste, a lot of money being 
spent without proper direction. A body such as a national commission would be in a position to take a birdseye view and make a general survey of the work being done to further the tourist trade and might make a report which would be of the greatest possible service not only to the dominion government but to the provinces and municipalities. Where large sums of money are being spent for public works to provide employment, expenditure should be directed into the most profitable channels. For example, to promote the tourist trade it is necessary to provide the best possible approaches by road from one part of the country to another or from the country to the south to different places of interest in our own. Would it not be to the advantage of the provinces as well as of the dominion to build up a scheme which would serve to bring into the various provinces tourists from other parts of Canada as well as from other countries. In providing accommodation of the kind to which I have referred, money is required for highways, bridges and the like; a great scheme to coordinate activities which would be presented to this parliament and to the provincial governments and to the municipalities, would, I believe, be accepted as something distinctly advantageous to the country as a whole. It is that kind of thing-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would hardly be
covered by paragraph (e), would it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that is
the kind of thing which would be covered by paragraph (e):
(e) recommend to the minister measures with respect to programs of public works and projects of the dominion, the provinces, the municipalities, and other agencies, intended to aid in providing employment in a manner which will serve to mobilize and coordinate their activities.
All these projects help to furnish employment. The object is to make the money go as far as possible. In other words, wherever possible to kill two or more birds with one stone.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Three birds.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, perhaps kill half a dozen.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I quite agree with what the right hon. gentleman has said regarding the tourist trade. I had proposed to say something about it later on because I had not thought it was covered by paragraph (e). We have already set up a committee to deal with the tourist trade. We have appointed an agent and appropriated $250,000 a year to develop that trade. The tourist trade depends upon three factors: First, the natural scenery

Employment Commission
of the country, its attractiveness without being touched by the hand of man; second, its accessibility, because if you cannot get near it at all, it has no value from the tourist standpoint; third, the facilities, which involve roads, bridges and the whole problem of transportation. Then there are other facilities provided for those who endeavour to reach these points, and that involves the physical facilities and the courtesy and general treatment received by the tourists. The railways have taken care of one side of the problem, that is the reaching of the natural scenery, making the natural scenery accessible along their routes. They have provided facilities and ways for reaching the natural scenery. But we have spent millions of dollars in the national parks, to make accessible the natural beauties of this country. We have provided through our national railway, and the Canadian Pacific have provided through private capital, the facilities to enable people to come here and enjoy the scenery.
For the sake of illustration I mention Jasper park on the Canadian National. We spent large sums of money to make it possible for tourists to get into that park. There is a highway that leads from Edmonton west to Jasper, and it was in very bad condition. We endeavoured to secure from the railway the utilization of part of an old grade where the rails had been taken up during the war and not put down again because they were not required. The province has cooperated in that work. Then it was proposed to carry the highway through the park, and we projected a new road connecting Jasper park with Banff park. That work was done by a number of the unemployed single homeless men, and they have now reached Summit. Only the other day a gentleman told me that undoubtedly from a scenic standpoint it was the most beautiful spot in America. Thai we have by the utilization of those who were out of work. We paid them the going wages during the summer months, and they have carried that work to completion except for forty or fifty miles.
That, I think, is an illustration of what the right hon. gentleman has in mind. Whether or not a commission of seven or five or whatever the number of men may be in Ottawa would be able in any way to assist in bringing about closer cooperation between the province, the dominion, and the municipalities it is difficult to say, but it can be brought about by the action of the mayors of the municipalities, the premier of the province, and the Prime Minister of the dominion acting through the appropriate departments.
What I feared in looking at this paragraph was that it was composed of words that when
analyzed did not mean anything practical, and the question of tourist trade under this paragraph I found it a little difficult to appreciate, but if the right hon. gentleman says that that is what is in mind, certainly there is room for coordination of effort with respect to the tourist trade. Each city has its own way of dealing with that problem, and of course they are all rivals; there is no getting away from that. The communities are competitors for the tourist trade, and as long as it is a competition in courtesy, kindness, consideration and hospitality, and not a competition to see how much they can take out of the tourists for the least possible outlay, it is a good thing for the country, but sometimes it has been found that the competition has led to very bad results for the country as a whole. But I am quite content if the right hon. gentleman assures me that the purpose of the paragraph is as he indicates, although I would never have so understood it had he not stated that that was the purpose. Last year we had a committee appointed under the direction of the Minister of Railways, shortly to be Minister of Transport, and it is to be hoped that he will be able to do something along the line of developing our tourist trade. We have spent a considerable sum in advertising in magazines, in the press and on hoardings, and in a little advertising over the radio, and the results last year were highly satisfactory because we were enabled to receive so large a favourable balance in the tourist trade in our relations with the United States that it had an effective result upon the adverse invisible balances in our dealings with that country. As I say, if this legislation will be of any help in that direction I am certainly very glad to give it my support.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my right hon. friend I am particularly pleased that he has mentioned the very project he has, namely the construction of the road from Banff to Jasper because it will illustrate exactly what was in my mind with regard to this clause. Only to-day I spoke to the Minister of the Interior about the very road my right hon. friend has referred to, and asked if it were not the intention to have the road completed from Banff to Jasper. Apparently the work is not finished, as my right hon. friend assumes. It has progressed a certain distance, but it is far from finished. While in the mountains, during a recent visit to the west, I went to see the work which was being done. My feeling is that the route is one of the most promising to be found anywhere in the Rocky mountains. The scenery is quite exceptional.
Employment Commission


Richard Bedford Bennett: The road has been under construction for two years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister tells me that he thinks the money would have been spent to better advantage if more had been done in the first instance to develop the approaches from the United States to the park.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was a provincial matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Exactly, and that brings out what I am trying to illustrate. The province is responsible for part of the work, and the dominion for another part of the work, but there is no coordination. A body such as the one proposed could meet a situation of the kind. It would be able to make a recommendation to the province and the dominion alike which would lead to effective cooperation and which would outline the most beneficial course to follow. I do not know anything which can better illustrate the purpose which it is hoped the commission operating under this section will serve than the example to which my right hon. friend and I have referred.


Mr. STEVENS:: The observations of the Prime Minister prompt me to say just a word regarding construction under this section of road connections from the mountain parks to the boundary. There are four or five national parks, not close together because they are extensive in themselves, but covering a very large area in the mountains: Kootenay park, Yoho park, Banff park, Waterton park and Glacier park. Invested in these parks, so I am informed, is somewhere between forty and fifty million dollars in roadways and other facilities for tourists. There is nothing on this continent to equal these parks for beauty and facilities for enjoying them once you are there, but the road connections from the international boundary to the parks are atrocious; they could not possibly be worse. It is notorious among those who are living near the boundary or anywhere adjacent to the connecting roads that tourists from the south by hundreds turn back and never finish the trip to the parks. They go back to the United States and tell their friends about the difficulty of the roadway from Eastgate or any other point of entry to the parks. I have suggested before-in fact I took the liberty of writing the Minister of the Interior not long ago on this subject-urging not only on my own behalf but on behalf of the various organizations interested in this work, and on behalf of the districts adjacent to these parks, that assistance should be given in the con-

struction of these roads. I should like to intimate what will probably be the result. I venture the statement without fear of successful contradiction that within three years the number of visitors will be multiplied tenfold.
Do not let anyone be fearful that this increase will congest these magnificent parks. Their areas take in thousands of square miles and a tremendous number of persons can be within the parks without there being anything in the nature of congestion. We must not forget that they are revenue producing. Every automobile that enters the parks pays either $2 or $2.50. This provides a considerable revenue. If the number of cars entering can be increased by tens of thousands in a season, the revenue obtained would sppply a substantial proportion of the upkeep and the interest on the moneys expended. There is already an investment of $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 and it is only common sense that these parks should be made accessible.
Another point I should like to make is the fact that in the valleys adjacent to these parks is a number of settlers who have not easy access to the cities for their products. If the tourist traffic were developed through these districts, as I know it would be, the revenue accruing to the settlers along these routes would go a long way towards giving them adequate sustenance and a good livelihood. I may say to the Prime Minister that I was delighted to hear that this particular project is to be contemplated. It might have been dealt with by the national parks branch under the Minister of the Interior, but I welcome its being undertaken through the agency of this commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is just one word
that should be said. I think the right hon. gentleman is aware that when you begin to give assistance for highways to one province and do not give it to another you run into great difficulties. In Ontario are many miles of concrete highways which have been built at the expense of the province. In other provinces there are hard-surfaced roads of different kinds, some covered with asphalt and others with various patented substances. In Prince Edward Island the dust is so bad that they have tried to utilize on their roads a covering which is not very thick, but which would attract tourists by making it possible for them to travel over the roads without being covered with too much dust. The difficulty in connection with the highways in some parts of western Canada is the same. Once assistance is given to one part of the country, immediately this old question will

Employment Commission
be raised. I assure the minister that he will find it being raised every day of the year. Onee you help province number one in the construction of highways, province number two must have help for the same purpose. It is a matter of policy and this commission cannot help that.
The government of British Columbia declined to undertake to put these roads, to which reference has been made by the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens), into a state whereby the dust would be eliminated and they would be traversable by tourists. With the demands that were being made for assistance for the construction of roads in other provinces, including the western provinces, all that we could say to the government of British Columbia was that we would be prepared to advance money as a loan to enable this to be done, but we would not undertake responsibility for payment because of the difficulties with other provinces asserting claims of equal strength and, as they contended, of equal merit.
So far as the road between Banff and Jasper is concerned, it serves two purposes. It enables those who come in to make a triangular trip by going north from Banff to Jasper, then east to Edmonton and south from Edmonton, leaving the country by another route. Or they can enter by way of Edmonton, go west and then south through this new property to Banff park, and then south and -west, travelling over an almost completed highway, or, if they so desire, south in another way. They can also go south through Macleod and Eernie. I believe that the road owing to its scenic beauty and the height of land through which it passes -it is very high and beautiful-would attract a larger number of people to both parks than any other single undertaking that could be completed. I remember that when the question of taking the Jasper road down to Kamloops in order to provide another outlet was being considered, there were those in the Edmonton district who thought it was undesirable to make a connection from Banff to Jasper. They thought it would be to their detriment, but in view of what they heard later as to the triangular route providing additional traffic I think they changed their minds. They realized that it would be of tremendous value from a scenic standpoint. I doubt whether there is another piece of work that would give greater returns. If tourists go out by way of Banff they can go west into the Yoho valley. If they go north from Banff to Jasper, they then can spend some time in Jasper, proceed east to Edmonton and go through a scenic part 12739-120
of the cultivated and uncultivated areas of that provinces.


Mr. TURGEON:: I had not intended to take up the time of the committee, but the words just uttered by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) in connection with the construction of highways in and out of certain park lands in western Canada force me to say just a word or two about northern British Columbia and the necessity for highways in and out of that part of the country. I have a further word to say as to what the expenditure of money in the districts I have in mind will mean to the development of Canada as a whole. I heard what the leader of the opposition said with reference to the expenditure of moneys in one province when conditions make it impossible to expend a similar amount in every other province. Not only is this country crying for tourists; it must have tourists. This country is also crying for the development of its latent mineral resources. While I have every sympathy with those who want to build highways to our park lands, not only for the development of the parks themselves but for the attraction of tourists, I want to point out that there are certain parts of British Columbia in which large sums of money have not been expended upon the creation and maintenance of parks, and in which are located thousands and thousands of settlers who have no highways in and out of the communities in which they live to and from their markets.
There is in northern British Columbia contiguous to the great Peace River district possibly the greatest undeveloped mineral zone in all Canada. In the Peace River district there is the greatest tourist attraction in all Canada. For thirty years the dominion government, not the provincial government, has been sending literature descriptive of the virtues of the Peace River country to every part of the American continent and across the Atlantic to Great Britain and certain parts of continental Europe. Ever since 1895 those settlers who have listened to the inducements held out by the federal government and settled in that country have over and over again taken at international expositions first prizes for different kinds of grains and vegetables. The Peace River country is the greatest tourist attraction that Canada has, and a highway traversing the distance between, say, Prince George or Vanderhoof and the Peace River country itself will open up one of the greatest mineral developments that Canada will see in the next ten years, a development that will bring untold millions of dollars of new money into the

Employment Commission

country and provide a market for the settlers who have been brought by the dominion government into that northern section.
I would point out, especially with reference to what has been said by the leader of the opposition in regard to the expenditure of moneys in the various provinces, that the Peace River country is not in one province; it is as much in British Columbia as it is in Alberta. In 1905 when this parliament created Alberta it did not hand over the lands and natural resources to that province but retained the administration of them, and through that administration colonization took place. When British Columbia joined confederation in 1871 the great Peace River block, for purposes of administration, was given to the national government at Ottawa, and the lands in both Alberta and the Peace River block were administered by Ottawa from the time those provinces came into existence until within seven or eight years ago, so that the great bulk of the settlement that has taken place in the Peace River district in Alberta and British Columbia has taken place under the auspices of the national government and not of either of the two provincial governments. I ask now that this parliament, which on many occasions has voted in favour of a rail outlet from the Peace River district to the coast, should listen to the plea that some time, through the expenditure of moneys that are being provided for in this bill, the faith of the people of that northern district in Canadian public life may be restored and that, through the efforts of the national government combined, if possible, with those of the provinces in question, they may be given that outlet to which they are entitled; that the faith of the people may be restored; that the mineral deposits which nature has given them may be developed, and that so far as the tourist traffic is concerned, because that appears to be very much before parliament at this moment, when that highway is completed through northern British Columbia into the Peace River district, opening up the attractions of Peace River to tourists on the north American continent, there will be provided exactly what the leader of the opposition says that some of these other roads will provide. The tourist will be enabled to go north over the great historic Cariboo highway right into the Peace River district, through the mineral areas that will be developed, along the natural grandeur of the Peace river itself, back through Edmonton, and east or south as he may wish to go, making the round trip from Seattle, Washington, through Vancouver, Lillooet, Williams Lake, Quesnel north to Prince George

or Vanderhoof and Fort St. James, east along the scenic grandeur of the Peace river, south again to Edmonton and south to Calgary, or east as he may wish. I leave this thought with the parliament of Canada, pointing out that besides the benefits which will accrue from the expenditure of this money there is a duty imposed upon parliament in consequence of things that have been done in the past.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I realize the necessity
for the encouragement of the tourist traffic, but I suggest that that, when roads as public works are being considered, dangerous level crossings be given particular attention, and also that where it is possible to place bridges over rivers on which ferries are dangerous and difficult such undertakings be included. I am not in any way criticizing the idea of constructing roads into parks, but I do think level crossings and bridges over difficult and dangerous rivers should have precedence over suggestions that are in the nature of luxuries.
Paragraph (e) agreed to.
On paragraph (f)-Cooperation with groups.


Mr. MacNICOL:: This paragraph reads:
-investigate and report to the minister on measures of cooperation with commercial and industrial groups in devising means under which provision may be made for the maintenance and increase of employment.
Much has been said during this discussion about the hope that industry will provide a good deal of employment. I assume, therefore, that when the commission starts touring the country it will visit various industrial centres and in the course of its tour it will call at many individual plants and will offer some suggestions with regard to providing work for men. I have been hoping that something would be said as to what suggestions might be offered to the industrialists of the country to provide more employment. Certainly, if more employment is to be provided there must be a greater outlet for what is produced, and I imagine that what will be said to those who are operating industrial institutions will be rather along the line of increasing production. A few days ago I came into contact with a very small industry employing something less than two score of young men and women making wooden heels for ladies' shoes. According to the recent trade agreements the protection on the product of that small plant has been reduced from 25 to 20 per cent, that is to say, a 20 per cent cut. A number of the employees of the plant have already been laid off and I have been informed-I do not know but I shall inquire this week-that the plant itself, small though it is, is going to close down, with the result that the line it is

Employment Commission
making as a branch of an American plant will be shipped into Canada from the main plant in the United States. What will the travelling commission say to the manager of a small plant like that when that manager tells them: You have closed our plant; what can we do to provide employment?
I have been thinking of a sawmill in the county of Grey. It buys its raw product, logs, from the farmers roundabout in Grey-Bruce. It operates in Hanover and ships a portion of the raw product, the best part of it, to Europe, the rest being sold to a furniture factory in Hanover. The duty on the product of that plant in Hanover has been reduced from 45 to 27 per cent. What will the commission say to the manager of this plant in Hanover or to managers of similar furniture plants in Durham, Chesley or Neustedt or of these small sawmills that buy their raw product from farmers in the vicinity? It seems to me that we are going backwards; we are travelling in the opposite direction to the one in which we should be going. If we hope to encourage industry, to give employment, this cannot be done when the product of industry is up against competition which it cannot meet. And the same might be said of every branch or every plant supplying goods to these manufacturers. Take, for example, a plant that buys all kinds of fillers, all kinds of turpentine, paints, varnishes, all that long line of furniture materials made in Canada. What is this roving commission going to find when it visits the big Canadian companies which manufacture fillers, varnishes, stains and so forth? They will be told: Why, you have taken our market away by reducing the duty on the products of the people to whom we sell, that is the furniture manufacturers, from 45 per cent to 27 per cent. I can see that the commission is going to have a right royal time with scores of lines of industry in this country. They will not find very much encouragement when they arrive at the office doors of those plants unles when the budget comes down the intermediate tariff is increased on many scores of lines.
I have no intention of holding up the item, although I could cover a long list of industries and a great number of products the manufacture of which, in my humble opinion, is seriously threatened by the recent trade agreement. As I have said, the minister's travelling commission is going to get a warm reception when it arrives at these various plants and asks them to take on more men, because industry is not run just for playfulness; it is run on a basis of profit and loss, of buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, and it is only from the difference 12739-120}
between the cost of the product they make and the price at which they sell that they are able to give employment, pay wages and keep the plants going. I sincerely hope that industry will survive and that more employment will be provided, but I do not envy the commission the reception they will get from many industries at this time.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I wish to ascertain from the minister how the function of the commission as outlined in this paragraph will be related to the activities of the employment service of Canada. It strikes me that one important function of the commission will be to spread more equitably the available employment, and in a work of that kind the employment service or the labour exchange is of vital importance. I urge that consideration be given to the necessity at this time of strengthening the employment service of Canada. It is not manned in the provinces as it should be. We have not the expert staff to accomplish correct vocational placement; this service has not gained the confidence of employing interests as it should. These offices should be something more than merely points for the registration of those seeking employment. They should be able to place at the disposal of employing interests facilities for the placement of competent and trained workers. There are very few instances, as I understand it, where important employing interests refer to these employment offices for the help which they require. Furthermore, an important feature has been overlooked that is dealt with in this paragraph. Provision was made in the Employment Offices Coordination Act of 1919 for the establishment of local advisory committees to be attached to the local employment offices. No steps have been taken since that time by the provincial governments to carry out the provisions of the act. If this work had been done properly and cooperation established between employers and workers in the various communities adjacent to the employment service offices there would have been greater stability, I think, in the conditions in these communities. It is important that there should be that cooperation in order to encourage, on the one hand, confidence on the part of the workers in the operations of these offices, and on the other, confidence on the part of the employing interests that they can secure through these offices the help they require. It is only under a system of that kind that the commission or the government will have any semblance of control over the turn-over of labour so as to dovetail seasonal employment, introduce elements of stability that are now lacking, and
Employment Commission

transfer labour from points where there is a surplus in some particular industry to other points where there may be a scarcity. I should like some brief outline by the minister as to his plans for the correlation of the work of the employment service of Canada with that of the commission, under this paragraph.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The particular paragraph before the committee proposes that the national employment commission should investigate and report to the minister on measures of cooperation with commercial and industrial groups in devising means under which provision may be made for the maintenance and increase of employment. This has in contemplation that type of appeal to industrial groups for cooperation which was made quite effectively in the United States under the national recovery administration. I have no desire to comment at this time on other features of the national recovery administration in the United States, but I think it is generally conceded that there was an outstanding response to the appeal to employers to assist the nation in dealing with this serious situation. I agree with my hon. friend that it would be desirable that there should also be close collaboration between the employment service of Canada and the national employment commission. We have every intention of seeing that such collaboration is obtained and maintained. At the present time, as my hon. friend is aware, the employment service is faced with a very difficult problem. The offices have existed, as he knows, mainly for the purposes of registration of those who have been unemployed for one, two and three years, sometimes longer. Nevertheless, I have before me reports which indicate that despite those conditions there have been quite substantial placements during this period of depression. I think I might place on Hansard the totals in the years 1930 to 1935; they will suffice: 1930, 368,679; 1931, 471,508; 1932, 352,214; 1933, 352,097; 1934, 406,091; 1935, incomplete figures, ten months, 294,823. The machinery of the employment offices exists. I think there is much to be said for bringing it into closer accord with what we propose as set forth in this bill.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: I desire to draw to the attention of the hon. minister the appalling conditions in many of the ghost towns situate in the coal areas of Vancouver island, such towns, for instance, as Extension, South Wellington, Morden, Northfield, East Wellington, Lantzville, and other smallei communities, where there are coal resources of approximately 28,000,000 tons. These communities are absolutely without work; they are

all on relief. The commission in the course of its investigations might discover some way whereby the owners of these coal areas and the men could be brought together to the advantage of Canada and themselves. I purpose sending to the minister a copy of a resolution which I hold in my hand. I should be glad if he would keep it before him for reference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the Unemployment Insurance Act has any validity, of course this paragraph will have been covered by the operations of the commissioners under that act. The particular point made by the hon. member for Vancouver North with respect to placements and the movement of labour is covered by provisions of that statute. The NRA, to which the minister referred, was made operative by vast expenditures on the part of the federal government in connection with the movement of men from one section of the country to another. I remember one camp which contained numbers of young men who had been moved many hundreds of miles, and they were paid substantial sums of money in addition. The operation of that particular matter involved in the aggregate the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars, as perhaps the minister realizes, in connection with labour and the movement of labour from one section of the country to another, and the providing of work. It will be remembered that in one instance they were actually, as a part of one of the branches of this work teaching young women how to dance. I dare say the hon. gentleman saw the article in one of the New York papers dealing with that phase of their activities.
This either means a great deal or does not mean very much. When I say that it may mean a great deal, it means this: Here is a super-body imposed upon our governmental structure controlling the activities-or we shall say not controlling, but dealing with the activities-of provinces, municipalities and the dominion, and obviously it can do that effectively only if it has power such as is not given by this bill. To investigate and report to the minister upon such matters has usually been a matter of precise, definite indication on the part of a commission directed to undertake an inquiry such as, for instance, that now being undertaken by Mr. Justice Turgeon, or as was undertaken by the commission on technical education and by a commission dealing with another matter that has escaped my memory at the moment. But if these men are to investigate and report to the minister on these measures of cooperation, obviously they are going to be charged with greater power and authority than any body

Employment Commission
has had in this country for a very long time, unless it is merely a matter of travelling to ascertain from observation how best they think the desired ends can be attained. In any event the effective carrying out of any suggestion would involve a duplication if the social insurance act is sustained, or if it is not, the setting up of organizations of the kind contemplated by that measure.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection (g)-Apprenticeship.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it must be said that this is a provincial matter, in connection with which the commission can only report. Surely a body set up by this parliament to investigate and report upon the question of apprenticeships can accomplish nothing as far as making a report of any value is concerned, because that is a matter solely under the control of each of the nine provinces. Each of the nine provinces, as the situation now stands, must have control of the contracts dealing with apprenticeships. What the commission could do would be to report that in Prince Edward Island, we will say, sons of farmers should be apprenticed to farmers. That could not have any value, because it would be for the government of Prince Edward Island to determine what action should be taken, and the recommendation made to this government could not have any value as far as that province would be concerned. The same remarks would apply with respect to the industrial provinces, in connection with employment. I merely mention this in passing because one hon. gentleman- I forget which one it was-referred to the matter yesterday, and I felt that his point was 'well taken.
Mr. IvINLEY:	This and the preceding
paragraph are the two paragraphs of the bill that I particularly like, because I think they contain great possibilities. This paragraph indicates cooperation between industry and the state. Industry employs labour, and I cannot conceive of any better way to help unemplo3"ment than by cooperation with those who employ labour at the present time.
This paragraph is particularly important at this moment because it touches the problem of youth. We have among the unemployed in Canada at present many older people; as far as they are concerned that problem will pass away in time, but these youths are the advancing army that is coming along. Boys fourteen, fifteen or sixteen come out of school, and if they are drifters for the next five or six years they will be not only ruined
as far as their citizenship is concerned but apt to become a menace to the state. The adolescent period between seventeen and twenty-one is the time when the state should be most particular in looking after the youth of this country. As one who is an employer of labour, and who has been such all my life since I have been connected with industry, I find that especially in the rural towns the boys, including those of good families, hang round the pool-rooms, live at their fathers' tables, drifting along without any purpose and without that self-expression that means so much to youth. These boys want to learn trades. Every day in my office, when I am home, I have applications from boys saying: Can you take us in and teach us a trade? We are not particular how much we get but we would like to learn to do something.
There is such a thing as continuity of labour. If we have depressed conditions for five years and industry has not the recruits now who will provide the skilled labour later, when.times get better there will be a shortage of skilled labour. It does not take long to destroy the continuity of labour. Even to-day, if times were to get better suddenly, there would be a shortage of skilled workmen. Even if there is no work for such boys when they get through they will be equipped for something; they will have learned a trade; they will have acquired self-confidence and self-esteem, and they will be premitted that self-expression that is most valuable. If there could be cooperation between industry and the state in regard to taking boys into industry I think this would be very valuable. It might have to be a subsidized apprenticeship. For instance there is no better general training for a boy than as a junior in a bank. The banks might not need more boys, but if they took in a few in cooperation with the state and taught them the business for the next few years, they would be doing something that would be good for the boys and good for the business structure of the country, and for the institution also, because I fear for the future of Canada unless we take up this problem seriously and look after this advancing army of youth. Teach them to work; teach every boy a trade. Make it the responsibility of those connected with industry as well as the responsibility of the state that these boys should be taught trades so that they can look after themselves after they have completed their education. That could be done by a small expenditure. The last thing we want in this country is people on relief; that destroys the very thing that will make a
Employment Commission

nation, and it seems to me that when you put boys into relief camps and leave them there you are doing something which in the end will not be to the advantage of this dominion.
The two paragraphs contain immense possibilities. Let us make use of them to the full. Down in my province there is a great fishing industry, which at the present time is facing world markets and world conditions that are terrible. With a little stimulation that industry could employ thousands of men who to-day are seeking employment. These are not men who crave a high standard of living. They are men who can live on the 849 or 850 monthly that it costs to keep a man in a relief camp; many men who maintain families live on even less than that, in the fishing and farming districts especially. They ask for an opportunity to live, to live on a scale that people in this section of Canada would think very low. Take the merchant marine of this country; we are a sea-faring people, a maritime people; we must live upon the sea. In the days of decentralized effort on the sea our men built their vessels and sailed them to every port in the world. To-day with the centralization of shipping they find no opportunity to go upon the sea, and there is nothing else they can do. We cannot compete with the farmers of upper Canada to the extent we would like, although my county is one of the best farming counties in Nova Scotia. But this great fishing industry supplies the local market for the farmers of that section. If we can start the boys as apprentices on the ships, or put them into industry, the old fellows will look after themselves in time and we shall be looking after what will make the future citizenship of this country, which is the biggest problem this parliament has to meet.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the Minister of Labour
at his disposal now any information respecting apprenticeship systems that have been in effect in certain industries, say in Ontario?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I was going to say, in
answer to the question put by the leader of the opposition, that we are fully aware that for the dominion government to interfere directly with apprenticeship would be to interfere with provincial jurisdiction as it relates to contracts and indentures. But all that is proposed in this paragraph is that there should be an investigation and a report upon plans for the establishment of an apprenticeship system in industry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Obviously that must be provincial.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The apprenticeship system
itself, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The plans must be provincial.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, quite so. But it will be noted that at the dominion-provincial conference it was proposed that the national employment commission

I will quote the precise words:
That under government leadership a system shall be devised for the training of youth in habits and technique of work and industry and for a thorough and well integrated apprenticeship system.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be, I take it, under the leadership of a provincial government.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Under government leadership, this says. As far as this paragraph is concerned, it is designed simply to bring about a study of the possibilities of enlarging apprenticeship throughout Canada. Intimation has come -to me from various sources, as was indicated a moment ago by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley) that as a result of the disorganization of industry during the past few years there has been a lack of the normal training of youth through apprenticeship. If that is the case we ought to have information which would enable us, possibly in conjunction with the provinces, to stimulate apprenticeship or some other form of vocational training. My right hon. friend is aware that there is upon the statute books now a vocational training act. It is in force but it has not been put into operation. It can be put into operation only when provinces have submitted certain definite schemes and when these schemes in turn have been accepted by the dominion government. I am not sure that it would operate as a suitable medium through which cooperation with respect to apprenticeship might be obtained, but at any rate we have that legislation upon the statute books and as far as technical training is concerned we have in the past assisted the provinces in what has been regarded as their own field.


John Ritchie MacNicol: ,Through technical schools.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Through technical schools, but this proposes, what I think is desirable at this time, an investigation of the possibilities of apprenticeship for training the youth of our country in mechanical arts.


John Ritchie MacNicol: All the minister really can do is to request that each of the provinces makes an investigation along this line.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No; there is nothing to prevent us from making an investigation, and indeed I think from the standpoint of progress

Equitable Life Insurance
along this line it would be desirable that the investigation be conducted by such an agency as is proposed here rather than by single provinces.


John James Kinley: You could make a contract with any industry in Canada. There is nothing to prevent you from making a contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or the Lunenburg fishing fleet if you want to.


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: It seems to me that in this clause we are simply going back to the old plan of starting an investigation, making a study, when what we want is some action. We had an investigation many years ago into technical education; the dominion government did assist to a certain extent; a number of schools were built. The trouble to-day is that the provinces, not having the funds, cannot carry on the work that was then started. We have provision as far as law is concerned. Studies have been made not only in this country and the United States but all over Europe which enable us to know how to carry on technical training. The apprenticeship system in the old form has gone; we all know that. What is the use of going back? It may work yet in a few special industries, but on the whole apprenticeship is gone. Let us go forward to the newer type of technical training needed to-day. And what is necessary for that is not more study and information, but more cash. As soon as the dominion government is prepared to give some monetary assistance the provinces are quite willing to go ahead. In my own city there are hundreds and thousands of young people knocking at the doors of the technical schools, anxious to get some technical training, but the trouble is that the city and the province cannot supply it and we are waiting for the dominion government to assist.
Those young men and young women who are out of work are anxious to prepare themselves so that when work does come, if ever it does, they will be fitted for it. But with the municipalities so nearly bankrupt and the province not much better off we cannot do this. I respectfully suggest that the time for these studies upon studies upon studies and investigation after investigation and commission after commission is gone. We are simply wasting time instead of getting down to what will meet the needs of to-day. I urge the minister not to follow that line. It is many years since we had that most exhaustive investigation of technical education. Let the minister turn up his files and he will find enough that is still waiting to be done. Nearly all our provincial governments have had
investigations into the matter. I remember that over twenty-five years ago I toured the United States as a member of a provincial commission on technical training. What did we do? We established some few schools in a small way, but our province has not been able to keep pace with the developments even in our own city. We do not need more information; we need assistance to carry out the technical training about which we all know but of which we are not able to take full. advantage.


John Ritchie MacNicol: More action 1
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROSS W. GRAY (Lambton West) moved the second reading of Bill No. 43, to incorporate the Equitable Life Insurance Company of Canada.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Explain.


Mr. GRAY:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to incorporate the Equitable Life Insurance Company of Canada. This company will take over the assets and liabilities of a company that was incorporated some twenty years ago under a provincial charter in Ontario, and that is known as the Ontario Equitable Life and Accident Insurance Company. With insurance in force at the present time to the extent of upwards of forty million dollars, it seemed to the directors and shareholders that the time had arrived when the company should be brought under the jurisdiction of the federal authorities, and this bill is to bring the company within the confines of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932. All precautions have been taken for the necessary safeguards and to bring the clauses of the bill within that jurisdiction. I propose, after the second reading is granted, to ask that the bill be referred to the banking and commerce committee, where the officials of the company will be able to give full details and answer any questions that may be asked.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, obviously there
Equitable Life Insurance
COMMON*
is no reason why this bill should not be read a second time, but there are three points of major importance that must be considered. The first strikes one the minute one reads the title of the proposed company: The Equitable Life Insurance Company of Canada. "Equitable" is a name that has been associated in the public mind with "The Equitable," which is the short name of one of the oldest and most powerful insurance companies in the world. It has had a difficult history at times, and is now a mutual company. I will not discuss that phase of the matter for, presumably, having regard to what this company is, the superintendent of insurance has dealt with that phase of it. We had great difficulty some few years ago in connection with a company that was incorporated in the United States and sought to do business in Canada. The name of the American company conflicted to some extent with that of a Canadian company, and where a company seeks to do business outside Canada and to become licensed in other jurisdictions the difficulties, if the name is such as that suggested in this bill, will be very great indeed.
The next question, of course, affects purely the security of the policyholders. With respect to that I do not propose at the moment to make any observations.
The third and last point refers to a matter which is not of any great importance in one sense, that of the position of the stockholders, but which obviously, for public reasons, may become one of very great importance. The history of the company the assets and liabilities of which are being taken over is not unknown to many of us, and it is therefore of the utmost importance to know that the superintendent of insurance has carefully investigated the assets and liabilities of the enterprise. That, as the hon. member has very properly said, can be better dealt with, I think, by the committee to which the bill will be referred than by this house.
Subject to the reservations which I have made, and which are, in my judgment, of great importance, I repeat that I see no reason why the bill should not receive its second reading and go to the committee that deals with such measures.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.



EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 14, respecting the establishment of a national employment commission -Mr. Rogers-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre):	Section 6, paragraph (g).
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Chairman,
when the committee rose at six o'clock I was going to point out what seemed to me to be an essential lack in a measure of this kind. I have no desire whatever to delay the passing of this bill, but it does seem to me that each clause as it comes along only shows more clearly the futility of the whole bill and of the legislation that we have placed before us. Now that we come to the suggestion that this commission should investigate and report to the minister upon plans for the establishment of an apprenticeship system in industry, it seems to me that not only are we taking action that is not going to lead us anywhere, but we are really asking the commission to travel up every blind alley that we can think of. I was reminded that it was twenty-five years ago that I happened to be on a commission to investigate the question of technical education, which seemed the best way of supplementing the deficiencies of our apprenticeship system. I did not know whether I had a copy of the report but I have managed to find one. I wish I could impress upon the committee the fact that conditions have so changed that we cannot very well go back to the old system. This report of the royal commission on technical education and industrial training is dated August 26, 1910. It was a commission set up by the Manitoba government. I should like to quote from the report a few sentences:
There is, further, a large class of young men engaged in the trades who, through the conditions under which modern industry is carried on and the increased tendency towards specialization, have little opportunity for mastering the craft in which they are engaged. The one operation performed day after day becomes entirely mechanical.
There is the first class that we have with us to-day, to whom the apprenticeship system would be of very little value; in fact, there is no move at all on the part of these industries to go into any such arrangement as an apprenticeship system.
With regard to skilled labour, I quote again:
With the exception of a few employers- for the most part large corporations-there

Employment Commission
seems to be little attempt made to train young people to the trades requiring skill. Many employers frankly stated that they had not time to train apprentices, and that the wageearning power of the apprentice being small, he was frequently drawn away from his trade in the early stages by the greater wage he could earn in one of the employments where skill was not required.
That was twenty-six years ago-I was just about right when I said twenty-five years ago-that was a time when we had a boom, and when there were many opportunities for work. But even in those days we had largely passed away from the apprenticeship system. I quote another sentence:
It is found, too, even when the apprenticeship system has survived, that it is to-day necessary to supplement the practice of the shop by the instruction of the school for the development of intelligent workmen. A very notable example of this is given in the interesting evidence of Mr. Grant Hall, in his account of the apprentice classes conducted in the Canadian Pacific railway shops.
Again:
Many of the witnesses also who testified had served apprenticeship in the British isles, and their evidence showed that a large number of them had found it necessary for the mastery of their work to study the theoretical side of their trade and supplement their general education by attendance at evening classes, while many trained in Canada had done the same thing through the medium of the correspondence school.
We find here that the apprenticeship system in itself is not sufficient. In most trades it has been almost abandoned, but in any case it has to be supplemented by technical training. The point I was making before the recess was that if the government really wants to do something helpful in this matter, it ought to make grants to our existing technical institutions and to extend their scope. In that way we would be doing something to meet the real needs of the young people. Someone may say that the report from which I have just quoted is only a local report, dealing with conditions in one of the western provinces. I should like to read a paragraph from the other report to which I referred before the recess, the report of the royal commission on technical education, under the chairmanship of Doctor James W. Robertson. The report was delivered in 1913 and took up four huge volumes. I thought everyone knew of this report, but during the recess I had considerable difficulty in digging it out of the archives in the library. I commend this statement to the minister:
The whole system of apprenticeship has changed during the last ten or twenty years, to the detriment of the mechanic. Apprentices are not required to put themselves under indenture; it seems contrary to the genius of
Canadian people to indenture. Apprentices learn only a small part of trade as a rule, owing to machinery, hence fail to become mechanics. Under old apprenticeship system men were more skilled.
There is really no apprenticeship now, hut more and more specialization every year, so that a man does not master the details of an industry to-day as he used to, and the boy does not get a chance. The apprentice system is practically obsolete as far as manufacturing operations are concerned, and no factory or concern can keep a hoy at apprentice wages after he becomes useful.
The above will be found on page 1722 of the report. After a quarter of a century, what do we find? In order to meet a great national emergency the minister proposes to instruct this commission that is to be appointed to investigate and report to him upon plans for the establishment of an apprenticeship system in industry. As I said before dinner, I think that the proposal is absolutely absurd. If the minister wants to, he can go to these various exhaustive volumes and he will find details of the conditions that prevailed a quarter of a century ago, and have become worse since that time. Industry, as it has become more mechanized and more highly specialized, is less liable to-day to go back to the apprenticeship system. Under these circumstances why load down this commission with the task outlined in paragraph
(g)7
I submit to the minister that if he is thinking about the future of industry, he has already tens of thousands of skilled mechanics now in the bread lines. Any one who has looked into the statistics of local welfare or relief agencies knows there are large numbers of men who are highly skilled and who cannot get work. What is the advantage in training more men? It may be said that it is a good thing to have these young fellows educated, with which I agree; I am ready heartily to endorse anything that will give these young people a better chance at school, but surely this is not a solution of the unemployment problem. When we in this part of the house suggest pensions for older people, we will say starting at sixty years, in order to allow the younger people to have a chance, we are immediately ridiculed as being impractical. I submit that that is one of the most practical suggestions we could possibly make. If carried out it would leave room for some of these young men instead of crowding into the labour market a few more by means of an attempted apprenticeship system. Such action will not solve the unemployment problem. I take it that this commission is to be set up to deal not with educational matters as such, but rather with unemployment and relief.
Employment Commission

I do not like to have to speak in this critical fashion with regard to a measure brought in by the present minister. I differ somewhat from other hon. members who are inclined to think that because of his academic training the minister is not qualified for his present work. I feel that because of his academic training he is better qualified than many of the ministers we have had in that office before. But this is not merely a matter of the minister himself; it is a matter of the entire program being brought before us by the government. We had a general election a few months ago at which time those who now form the government told us that if they were elected we would get action. In studying legislation of this kind I feel that while the people are asking for bread, the government is giving them a stone. Sometimes it seems to me that our whole parliamentary institution is being turned into a veritable farce. We have been discussing matters of detail day after day. Even if we pass this bill, what is there in it that will really help materially in the solution of this great problem which we face?
I sometimes wonder how much longer the members of this house will be able to participate in this kind of thing and conscientiously face our electors. We are spending millions of dollars in the upkeep of this parliament, in the publishing of reports and all that sort of thing. When we consider the situation, what are we doing here now? We are setting up one more commission which, I assume, will bring in some more reports that will be duly filed away in the library or the archives.
It is not reports that we want; it is action. I do not know that I should say anything more as I do not want to delay the committee or to go over unnecessary statistics which would amply substantiate the statements I have made. I want to urge upon the government, in connection with this and other paragraphs, that if they are bound to have a commission they charge that commission with doing something practical and not, as this paragraph suggests, something so futile as attempting to find out if there is some way in which the apprenticeship system may be resurrected.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph (h).
Richard Bedford Bennett: I must say that I think this paragraph should not be in the bill unless we are going to multiply commissions beyond all reason. We are about to set up a special commission to deal with a particular probfMr. Woods worth.]
lem and now we are subordinating one body to another, for it means subordination if it means anything. The language used is as follows:
-investigate and report upon ways and means of providing employment for disabled persons, and cooperate with the veterans' assistance commission in its efforts to secure suitable employment for ex-soldiers;
Is it necessary that in addition to the machinery we have under the Pension Act and the Department of Pensions and National Health, we should set up a new commission which should have anything to do with disabled returned men? That is the question I ask the minister. I personally cannot see that such a proposition is desirable, and I think it will be found in practice to be unsatisfactory.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It will be noticed in this paragraph that the national employment commission is to investigate and report upon ways md means of providing employment for disabled persons, and cooperate with the veterans' assistance commission in its efforts to secure suitable employment for ex-soldiers. So far as that first expression is concerned, "disabled persons," it was not intended in any way to suggest that this national employment commission should concern itself directly with the plight of disabled soldiers but the intention rather was that it should deal with other disabled persons, such, for example, as the blind and the deaf, exploring ways and means by which employment may be found for these unfortunate people who are not able to secure employment by ordinary means. So far as cooperation with the veterans' assistance commission is concerned, it was indicated in the debate this afternoon that in the matter of classification, for instance, there was every reason why there should be very close cooperation between the national employment commission and the veterans' assistance commission. As a matter of fact this paragraph has been inserted with the full knowledge and support of the Minister of Pensions, as no doubt my right hon. friend will have surmised.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only difficulty about it is that this has nothing to do with the abnormal conditions that have created the present unemployment situation in Canada. Disabled persons are always with us and have nothing to do with the present national problem of unemployment. When we consider the provisions of our workmen's compensation acts and the provision made for disabled persons in industry, we are dealing with a normal condition with which, in my opinion, this commission, if it ever functions at all, will not find time to deal, inasmuch

Employment Commission
as it is something that is being dealt with constantly in the provinces of the country. Nearly every province now has its Workmen's Compensation Act, and disabled persons, persons whose disablement arises out of accidents in industry, are taken care of under that act. Most of them receive annuities for the rest of their lives if they are incapacitated for useful employment. On the other hand, to charge this commission with responsibility for employment for disabled persons is to overburden an already overburdened commission, because that function is one which is now discharged and has been discharged for years by the governments of the provinces, and no cooperation with respect to disabled persons is, in my judgment, essential or necessary having regard to what we know of the real circumstances in connection with disablement. The blind represent a special class with which parliament has partly dealt on many occasions, but that is primarily a matter for the provinces and many of them have enacted legislation undertaking to deal with the matter in a specific way if the parliament of Canada gives them the needed assistance. I will not delay the bill so far as that is concerned, but I do point out that in its very nature this is a class with which this commission cannot properly deal if it discharges the other duties that rest upon it under the legislation.


Mr. TUCKER:: I understand that in the
forms that are to be sent out for the purpose of securing the desired information with respect to unemployment there is no special reference to the veterans of the last war. It is proposed to set up a veterans' assistance commission, and I was wondering whether the minister had considered sending out at the same time a form which would enable the government to obtain information with regard to the possibility of employing returned soldiers or on the other hand with regard to their unemployability. It would be very helpful to the functioning of the veterans' assistance commission if such a form were included with the others.


Norman McLeod Rogers: A similar question was
put to me this afternoon and my answer, as I recall it, was that in the collection of this information and the clasification of the unemployed on relief the national employment commission would cooperate with the veterans' assistance commission. At present, as my hon. friend is aware, the Department of Pensions and National Health distributes relief to pensioners who are unemployed and who are dependent upon the state for assistance ; but I do not think that this department has information with regard to the unemployment of ex-service men who are not pensioners. I can assure my hon. friend that his suggestion will be given consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph (1)-National development plan.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This seems to me to
limit the recommendation to one plan. I do not say that in any technical sense, but in the way in which the paragraph is written it looks as if it contemplates one plan. I will not say anything more than I said the other day in this regard.


Mr. HAYHURST:: I agree with other hon. members who have spoken of the genial Minister of Labour; I believe he is putting forward this measure in all sincerity. I would suggest one or two matters that might come under this particular head. I do not know whether the first suggestion is a long-range plan, but I understand that the meridian line between Saskatchewan and Alberta has not been properly surveyed and cut out and I think that this would be one piece of work at any rate that might be undertaken and completed in the near future. This afternoon we heard a good deal about roads. In my opinion a great highwaj' should be built across Canada and paved, and that would be a long-range plan. Some people have suggested that we should construct roads up through the different provinces, north and south, but I think it would be wise to build one highway across Canada, have it paved and link it up with two or three paved roads connecting with the United States so as to bring in tourist traffic. It seems to me that our trouble in Canada has been that we have had too many petty ideas about building roads into every nook and cranny. We have overexpanded and it is time that we concentrated on great projects.
If hon. members will bear with me I will give them an illustration of the work that is being done with regard to the rehabilitation of farmers in western Canada. Many farmers have been brought from the dried-out areas and settled in my district on land which is sandy, land which was originally treed with spruce, pine and poplar, and these people have gone to work to clear this land. They cannot raise decent vegetables upon it; their wheat is killed in blossom; and because of such conditions we have, on the outskirts of
Employment Commission

civilization, on the edges of this great dominion, numbers of people who are growing poorer and poorer. There is no properly planned economy, no carefully considered distribution of our population. These people went from the dried-out areas and settled on the land thinking, as there is more rainfall, they could produce their own living. They are pioneers, and hardy pioneers. But as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, in speaking of the apprenticeship system, why go back to the ideas of our ancestors, and proclaim that we must have hardy pioneers to live in these woodland districts? These people cannot pay taxes for education, and cannot get along because there is no prospect in life for them. Then they go on relief in the municipalities. As you go through Saskatchewan and Alberta you will see, on either side of the main lines of the great railway systems, some of the finest land in Canada overrun with sow-thistle and various kinds of weeds, land entirely abandoned and neglected; yet we are putting these hardy pioneers away out in remote districts where, though they have plenty of rainfall, the soil is sandy and there is not a chance in the world for them to make a living. This is a disgrace to our civilization. I feel that we can do better, and I hope this commission in the course of its long-range planning may develop some means of properly distributing those of our people who must be moved from the dried-out areas.
There are thousands now who must be moved from the woodland areas. They are destroying virgin timber which, if left alone, would become a great source of wealth without the necessity of any afforestation plan. I refer to lands which are naturally growing small spruce and timber. I could take hon. members over thousands and thousands of acres throughout the western provinces which will grow this timber without requiring any schemes in the way of afforestation. I believe we should get a better and saner view of this Canada of ours, and centralize our efforts instead of spreading them over so wide an area. We might have one main arterial highway and build other highways to that artery. That is connected perhaps with the problem of redistribution of population, which must be faced. Then there is the great program which the Minister of Agriculture has been suggesting to bring back into proper tilth large areas of western Canada which have lost their fibre and their fertility through overcropping or what may be called wheat-mining. Therefore I feel, if there is anything I can say on this subject, it is that it would be better for this commission to give its thought 
and attention, not to wider diversification but rather to centralization, because under the present system, with all the decentralization that has been going on in the past few years, Canada cannot expect to pay its debts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the suggestion made by the right hon. leader of the opposition, of substituting the word "plans" for "plan" in line 19 is a good one. I move that we strike out the word "a" on line 19 and substitute "plans" for "plan" in the same line. The clause will then read:
Recommend to the minister comprehensive measures constituting long-range plans of national development.
Instead of:
-a long-range plan of national development.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to commend the minister for including this particular paragraph in the bill. I was disappointed when earlier in the session the act to set up an economic council was repealed. I believe that this substitution is a step in the right direction, but I think it should stand out more or less alone. It is, it seems to me, no part of an immediate plan to cope with the serious condition which confronts us. It is something which, perhaps, we should have had years and years ago. Unfortunately we have been led to believe that Canada is a land of illimitable resources. That is not altogether true. I think posterity will condemn the generation to which we belong and the preceding one for having dissipated many of those resources which should have been the heritage of the people of Canada. I have reference, of course, to the depletion of our great forests, to the erosion occurring in connection with our land settlements, and matters of that description. I feel that the government today is charged with a heavy responsibility in endeavouring more or less to repair the wastes which have taken place in days gone by. I hope that this particular paragraph in the bill will be something more than a catch phrase. After all, if we are going to meet the condition which is upon us and will continue with us for a long time, we shall need to have a long vision and long-range planning of our natural resources and our human abilities in the country in which we live. That is why I wish to commend the inclusion in the bill of this particular paragraph. May I also say this: the hon. member who immediately preceded me referred to resettlement or the removal of persons from dried-out areas to other parts of the west; that has been going on for several years, and to my mind in many instances it represents a great tragedy. The lands to which people have gone without plan

Employment Commission
and without direction are often not as productive as the lands which they have left. Consequently the present government probably faces in the northern part of the western prairies a problem which will become more acute as time passes. In this long-range planning the government of the day will consider, I hope, the potentialities of Canada, the preservation of our natural resources, and the rehabilitation of the agricultural region in which soil erosion and so on have occurred in recent years.
I am glad that, if appearances may be trusted, a portion of the policy we have long advocated is embodied in this bill. It seems to me that there is a tendency throughout the world to make intelligent plans that we and future generations can follow. If the intention of this particular paragraph is to do just that, I believe it will be indeed a step in the right direction. But unless that is done the paragraph becomes more or less meaningless. I doubt, too, the success of a plan of this kind which will be placed in the hands of a committee of this type. It seems to me that if we are going to plan for the future we should have scientists, technicians and economists whose particular duty it would be to understand the resources of the country and to recommend to the government of the day and to parliament a long-range scheme in connection with the utilization of our resources. But in so far as this measure visualizes something of that sort it is a step in the right direction, provided it is not a mere catch phrase, and if it is made effective, the minister will have accomplished something that will be of benefit in the years to come.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I notice that under this paragraph the commission shall recommend to the minister comprehensive measures constituting long-range plans of national development which may be proceeded with or discontinued from time to time as conditions may determine. I should like a little further explanation from the minister as to the reason for putting this paragraph in the bill, and I should like to know definitely whether this is considered a sort of safety-valve against future emergencies that may arise. I should like to have it more thoroughly explained. What is the intention in connection with this provision for discontinuance, particularly?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In order that the minister may not have to speak twice on the matter I should like to make now an observation which will not detain the committee for any great length of time. The whole problem of the conservation of our resources has
engaged the attention of successive parliaments, and the question of a planned ecenomy with respect to the development of our resources is, of course, not new in Canada. This is a federal union, and we have never been able to get away from the fact that this parliament cannot control the quantity of nickel that may be produced in Ontario in a given year, for example, or the extent to which our forest wealth may be lessened by the cutting of limber in British Columbia. All these matters are solely within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, and when we talk about planning in this parliament we can plan only within the ambit of our powers. Those powers do not extend far enough to enable us in any sense to control the extent of production from our natural resources, except possibly as we may limit the quantity of goods that may be sent out of the country.
Recently, for instance, a distinguished British civil servant, who was also a member of parliament and who occupied a high position for a time, made a report upon the coal industry of Alberta. He found what we all know, that too many mines are being developed, a little spot here and a little spot there, in great part not with modern methods, with, as a result, overproduction which is injurious to the industry as a whole. Take, for example, the great forest wealth of British Columbia. If one reads in a newspaper the exports of lumber and compares them with any possible increase that can be brought about through reforestation, one realizes that we are facing the destruction of our forest wealth within a reasonable time. How short or how long that time may be depends upon one factor over which man has never had complete control, namely the fire hazard. That has been dealt with time and again in this parliament, but we have never been able to take effective legislation action because our legislative powers did not permit us to do so. Another example is the question of soil erosion in the western provinces. All we can do is make a grant in aid to assist in preventing such erosion. We may say that we shall not provide money except under certain conditions, but that is regarded as an interference with the rights of the provinces, and these difficulties at once arise.
It will be within the memory of many people that a commission on conservation was set up in Canada. There was a great deal of criticism with regard to certain things that commission did, because of the places at which it carried on its operations and the kind of resources to which its activities were limited, but it was an endeavour on
Employment Commission

the part of the federal government, realizing that it could not take any real action, to point out the evils that would result from, shall I say, an undue strain being placed upon our resources at particular times regardless of the claims of future generations. A few days ago I was reading that in the United States they were beginning to realize that certain of their resources would be exhausted within a hundred, a hundred and fifty or two hundred years, and that they were beginning to see what might be done to take care of that situation. During the early part of my life I spent many years in trying to point out that there were two kinds of resources in this country. One kind is irreplaceable. When we have utilized our coal, our nickel, our gold, our silver and our copper, they are gone forever; they cannot be replaced. There is also the other kind of resource that may be replaced. We realize that in Ontario, for instance, they have already taken certain steps in the direction of reforestation. Not too many miles from this city there are evidences of an effort in that direction on the part of this province, and in British Columbia they have also taken some steps. There is in Canada now very little land left over which the dominion has any legislative jurisdiction, outside the parks, the northwest territories and what land may be left in the east that is not under provincial jurisdiction. Those are the only areas over which our legislative action may run. The question of conservation in the far north has engaged the attention of successive ministers of the interior, and regulations have been promulgated from time to time within the last few years. Something has been done 'in that regard concerning pitchblende and minerals of that sort, but as I see it this contemplates that within the ambit of our powers, by cooperation with the provinces, we shall endeavour to formulate plans of such a nature that they may be discontinued without involving the loss of the plan as a whole.
Apparently that is what is in mind, as the paragraph reads, and the limitation placed upon it is obvious. For instance, in building a new factory the modern method would be to lay out the plans for the factory in such a way that you could add another fifty or one hundred feet to it at any time if business warranted this without in any sense interfering with the plan of to-day. That would be a long-range plan with respect to that particular factory. I read this paragraph as meaning that whatever long-range plan might be recommended by this commission, it would be a plan which, if it went on for three years

and then conditions did not warrant its being longer continued, might be discontinued at that time, but it would be effective as a plan prior to the expiration of the three year period during which it had been in operation, and would continue to be of value during succeeding years notwithstanding the fact that it had been discontinued at the end of three years and would not be carried further until conditions again made it possible for that to be done. I say frankly that I cannot see what can be accomplished by this. If the provinces, realizing their position, are not willing of their own volition to take the necessary steps to safeguard their own resources, unless and until they are prepared to give this parliament some authority in the premises any long range plan that contemplates action must be action by the province, which we can neither accelerate nor diminish except so far as by moral suasion we might be able to induce them to see that it is inadvisable to pursue a given line of action.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to
what the leader of the opposition has just said, may I point out that my right hon. friend each time comes back to viewing the powers of this commission as being confined to matters which come wholly within the jurisdiction of the dominion parliament. That appears plausible enough, but may I say that a commission if so authorized has power to gather information on any subject, and information so gathered may be of very great service not only to the dominion but to the provinces as well. This evening the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) was quoting from a report of a royal commission on industrial training and technical education. I recall it was on my recommendation as Minister of Labour that twenty-six years ago there was appointed the Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education. At the time there was much opposition to its being appointed, on the score that the question of education, whether technical or in any other form, did not come within the jurisdiction of this parliament. But the government of the day took the position that it was within the power of the federal parliament to gather information on any subject and place it at the disposal of the provinces as well as of the dominion, and that by so doing it might be expected important developments would flow therefrom.
Now what happened? After the report of the commission was presented an extensive system of industrial training and technical

Employment Commission
education was developed throughout the whole of Canada on the lines laid down in that report. Not only did the commission set out on a nation wide scale the scheme of industrial training and technical education, which is now in existence in the different provinces, but the dominion supplemented the efforts of the provinces by giving a certain amount of financial aid to those provinces which agreed to comply with the conditions which the commission had laid down as essential in bringing into being an effective form of industrial education and technical training. I submit that no better example could be given of the service which this commission may render in dealing with the question of employment.
Applying this view also to the subject which has been under discussion, namely the conservation of natural resources, I feel that a commission which made a survey of the natural resources of Canada-I am not saying that this commission will take that particular step, but assuming it should-might render a very great service to the provinces, by drawing attention to the necessity of steps for conservation where necessary. Were it thought to be in the interests of the country as a whole, it might recommend federal aid to the provinces, which at the same time would afford employment to large numbers of unemployed. As my right hon. friend has said time and again, there is nothing to prevent this parliament from granting assistance to any province for any purpose which it may wish to promote, provided parliament is ready to take that step.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Mitchell) has inquired as to the significance of the words "which may be proceeded with or discontinued from time to time as conditions may determine." Perhaps I can make clear what is intended by pointing out that at the moment this parliament is voting many millions of dollars, for the purpose of providing employment. It is hoped that these moneys may be so applied as not only to provide employment but also to permit of the furtherance of some developments which are of national importance. During this period when there are so many unemployed, if they can be put to work on important national projects, it will be all to the good. But assuming that we get out of this period of depression, and that this parliament no longer finds it necessary to vote money for the purpose of unemployment relief, it may well be that some of these projects developed for this purpose at the present time may advantageously be discontinued, to be gone
on with again in future years should a similar situation arise, or to be continued by the government of the day should the government feel that conditions warrant such action. It is simply to enable such steps to be taken as conditions may render advisable.


Angus MacInnis: Would the minister tell us what plans, if any, of national development the government have in mind that might be referred to the commission for consideration under this paragraph?


Norman McLeod Rogers: We are asking the national commission itself to recommend comprehensive measures constituting a long-range plan of national development. We would select the commission so as to have a reasonable expectation that the commission would be able wisely to present such a plan to us. In my brief experience in the Department of Labour I have been convinced of the wisdom of a more deliberate study of many public works projects previous to their being brought before parliament. Within the last few days, apart entirely from public works projects, two of the provinces have submitted schemes of colonization, on the principle that from their point of view the best solution of unemployment is to bring many from the cities to the land, either in remote sections of the province which have some prospect of rapid development, or in areas adjacent to cities where a process of decentralization could be carried out which would counteract in a measure the marked tendency towards urbanization which has characterized this country for the last thirty years. Those plans were presented without any previous knowledge on the part of the Department of Labour, and I am bound to say that although we have very efficient officers in the department they were not competent to pass upon the feasibility of the plans. I feel that in connection with colonization, or public works projects, or reforestation, or irrigation works and the protection of the natural resources of the country, there is everything to be said in favour of a preliminary survey and appraisal. For example, I believe that in Sweden, where there has been a national unemployment commission in existence sinoe 1914, they have had studies of this kind and have created thereby what might be termed a backlog of public works projects. Some of these projects were undertaken by the national government, some by the provincial governments, and some by the communes. But at all events it was in accordance with a prearranged plan and after careful preliminary
Employment Commission

investigation. I believe that the commission would perform a useful service not only to the dominion but to the provinces and municipalities by giving study to some long-range plan of national development as contemplated in this paragraph.


Angus MacInnis: I quite agree with the minister that it is necessary to review the various projects that may be brought to the attention of the government before the government starts any undertaking or incurs the expenditure of money. I am quite sure that this is necessary because at the present time almost everyone is compelled to do something in order to make a living, and if anyone can exploit such a proposition as a colonization scheme and put it over the government, there is no doubt in the world that there are many people who will be quite willing to do it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I hope my hon. friend understands that such was not my suggestion. These proposals are put forward by the provincial governments in good faith.


Angus MacInnis: Who put them forward to the provincial governments? I have been long enough in public life to know how these propositions originate. I think the minister will have to have a versatile commission if it is going to be able to give an opinion on all the various phases of national development that may be brought to its attention. In almost all these matters of planning, the project will have to be examined from various angles. The engineers will have to view it from their angle; there may also be legal and technical aspects to be considered, and undoubtedly there will be the financial side, all of which will require experts. I thought possibly the government itself would have some plans for national development that it would place before the commission for investigation immediately it was set up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just before the minister replies, might I say that we have a habit in this country of forgetting what other commissions have done. In my time a commission investigated the resources of the British empire. A distinguished Canadian was a member of that commission, and its report dealing with Canadian resources is still available in the departmental libraries as well as in the library of parliament. Then the conservation commission added more details to that, and the several provinces have from time to time had surveys made of their resources. I have in mind two of the provinces that had very extended investigations made in that regard.

With respect to the resources that lie outside provincial boundaries, under the control of the dominion, we have had several reports made, geological and others, cariying us back to the early days of Mr. Dawson's report on the coal, gas and other resources of western Canada. We have a habit, I say, of piling commission upon commission, and forgetting what the last one did.
I agree with every word that my hon. friend said as to the desirability of this dominion assisting the provinces in matters that are beyond their power to deal with. I only point out this in connection with technical education and industrial training, that in every case their value in the ultimate analysis is determined by the effectiveness with which every province does its work after we have given them assistance. That is the real difficulty. We have no controlling voice so as to secure a standard of effectiveness. Each province must itself determine the extent and nature of the work which it will carry on with the assistance of the dominion. That is the reason there have been varying results in different provinces in connection with the work that has been done by way of technical education and industrial training. That difficulty cannot be overcome as long as our constitution remains as it is. That is the point to which I originally directed attention.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph (j)-Publicity.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I hesitate to have to object to this, but surely it is one of the most dangerous and at the same time one of the most unfair provisions that ever will be found in a statute. This contemplates a purely political control of publicity. That is all that is, just that and nothing more. If the minister does not like the way in which a particular business is carried on, all he has to do is simply to give his approval of publicity in the one case, and on goes the publicity; or to disapprove in the other. With every word that was said by the Prime Minister the other day as to the value of publicity as a weapon in the hands of a government or a commission for the purpose of securing obedience to the laws of the country, I am in accord. Publicity has been found to be extremely valuable. That is the reason the United States gave publicity to the salaries paid to high executives. That is the reason they give publicity to the extent to which the income tax is paid, because they find

Employment Commission
publicity a powerful weapon to enforce obedience to the law. But here we are proposing to do this:
-to take such steps with the approval of the minister to ensure such publicity as in the opinion of the commission may be necessary to enable it effectively to discharge its powers and duties.


Norman McLeod Rogers: "As in the opinion of the commission."


Richard Bedford Bennett: But "with the approval of the minister." It does not make any difference what they think.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister does not give his approval, that is the end of the matter.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The two must meet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The two must meet.
Exactly. That is the answer, and if the minister says no, there is nothing doing. That is the end of the matter; there is no publicity. Is that a proper provision to put into a statute? Is that a proper provision to put into the hands of one man, a politician-I use the word in the proper sense-a politically minded man, representing the government of the day, that he shall have power to say whether the offence which company A has been guilty of shall be punished by publicity or not. The officers of the company may be friends of his, and his approval must be given. That is the difficulty I see.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not surprised that my right hon. friend is suspicious concerning matters of publicity-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a question of suspicion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -because he was responsible for much of it during his term of office through the Department of Trade and Commerce and other departments of government. May I dismiss from his mind at once the thought that there is any intention on the part of the government of this power being exercised as a political weapon. In fact, the purpose of inserting the phrase, "with the approval of the minister" was to ensure to the full the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, which the leader of the opposition has been saying we should be very careful to maintain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You cannot escape it
anyway.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was just going to say that I hope it will relieve my right hon. friend's mind if we take out the words "with the approval of the minister" so that the paragraph will read:
-to take such steps to ensure such publicity as in the opinion of the commission may be necessary to enable it effectively to discharge its powers and duties.
I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I regret to find the Prime Minister putting this on the basis of my feelings being affected one way or the other. My objection is not on that ground at all, but on high public grounds. It is not a matter of what I think. I am merely suggesting that this places a political power in the hands of the minister. There is another point which now arises out of that amendment. Taking out those words gives the commission a tremendous power of punishment. It is a sanction placed in the hands of seven men. It therefore becomes all-important to see, in selecting these men, that they should be of a type and class that will command public confidence in the largest and best sense because they are given the power of applying sanctions in every sense of the word, exactly the same situation as developed recently in the League of Nations. If in the opinion of these seven men any companies with which they have to deal have not shown that regard for their views as expressed within the law, they can subject the companies to the sanction of publicity, and that enforces the view which I have endeavoured to point out, that everything depends upon the personnel of this commission which the government are clothing with all these powers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was in the mind of my colleagues and myself when we considered this paragraph was the most effective way of meeting practices in the nature of rackets, frauds and the like, which obviously it is in the public interest to have exposed. This body should have the power to give publicity to these matters in order to terminate abuses of the sort.


Mr. CAMERON (Cape Breton):: I am very sorry to see this amendment carried as I am strongly in favour of ministerial responsibility. I think the provision as to publicity should be under the control of the minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The ministerial responsibility will still be there; it was doubly in evidence with the use of these additional words.

Employment Commission

The CHAIRMAN Mr. Johnston, (Lake Centre): There is an amendment moved by Mr. Gardiner:
That the following addition to section 6 be made to be known as paragraph (k):
In order to facilitate any investigation it desires to make, have and exercise the powers of a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, revised statutes, chapter 99.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do hope this amendment will not be proceeded with for reasons I shall give very briefly. The Inquiries Act clothes a commissioner appointed' under it with certain powers judicial in character, and it is intended by that act that commissions of that kind shall be limited as indicated by part III. Part I of the act covers public inquiries, section 2 reading:
The governor in council may, whenever he deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.
Part II covers departmental investigation and part III, which is general, deals with the question of appointments and whether charges are made. It will be observed that by the very nature and provisions of the act, the commissioners shall have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses as is vested in any court of record. That is, the act clothes the commissioners with judicial power. After having looked into this matter with a little care, I have strong feelings in connection with this amendment. I suggest to the minister and to the Prime Minister that this is going much further than I have ever seen such a provision go except when dealing with a body that has judicial functions. For instance, the tariff board is a court of record and has the powers of a court, and the same is true of the railway commission. To take this commission, which is not a body corporate, which is not a court, and to say that it shall have the powers of a commission, is going far beyond anything that I have been able to ascertain. I do not desire to do anything more than just state my objections and to give shortly my reason for objecting. I am inclined to think the Prime Minister will find it to be more embarrassing than otherwise. If this commission endeavours to assert these powers, another question arises. It will be remembered that there are in the courts of the country two judgments, as to the powers of the dominion to issue a commission to deal with other than purely federal matters. The courts have decided that we cannot do it
Many of the matters into which this commission is to inquire are solely and wholly within provincial jurisdiction. If they have

the powers of a commission under a federal statute and undertake to investigate purely provincial matters, then I am quite certain they will find themselves in litigation, as was the case in the two instances to which I have referred, without taking up further time of the committee to deal with the judgments. I shall conclude by saying that it seems to me that this is conferring upon a political body, which is not an entity under the law, which is neither a court nor a body corporate, privileges and jurisdiction which have not heretofore been conferred upon any body other than a court or a body exercising judical functions. There may be instances in which this has been done, but I have not been able to ascertain them.


Mr. CAHAN:: I should like to suggest that ancillary to the work of this commission, it is within the authority of the governor in council at any time to appoint a commission to investigate and take evidence and report with respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of parliament. I suggest that without this amending clause, which may lead to difficulty, the government will not be precluded from appointing at any time one or more of the commissioners-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or all of them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -or all of them as a commission for the purpose of making such judicial inquiry and investigation. Therefore, this amendment seem9 to me to be quite unnecessary.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In addition to the objections that have been made to this amendment, I desire to point out for the consideration of the Prime Minister that usually when a commission of inquiry is appointed to investigate a matter, it is a specific matter provided by order in council or in some other way. But here there is a wide open, blanket commission to investigate practically anything and everything without limit within the ambit of this whole bill, which covers municipal, provincial and dominion activities as well as the activities of corporations. It seems to me that this is really going altogether too far. It should be left to be determined by the governor in council who could issue a specific commission of inquiry if circumstances seemed to warrant this.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friends it seems to me that this is just a question of balancing the relative advantages of alternatives. There is an advantage in having in the bill the specific

Employment Commission
powers given to the commission by this paragraph so that it may be read by those into whose affairs it may be desirable for the commission to inquire. If it is known by them that the commission has the power of a court, much more regard is likely to be paid its inquiries than would otherwise be the case. The leader of the opposition and his colleagues, who have spoken, have stressed the point that it is within the power of the government at any time to clothe the commissioners being appointed under this bill with the powers of a royal commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For specific matters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For specific purposes. If that is definitely understood^- and certainly what has been said to-night should make that quite clear-it should largely serve the purpose which was intended by the amendment. If accepting this view, which is certainly a correct one, leaving the section as it now stands, will avoid the complications which hon. gentlemen think are likely to arise, I am sure the minister will be glad to have the amendment withdrawn.
Amendment withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Administrative duties.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister will indicate what is in the mind of the government-of course it does not assist in the interpretation of the legislation-in using the words "supervise the expenditure of funds." Does that mean that they will hire or employ people to represent the government on works to see that the work is constructed in a manner satisfactory to the government? I must say that it gave me some little concern as to what interpretation should be placed upon these words, "supervise the expenditure of funds voted by parliament for purposes of relief and providing employment." I do not desire to delay matters, but I should be obliged if the hon. gentleman can give us a clear exposition of this phrase.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As the leader of the opposition is aware, at the present time the unemployment relief branch of the Department of Labour is the organ of government through which is distributed very large sums of money for relief purposes. The unemployment relief branch has in the various provinces its own inspectors and they endeavour to see that the money is expended in accordance with the terms of agreements so far as such agreements exist. I am not convinced, however, that past experience has shown that the 12739-1214
supervision of dominion funds for unemployment relief has been entirely satisfactory, and the intention here is to secure a more effective supervision of dominion expenditures for unemployment relief. I am not sure that this is altogether pertinent to the point raised by my right hon. friend-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it is.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -but some time ago an accountable advance of $9,000,000 was made to Saskatchewan in connection with rehabilitation work in the dried-out area. I believe I am quite correct when I say that there was only one dominion official who had any connection with the distribution of that very large sum of money, and he was not a senior official of the Department of Finance. I do not think that can be called an adequate supervision of such a large expenditure of money. Similarly, in our expenditures in connection with relief works, I am not wholly satisfied that the supervision we have had in the past is quite satisfactory. The intention is that the national employment commission, under the direction of the minister, shall supervise the expenditure of funds voted by parliament for purposes of relief and providing employment


Richard Bedford Bennett: In Saskatchewan, I think, there were several people employed under that gentleman to make investigations as to the expenditures-that is, before last October -and some of the reports indicated a wholly unsatisfactory condition. I will go further and say that in one of the provinces there was a quite clear line of political division, and there was in one case a letter outstanding in which it was stated that the number of people in a given community who should work upon the road was to be divided according to their political allegiance. I mention that only because I realize and appreciate the difficulty to which the minister has directed attention. But should it not be a function of government rather than of a commission to do this? We have given the commission power to employ people as they see fit and they deal with this matter in its entirety. That is all I desire to point out in that respect.
Mr. CLARK (York-Sunbury); It seems fitting to stress the providing of employment, and this employment commission will have an opportunity of overcoming a lack that has been felt in providing work, for instance, to the men in the relief camps. It was my privilege in the summer before last to visit in Potsdam, Germany, a labour camp corresponding to our relief camps, and there 1 found that the young men were given work.
Employment Commission

They were employed on effective work, and when they were not doing this they were being taught different trades. I recall that a class was called up and asked what they were being taught and they told what trades they expected to work at and were being taught. I remember that one young man who could speak English said he was being trained to be a diplomat, and when asked how he liked his life in the labour camp he said that he loved it. Last year, after I was elected in York-Sunbury, I visited the relief camp in my constituency where there are some eight hundred men. Conditions were good as regards food and clothing; the men were well clothed and were given good food. But with the exception of a very few of them, they were not doing effective work, and that seemed to be the lack in that camp. I think it is a fine thing that the government has taken steps to change all that and to provide that these men shall have work and instruction. When the men went out to the camps they did not know what to do; in many cases they had not been taught. It is much better for them to be engaged in effective work, and this employment commission will no doubt be a help in this respect.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-National advisory committee.
Mr. BETTS:: What will be the function
of the national advisory committee? How many members will be appointed to this committee? What limit, if any, will be imposed upon travelling expenses and living allowances?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No numerical limit is
attached to the national advisory committee. As set out in the bill, it will include representatives of industrial, occupational, philanthropic and social service organizations. So far as its functions are concerned, I do not know that I can go further than to say that they will be advisory. The commission itself, as my hon. friend is aware, will consist of not more than seven members; and as I pointed out yesterday, these members will be so selected as to be qualified to deal, on the one hand, with problems relating to employment and, on the other, with problems relating to relief administration. In the work of relief and reemployment for the entire country there are many organizations which have direct contact with these problems, and representatives of these organizations will be able, I think, to give marked assistance to the national employment commission. That is particularly true, I should say, of social service and charitable agencies that have had experience of relief

administration from 1930 to the present time. We have not set a definite limit to the number of the advisory committee, nor have we set a definite limit to travelling expenses. Obviously that is a matter for which the minister himself must take responsibility.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Then some of my objections to this commission can be crystallized from the answer of the minister. He will not tell us, or even estimate, how many members there are going to be on this national advisory committee that is going to advise the national employment commission that is going to advise the government. He will not define the functions of that committee. He refuses to undertake to us that the principle of preference to returned men will be observed in appointing members of the staff. He will not tell us whether organized labour will be represented on the commission. He will not say whether a woman will be there. And although he quoted Carlyle to us and presented a whole lot of high-sounding platitudes, I do not like the look of this commission any better than I have liked it from the start.


Ross Wilfred Gray: That will help it.


Mr. W ERMENLINGER:: I rise to suggest to the Minister of Labour the inclusion, in subsection 1 of section 8 of Bill No. 14, between t'he words "industrial" and "occupational," the words "technical (engineering, architectural, sanitary) advisers." I do not wish to discriminate between or reflect upon either philanthropic or social service organizations, but I believe that since the last election the people of this country, at -any rate the unemployed, are expecting work, and it is the duty of social workers and philanthropic organizations to look after the unemployables; but, reading over the preamble of this bill, I find that its main objective is to provide work for the unemployed un-til such time as industry can absorb a great percentage of workers, and so lessen the burden of relief and taxation. I feel tha-t engineers are the men best qualified to locate and survey in all localities of our dominion necessary public works so as to employ the greatest number of skilled men, -men who have passed through an apprenticeship and became joiners, carpenters, tinsmiths, blacksmiths, plumbers and the like, men who are the back-bone of any community. If workers of this kind have employment so found for them, remunerative employment, according to the preamble of this bill, automatically rents will be paid, purchasing power will increase, and taxes will go into the coffers of all city councils. By this

Employment Commission
means also the burden of taxation will be lessened. But when I read certain newspapers -and I have before me clippings with reference to the last few days-I admit that, along with many other people in Canada, I feel some anxiety as to whether the program, though it may have been well thought out by the hon. Minister of Labour, will be effective to procure a large amount of work at a proper remuneration, above the ordinary allowance of relief, for the unemployed workers of the country. For instance, the Hon. T. D. Bouchard, Minister of Municipal Affairs, Trade and Commerce, of Quebec, who on the day of the opening of the session of the provincial legislature was appointed to take care, as this interview says, of "indemnities of unemployment," said, on March 26 last-I translate to the best of my ability:
Allowances for unemployment have always had a demoralizing effect. A great number of unemployed have acquired the habit of depending upon the state for their livelihood. Idleness, with all its evils, is just now like a stain of oil upon our society. At the actual hour the government cannot suppress the allowance for unemployment without substituting something else for relief.
Mr. Bouchard submitted a statement to his colleagues of the cabinet. In an interview, reported by the official correspondent of Le Canada in the legislative assembly of Quebec, on March 26, Mr. Bouchard says:
We receive approximately $875,000 per month from the federal government. I intend that this money shall be employed in useful works.
He continues:
In Germany pecuniary help from the state manifests itself less brutally than it does in this country. The governments offer a premium or a subsidy to all persons or companies who undertake works of construction or of repair as long as they recruit their help from the unemployed. In this way the individual interest works in the same direction as the common interest.
The next morning, March 27, a newspaper report appears of a meeting of the city of Montreal, at which my friend Alderman Weldon mentioned that he also was in favour of having the unemployed work for their relief. He said:
If it is true that we have adopted that principle, wre should know right now, before
the government-
Meaning the federal government, I assume:
-changes its mind. If we knew exactly at this time-
-said Mr. Weldon-
-what: is the stand of the federal government, we could go to work right away and determine the kind of works that would be the most useful and upon which we could have the unemployed work.
This shows that the council is in doubt as to what works this government is going to undertake. Last night La Presse, commenting upon the appointment of Mr. Bouchard in charge of the indemnities of the province of Quebec for unemployment, says in part in its editorial:
What kind of works will be done? Hon. Mr. Rogers in Ottawa and Hon. T. D. Bouchard in Quebec no doubt will ask that the unemployed be given work which will provide as much in the way of wages as possible. On principle they will choose works which will require a great number of unemployed but which will not demand very much material. We have two projects, the cleaning up of St. Helen's island and the cleaning up of Maisonneuve park, where at present we have a botanical garden.
I do not know -whether the Minister of Labour has assured the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Trade and Commerce of Quebec that no money will be spent for material with which to carry on these works, but I know that if all the money, the $75,000,000 soon to be voted for the unemployed, is to go for sweeping, cleaning, snow-shovelling, removing earth from one side of the road to the other, the breaking of stones on our highways or streets, I do not think we shall be any nearer a solution of this problem. This morning's Gazette mentions that the provincial minister of colonization, the hon. Mr. Authier, figures that he will get a good part of the $75,000,000 to be voted by this government for unemployment relief, but I should - like to know what has happened to the $10,000,000 that was voted or supposed to have been voted by the legislature of Quebec prior to the last provincial election.
Are we to have just snow-cleaning, streetsweeping, cleaning up and colonization in Quebec, which has already voted $10,000,000 for that purpose, or are we to go on with technical works that will give the real tradesmen of our country the work which they have been seeking for a long time? These men have been trained, as the hon. member for Temiscouata said last night; they are men of common sense who started at the bottom with small things. They have learned their trades; they have acquired knowledge, and they are the back-bone of the dominion. Is it to be the duty of this advisory committee to look for works that will not only provide remunerative wages for the unemployed but create for our future generations a heritage of which they will be proud when they think of us after we are gone? This is why I wish to humbly submit to the Minister of Labour that this advisory committee should be composed of engineers, architects, sanitary engin-
Employment Commission

eers and other experts, for the sake not only of my municipality but of all municipalities concerned. Sanitary conditions to-day in our congested districts are absolutely terrible. In my own constituency we have doubled our population in the last twelve or fifteen years, and our sewage system is no longer adequate to take care of the situation. As I briefly remarked in this house on February 19, we are threatened with floods all the time because our dykes are not sufficiently protected. We also need to widen our main road, which also is part of the trans-Canada highway. Public buildings are needed; fire stations are required. I believe that while our philanthropists and social workers have done their best in the past, to-day we need technical men in order to make a survey of the needs of our communities so that not only our generation but future generations may be ifforded the protection they deserve.
We have had enough of charity. I have no grudge against philanthropic institutions or social workers, but I believe most hon. members will agree that to-day we have too many social workers and not enough real workers. The philanthropists and social workers can always look after the unemployables, the sick and the crippled, but this is not only a charitable but also a technical proposition. We want to build something. When the history of the last few years is written the people of to-day will find their names in its pages. We have done our very best, and at no time in the history of humanity have so many people been cared for by others. It is a glorious page of history as far as charity is concerned, but what has been the result of unemployment? The loss has been appallingly high. People have lost courage; their spirits have been broken, and in many cases they have even lost their self-respect. The moral cost has been great, but the physical cost has been equally great. The more qualified a man was, the more trained he was, the more skilful he was, the greater has been the loss and the greater his downfall.
I hope these remarks have been taken in a constructive way. I had not intended to criticize the government at all, but I am not given to throwing bouquets. Much as I admire the Minister of Labour I will throw him a bouquet only after he has accomplished what the government pledged themselves to accomplish last October.


Mr. STIRLING:: I am not at all sure even yet that I understand what the minister has in mind with regard to this advisory committee. When I first read this proposal I

thought it meant that in the course of its studies, when such assistance was required, the commission would be able to appoint an advisory committee to be composed of those who were expert in the matter under consideration. But apparently that is not at all what this wording means. Stripped of the explanatory wording, and coming to the essential meaning of the words, it says:
The governor in council may ... name a "national advisory committee" ... to include representatives of industrial, occupational, philanthropic and social service organizations.
It does not limit their number. It may appoint one committee, and these various people may appear on that committee. True, they are not to be paid, but they may draw travelling and living allowances, and if the commission is being empowered to appoint a committee that will include all these various people it will not be of any assistance to the commission in studying the matters which the commission takes up for study, but will merely be another commission advising the first one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear. That is what it says.


Grote Stirling: If the commission, when dealing with something which, we will say, concerns the fishing industry, had power to appoint an advisory committee of people expert in that business-and you could multiply the example in many directions-I could understand the situation. But where the governor in council takes power to name the committee it does not seem to me that this would be of much assistance.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The first words of the clause are as follows:
8. (1) The governor in council may with a
view to more effectively enabling the commission to carry out its functions name a "national advisory committee".
The functions are those we have already considered, functions which relate to investigations bearing upon the most serious problems which confront us at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And making recommendations.
Mr. ROGERS': Yes, and making recommendations accordingly. The commission, as I indicated a few minutes ago, will consist of not more than seven members; that is set out in the bill. When the national employment commission was considered we felt it was desirable that it should be representative in both a geographical and an occupational sense. As I suggested, we have in view a nation-wide

Employment Commission
cooperative effort. To have a nation-wide cooperative effort we must secure representation from the various provinces and from the various major branches of employment throughout the dominion. That can be done through an advisory committee, and we hope to secure that type of representation through such a committee.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Of organized labour?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; organized labour
obviously would be represented.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: The minister did not say so the other night.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There are several branches of organized labour in Canada. We have the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the All-Canadian Congress of Labour, and also the national Catholic unions, three separate organizations of labour, and I should say it would be appropriate that each of them should be represented on this advisory committee. There are other national organizations which have a keen interest in this problem. I might mention the National Construction Council which is interested in housing. There are organizations such as the women's institutes-


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Might I ask a question?


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will
permit me-as a matter of fact I think he is bound to permit me-there are these organizations of a national character which have an interest in this problem which will come before this national employment commission. We hope to secure representation of these various organizations in order that the commission may have the benefit of their advice in conducting these several investigations, also in doing what to my mind is a very important part of the work, namely securing the cooperation of industry and commerce in this difficult task which lies before us.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Now, will the minister allow
me a question?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Certainly.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: The minister, then, is
definitely undertaking that there will be three representatives of organized labour on this commission?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I said that there are
three major organizations of labour in Canada, and I think I said that it would be proper that these should be represented upon this national advisory committee. The selection is a matter for the governor in council; I am not in a position to indicate here and now who will be upon this committee or what national organizations will be represented. But I expressed the view that there are certain organizations which, by reason of their experience and function in relation to this problem, would be entitled to consideration in the selection of the advisory committee. If I may satisfy my hon. friend in another direction, I cannot do better, in emphasizing the advantage of a committee of this kind, than quote the language used by his own leader in asking parliament to support the establishment of an advisory committee to the commission on employment and social insurance last year. I put these words to him, and I do so seriously, because I believe they represent precisely what we have in view in the establishment of this advisory committee. These are the words as reported at page 1060 of Hansard of February 21, 1935:
I earnestly ask the committee to think over very carefully the section in question, because X believe that if we can only make these sections really effective it may do much to induce people to take a voluntary interest in public service of the state, which is so characteristic and perhaps reaches its highest development in Great Britain. When I think of the reservoir from which they have to draw, the trained minds of men and women who are always ready and willing to give voluntary service to enable the state the more readily to discharge its duties-and I am amazed at times at the number of such committees and the number of men and women who are always prepared to assist the government of the day, and continuing to function even although there is a change of government-I am hopeful that this may be the beginning of some such attitude on the part of public spirited citizens in this country, and I know of no place in which public service could be better rendered than in givirg effect to the provisions of these sections for the administration of this act.
The hon. member for London (Mr. Betts) appears to be suspicious of our good faith in proposing this advisory committee. I wish he could believe that it is possible to approach this question with a full sense of national obligation. I cannot say more than I have already said on a number of occasions as to my own approach to this problem. I am convinced that that approach is shared by many people throughout this country, and I have had ample evidence in the correspondence that has come to me in the Department of Labour of the interest of these organizations of which I speak in this entire question.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: I would be more ready to
approach this problem with the desirable sense of national obligation to which the minister refers if he would answer this simple, direct question in simple, direct language:	Will he throw his entire weight
Employment Commission

behind the appointment of one representative of organized labour on this national employment commission? We have not heard that stated yet.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think I have been as
definite as I could be.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Then it is too bad.


Norman McLeod Rogers: When my hon. friend put the question as to the personnel of the commission I think the Prime Minister said, and also, if I mistake not, in my own answer I indicated that it would be most proper that labour should be represented. But it is not for us here and now to perform the functions of the governor in council.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: For whom is it, and when?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is for the governor in
council, and I have indicated again to-night that in the selection of the personnel of the national advisory committee I have no doubt whatever as to the claims of labour for representation upon such a committee.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Will the claims of labour be honoured?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend need have
no misapprehension on that point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This section in my judgment is not ample for the purpose intended. When we provided an advisory council for the wheat board we provided it in these words:
(1)	The governor in council may appoint during pleasure an advisory committee to advise the board, which committee shall consist of not more than seven members of whom four shall represent wheat producers.
(2)	The members of the advisory committee shall not receive any salary but shall be paid their necessary travelling and living expenses and an honorarium of ten dollars per day for each day of absence from their homes *while travelling to, attending and returning from the meetings of such committee.
(3)	The board may call meetings of the advisory committee to be held at such time and place as the board may decide, but not less often than once in each month.
(4)	The minister may call meetings of the advisory committee to be held at such time and place as he may determine.
(5)	The advisory committee, as soon as convenient after every meeting, shall report the proceedings thereof to the minister.
That was the section we agreed upon in the committee that dealt with the act last year. It will be observed that there is no limitation as to the numbers of the advisory committee in this bill. There may be, and there would be if all these classes are to be taken care of, perhaps forty or fifty members, and there is no provision for their meeting
TMr. Betts.]
at all, either as to place or time. It is provided, however, that they are to receive their travelling expenses and living allowances incurred in connection with the business of the commission. If I might, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, refer to some of their duties as indicated by the next section, it will be observed that they are to report upon measures and means of aiding in the employment of women and in the employment of the youth of the country. Let us look at the section as it reads as contrasted with the section contained in the Wheat Board Act of last year. I am bound to say that the new board has swept that advisory wheat conj-mittee out of existence. It has not met since the new board took over so far as I am advised; it had not met up to a short time ago.
Will the minister now look at section 8 of this bill and read the words that I desire to direct attention to. First of all this commission of not more than seven members is to enable the government more effectively to discharge its duties. That is a summary of the statement as to why the commission comes into being. The Prime Minister pointed out that it might be too much for the Minister of Labour to have to bear this whole burden alone, and this whole commission idea is to enable the government, and particularly the minister, to discharge their and his duties more effectively. Second, this commission, the more effectively to discharge its duties, is to have the aid of an advisory committee. In other words, there is an admission that an advisory committee will enable the commission more effectively to discharge its duties. So here are not more than seven men, under the statute, to be advised by a number that may be as many as fifty to enable them more effectively to do their job. In other words, between the government and the advisory committee there is a commission, but the commission can only more effectively do its job if it has the assistance of an advisory committee, for the meetings of which no provision is made as to time or place, and, non constat, it may ever meet at all, although it may be named. If the minister desires to make this section effective I suggest that it is desirable to pursue the same course that the select committee pursued last year when drafting that section in the Wheat Board Act, and to provide that the committee shall meet. Remember, your commission will the "more effectively" discharge its functions because of this advisory committee. That being so, I suggest to the minister that he is not fair to himself in leaving this section as it now reads. He is not being fair to his own

Employment Commission
explanation as to what this committee is for. Certainly, as the section now stands, it cannot be said that parliament has made any provision whatever for this committee to function. It will be composed of many classes of people, representative of all the various organizations in the country, industrial, occupational, philanthropic and social service organizations, and it is to include labour, the minister says. There are three labour organizations we know of, and he has not yet dealt with more than one phase. He has not dealt with social service organizations. The minister did name women's institutes-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Just by way of illustration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And he said that there would be a member from one of these organizations.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It was not exhaustive at
all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not exhaustive at
all; that is my point. We found it essential to fix the number in connection with the advisory committee to the wheat board. The select committee agreed upon that, and it was not a committee of one party in the house. While I do not suggest to the minister that it is entirely necessary that he should limit the number, I do point out that if he does not, he is going to find himself confronted with a serious situation at the very threshold of his efforts-I do not think he intends this to be so-having regard to the fact that the language he uses indicates that the commission will not obtain the maximum of its efficiency without this committee. The committee comes into being to enable the commission more effectively to discharge its functions. I do not think it is fair to the minister himself, or to what he has in mind, or to what the government has in mind to leave the section as it is; and remember, in view of the succeeding sections this committee may involve this country in enormous expenditures because there is no indication that the committee must meet at any particular place. They can meet any place, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Vancouver or anywhere else. I only point out that if this is intended to be a real, vital, living part of this measure, certainly additional provision should be made to that which appears in the bill itself.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Women's employment committee.
Miss MACPHAIL:: As I listened to the
discussion of this bill section by section, I wondered why we needed it at all. Cannot
the government set up a commission and give it wide terms of reference without having to bring down a bill? It has really got to the point of being almost ridiculous, the number of things that have been provided for by the bill. I am sure any party that attains power would be much more comfortable if they could burn all their election literature that helped them into office. I think of the enormous number of posters I saw in my constituency last October, which said, "Vote Liberal and get action." It sounds amusing in the light of this bill. They should have read, "Vote Liberal and get advice."


An hon. MEMBER:: After six months.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes, after six months. And then there was that other beautiful slogan, "King or chaos." We had better change the "or" to "and," because this bill looks to me like chaos, and by the time they get through it will be "King and chaos." I do not think a bill was needed at all for this purpose. We have had plenty of bills and are not in need of any more. That is not the great need of this country. The great need is to do something about unemployment. Why could not the Department of Labour have started on this problem immediately after the election? I do not remember any other royal commission having to be set up by means of a bill introduced in parliament, and . considered in committee section by section. But if there had to be a bill, certainly this sectioan nine is necessary, and it should be in. It provides for a women's employment committee. The unemployed women have scarcely been mentioned in this house and very little has been done to take care of them. We have camps for the young single destitute men, but one wonders where the single destitute women are. For wherever they are, and whatever their lives, the parliament of Canada must certainly bear some responsibility.
I think it was the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Wermenlinger) who referred to the increasing fear of idleness. I do not think anyone is worrying very much about idleness, provided the people who are idle have enough to live on. It is the wherewithal to make a comfortable living that is the great need, and not work. I think we have gone as far as we can go with this stressing of work. If we go on another twenty-five or thirty years with machines displacing men and women as they have been, everyone will recognize that there cannot be work for all. Work is not the main worry of these people; it is having something in their pockets to enable them to get food, clothing and shelter and-
Employment Commission

the other things necessary to make life comfortable and worth living. This section reads:
The minister may appoint, from among the members of the committee, a special committee to be designated as the "women's employment committee" to investigate and report upon measures and means to aid unemployed women to secure employment in industry and commerce.
I really cannot see what a committee is going to do to enable women to secure employment in industry and commerce. At the present time there are more than enough highly qualified women for all the positions open in industry and commerce. The fact that the commission is being set up is not going to make any more jobs in industry and commerce for women. I am sure that the women have been rustling around trying to find openings in industry and commerce, so I would be very much obliged if the minister would tell me what he hopes this committee is going to do so far as industry and commerce are concerned.
I have had some pitiful letters from women, and I am sure every other hon. member has received similar letters. Some of these women are no longer young and they are striving to keep, in many cases not only themselves but others as well. Some of them are in their late sixties and they are striving to keep on working when they are really not able to struggle on from day to day. I answered a heart-breaking letter of this sort only yesterday. All this makes me think of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) to provide a retirement allowance for such people who desire to retire at sixty on a competence. I do not know how long it will take us, but we shall finally come to that. It is not jobs that are wanted for people like that; it is a competence. We simply must finance the consumption of goods through getting into the pockets of these people sufficient purchasing power to enable them to live out the rest of their lives in reasonable comfort. I have absolutely no hope that this commission will create any new jobs except for the commissioners.
If this commission is going to make a study of the whole problem, the problem of the young and old unemployed women should be given careful consideration because it has been given very little consideration in the past in connection with any projects to employ unemployed persons on public works and so on. One would almost think that there was no problem in connection with unemployed women; that it did not exist, when in fact it is a serious problem. I am

glad to see this section in the bill. Anything I have said is not meant to reflect upon the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). I am sympathetic with him as I believe he has a desperate job. One of the reasons I have sal silent during the discussion on this bill is because I wanted to see it tried. I am sure that we shall not foe given the opportunity to try anything else until everything in this bill has been tried. I am sure that nearly everything in it will fail and when we find that out, then we can go on to something else. I think the bill is too elaborate and the commission is going to be befuddled by the different matters they are to investigate. The commissioners will certainly need seventy people to advise them in order that they can give the government advice, and let us hope that the government will act on the advice of the seventy or the seven.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are on the next page two more subsections to this section to which attention has not been directed. I suggest to the minister that he utilize the same language in dealing with youth employment as was used in dealing with the women's employment committee. I think that was what was intended, but the draughtsman left out the words "to investigate and report." I think that where you deal with different matters of more or less the same class in the same section you should use the same language, and I think it was probably intended to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would move that subsection 2 of section 9 be amended by striking out the words "which will" in lines three and four and substituting therefor the words "to investigate."


Jean-François Pouliot: Before this is agreed to, I would suggest to the committee that the committee mentioned in this subsection should take up the matter of fair salaries to be paid to bank clerks.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is still an inconsistency between the two, but I am not concerned about it.


Grote Stirling: It appears to me that subsection 3 is reaching the proportions of a snowball. First, the government is to be advised by the commission, which is to be advised by a committee, and then to advise that committee there are to be local honorary committees all over Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that in this particular the procedure is exactly the same as it was in

Employment Commission
connection with the Canadian Patriotic Fund in matters of relief. In this case the commission would correspond to the executive which was set up then and which had associated with it an advisory committee composed of some forty or fifty persons from different parts of Canada. Then, in the different cities where relief was being distributed there were local committees which discharged certain functions assigned to them by the advisory body and the executive. This provision for local advisory committees is simply to permit of local committees being formed for the purpose of assisting both with respect to relief and the possibilities of employment.


Mr. MASSEY:: Speaking yesterday the
Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is reported on page 1830 of Hansard! as saying:
The work to be done will be carried out under the several government departments, but there will be one body which shall have power to supervise all the work and to see that it is properly correlated in affording the employment anticipated; also to advise the government with respect to what may be desirable courses to pursue. Not only that, the commission will have power to take a similar bird's-eye view with respect to what is being done to provide employment and relief in each and all of the provinces, what is being done in municipalities, and what is and may be done by private industry.
The question I wish to ask is this: Is it the intention to work closely with private industry with respect particularly to the matter of apprenticeship and in relation to the broad problem of youth reestablishment? In other words, is it the purpose of this commission to advise the government with respect to subsidies for apprenticeship?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We had a long discussion this afternoon and evening on the question of apprenticeship and I should not like to have it revived at this stage.


Denton Massey: The question of subsidies was not covered.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question
will be one of surveying in a broad way all means of providing employment in Canada, whether through the agency of the dominion government, the provincial governments, the municipalities or the great industries of the country. In its survey the commission will undoubtedly come to the opinion that certain methods are more effective than others in providing employment. Some industries may be exemplary in the practices they are following with respect to the relationship to which my hon. friend has referred, namely, the apprenticeship of certain of their employees. If an example of that kind were likely to be useful to other industries in other parts of the dominion, I have not the least doubt that the commission would make a report to that effect and in that way help to bring to the attention of all industries in all parts of the country one factor which would be of some help in the provision of additional adequate employment.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On the second reading of this bill I referred to section 10 and suggested that in order to vest in the commission authority for the effective administration of the act and for carrying out its purposes that section might need some amendment. I drafted an amendment which I submitted to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour, and I therefore move:
That section 10 of the bill be struck out and that the following be inserted in substitution therefor:
"10.	(1) The governor in council on the
recommendation of the minister may make, amend or repeal such orders and regulations and prescribe such forms as may be deemed expedient for carrying into effect the objects of this act or for insuring the due administration thereof by the commission or by its officers and employees.
(2) Any such order or regulation made by the governor in council, when published in the Canada Gazette, shall be of the same force and effect as if it had been enacted herein."
A similar provision, with regard to orders and regulations having the same force and effect as if enacted in the legislation, was adopted in connection with the Patent Act and approved by this chamber and another chamber in order that effective authority might be given in administering the act to carry out its real purposes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What my hon. friend has said is quite true as to the provision inserted in the Patent Act, but may I call his attention to the fact that the clause which is in the bill now before us is similar to the clause which was in the act respecting relief measures passed by the late administration, of which he was a distinguished member. We thought that by following closely the procedure of the previous administration in that particular, we should be covering the ground effectively. I should like to ask my hon. friend wherein the amendment which he has proposed differs from what was in the relief measure of the previous administration, and just why it becomes necessary in this bill when it was unnecessary in the other.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The essential difference may be stated thus: In the previous relief measures the actual administration with respect to relief was left almost entirely with provincial and
Employment Commission

municipal authorities and relief was administered largely under provincial statutes and municipal regulations. The administration of relief, under this measure, will be more largely under the Department of Labour and this commission, and therefore I suggest that the provision that "the governor in council may from time to time make such orders and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act" does not contain anything which gives effective authority to the orders and regulations so made. Mere orders have little effect in dealing with administrative matters unless such orders and regulations have the validity of law. I suggest, therefore, that these orders and regulations made by the governor in council, when published in the Canada Gazette and thus notified to all parties and interests, should be made effective as if they were part of this legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the Prime Minister has overlooked the fact that in the relief act there was another section which, combined with section 6, had the effect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member (Mr. Cahan). Section 7 reads:
A11 orders and regulations of the governor in council made hereunder shall have the force of law and may be varied, extended or revoked by any subsequent order or regulation; but if any order or regulation is varied, extended or revoked, neither the previous operation thereof nor anything duly done thereunder shall be affected thereby, nor shall any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, accruing or incurred thereunder be affected by any such variation, extension or revocation.
The reason for that is as given by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, and the combination of section 6 and section 7 is found in the amendment he proposes. Section 6 without section 7, it is true, is found in the bill now before the committee, but section 7 of the relief act of last session, chapter 13, is not included in the present measure.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In view of the wording of the amendment which I proposed, making such orders and regulations as effective as if inserted in the bill, no further provision is needed such as is found in the section which the leader of the opposition has read, because in that respect it is hereafter governed by the Interpretation Act of the Revised Statutes of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I appreciate that my hon. friend's desire in the matter has been to be helpful and I wish to thank him for it. I think the hon. gentleman and perhaps most hon. members opposite are more alarmed than there is any occasion to be over

the possible extent of the exercise of administrative duties by this commission. However, as I said the other evening, there may be occasions when it will be desirable to have the commission exercise certain powers of administration. To that extent it appears that the clause which my hon. friend has suggested would be preferable to the one in the bill. I have spoken to my colleague the Minister of Labour about my hon. friend's suggestion. He concurs in the substitution of the clause my hon. friend has suggested for section 10 as it stands, and the government will be pleased to accept it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I merely wish to be helpful.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Before section 10 carries I should like to ask the Minister of Labour as to his interpretation of the power of the governor in council under that section. How far does it go? Is it an overriding power? Is it the final determining influence and power in the administration of this measure?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The powers as exercised by the governor in council are controlled by the terms of the bill itself.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes. Well, it seems to me that this is a striking example of government by order in council. Let us take this bill and start at its beginning. First, the commission is to be appointed not by this house but by the governor in council. Then the house is not to be permitted even to say how many shall compose the commission; the number is to be determined by the governor in council. The salaries are not fixed by parliament. In spite of the strict regard which the house should have as to control of expenditure of money, it is allowed no voice whatever as to the salaries that are to go to these commissioners. The secretary is to be appointed by the governor in council. Then we have a national advisory committee to be appointed by the governor in council. Finally we have section 10, that the governor in council may from time to time make such orders and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this bill. This is a complete blanket authority to the governor in council to make any order, any regulations, that is deemed proper or necessary for the carrying out of this legislation. I am not complaining about that provision; I think it is an essential one. But let us compare it with the provision in the Relief Act of 1935, section 6, which reads as follows:
The governor in council shall have full power to make all such orders and regulations as may be deemed necessary or desirable to carry out the purposes and intention of this act


Employment Commission
My recollection goes back to the criticisms, hour after hour, that were levelled against the late government for having taken power and authority to administer relief by order in council. Could there be a more striking or complete example of an exercise of power by order in council than stands out from the first to the last section of this bill? It is all by order in council. That is what I want to point out.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I may be mistaken, not having been in the house when the debates referred to by my hon. friend took place, but my impression is that exception was taken to previous relief acts, not upon the ground as stated by my hon. friend now, but rather upon the ground that the governor in council was under those relief acts given wide legislative powers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So he is here.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, but given wide and
unlimited legislative power so far as dominion jurisdiction is concerned. That is obviously not the case here. All that is done in this case is to confer administrative duties upon the national employment commission by the action of the governor in council. An administrative duty is surely something different from a legislative act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 7 is legislative
power.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Section 7 of the bill? Section 7 gives the governor in council power to confer upon the national employment commission administrative duties but does not confer or allocate any legislative power whatsoever. My impression is that the exception taken to the previous relief acts was rather upon the other two grounds, first, the peace, order and good government clauses, and, second, the blank cheque with .regard to expenditure. I have no desire to enter into recriminations on that score, but I think my hon. friend is not wholly correct when he says that we took exception to the relief acts upon the ground he mentioned.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is one of the
grounds, but is there not, with regard to salaries, a blank cheque, just as blank a cheque as there can be?
M.r. ROGERS:	There is no more a blank
cheque with respect to salaries here than there is under the Inquiries Act, with respect to the appointment of any royal commission.
Section 10 .as amended agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Laid before parliament.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In order that section 12 may be made to conform to the amendment that is made, I move:
That all the words after the word "sitting" in the twentieth line be struck out and the following words inserted in place thereof:
"And, if not, within two weeks after the opening of the next session of parliament."
That will ensure that all orders in council and regulations will be laid before the House of Commons forthwith if the house is then in session, but if the House of Commons is not then in session, they shall be laid on the table within two weeks after the opening of the next session of parliament. That is always convenient because, when once laid on the table of the house, they are open to discussion and notice may be taken of them in the debates which ensue.


Mr. REID:: May I ask whether the hon.
member is cutting out publication in the gazette?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I see no objection to the .amendment of my hon. friend, but it has bean suggested by my colleague the Minister of Pensions that it is customary to use the expression "fifteen days" instead of "two weeks" in most statutes, and perhaps my hon. friend would-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, I think that is better


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And than, instead of "the next session of parliament," use possibly the words, "the opening of the next ensuing session."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. That is better, too.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would read then:
Or, if not, within fifteen days after the opening of the next ensuing session.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, I think that is preferable.
Section as amended .agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no question
about the gazette publication being left in,


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No.
On the preamble:


Richard Bedford Bennett: I direct the attention of the minister, as well as that of the Prime Minister, to the preamble. Passing over some controversial propositions contained in it, I am only going to make a suggestion that, I think, is warranted by the language used. Let us commence at line 10:
Employment Commission

... it is necessary to have the effective cooperation of the provinces and municipalities, and to enlist the cooperation of employers' and employees' associations throughout the dominion, as well of such other public and private agencies as may be in a position to provide employment or to suggest what is practicable in the way of reemployment projects ...
I do not quite follow what is meant by reemployment projects, but we can leave that for the moment.
... and whereas, it would appear that such nation-wide cooperative effort can best he effected through the appointment of a representative national commission, with power to cooperate with the provinces, municipalities and other agencies in the administration of unemployment relief ...
That is exactly the negation of what the minister has been saying all during the discussion of this bill. I desire to point this out, not in any controversial spirit at all, but as indicating that the preamble is at variance with the minister's statement as to section 7, because section 7 clearly indicates that no administrative duties are to be conferred upon the commission until action has been taken by the governor in council. But this preamble says power is conferred-
... to cooperate with the provinces, municipalities and other agencies in the administration of unemployment relief ...
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that this is exactly the opposite of what has been said during this whole debate. This commission is not to cooperate in the administration of unemployment relief; that is not being dealt with by this measure, at least so the minister states. I think that is a correct statement of the situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The word of real significance is the word "cooperate."
... the appointment of a representative national commission, with power to cooperate with the provinces, municipalities and other agencies ...
If my right hon. friend would prefer to substitute the words "in respect of" for the words "in the administration of," I do not see any objection to that. The possibility which he fears would then be removed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a question of fearing anything; it is a question of the preamble being at variance with the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would not change the intention of the preamble as it existed in the mind of the government. This portion of the preamble would then read:
... with power to cooperate with the provinces, municipalities and other agencies in

respect of unemployment relief, and in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed ...


Richard Bedford Bennett: If you stopped at "with power to cooperate with the provinces, municipalities and other agencies," I think you would cover it all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The two purposes in connection with which cooperation is desired are in respect to relief and in providing employment, and I therefore think those words should remain in the preamble. However, I am quite prepared to move, and do move that in lines 20 and 21 the words "the administration" be struck out and the words "respect of" be substituted therefor, so that the clause will read:
... with power to cooperate with the provinces, municipalities and other agencies in respect of unemployment relief, and in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed...


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Now I desire to make just two observations with respect to the preamble. It has been suggested that there is some analogy between this legislation and that having to do with the Canadian Patriotic Fund. I desire to point out briefly that there is no analogy in the world between them. The Canadian Patriotic Fund is based on the British North America Act which, by section 91, confers exclusive legislative authority on the parliament of Canada to deal with:
7.	Militia, military and naval service, and defence.
That exclusive jurisdiction being vested in the parliament of Canada, no province or any other authority had any jurisdiction to deal with it. It followed, therefore, that when parliament passed the Canadian Patriotic Fund Act of 1914 parliament was the only authority that could do so. In the next place, a corporation was created by those named in section 2, and the objects of the corporation, as defined by section 3 of chapter 8 of the statutes of 1914 were as follows:
The objects of the corporation shall be to collect, administer and distribute the fund hereinbefore mentioned for the assistance in case of need of the wives, children and dependent relatives of officers and men, residents of Canada, who, during the present war, may be on active service with the naval and military forces of the British empire and Great Britain's allies.
In other words there was a distinct and positive limitation upon the class of persons on whom the benefits be conferred, namely the wives, children and dependent relatives of officers and men, residents of Canada. There was no question as to that, and there

Employment Commission
is no analogy between the two up to that point. Then, under section 6, the executive committee was given authority and power over the affairs of the corporation, and their administration was vested in the executive committee which consisted of a president and such other officers and members as the corporation might from time to time determine. The persons named in the second section of the act constituted the first provisional executive committee, and ten of them constituted a quorum. But in the distribution of funds to wives, children and relatives of officers and men it was provided that:
The corporation shall, subject to the provisions of this act, pay, apply or distribute to the best of its judgment, in such manner, among the persons entitled to share therein, and in such amounts, as in the absolute and uncontrolled discretion of the corporation seems proper or advisable ...
In other words the names of the beneficiaries are included in the bill: (a) wives; (b) children; (c) relatives, and no one else, and the only question the patriotic fund had to deal with was that of the amount which, on investigation, should be paid to these persons and no one else. Then section 8 provides:
The corporation shall have the power to establish branches or local organizations throughout Canada, and to cooperate with any association or organization established in any place in Canada, for purposes similar to those of the corporation, upon such terms and conditions as the corporation may by bylaw determine.
It therefore is clear that as far as the patriotic fund is concerned it was merely a corporation created by parliament, in the exercise of its exclusive powers, for the purpose of distributing funds contributed by the state, by private individuals and by corporations throughout Canada, to a select class, namely the wives, children or relatives of those who, being residents of Canada, enlisted for service in the great war with Great Britain or her allies. To compare that to this measure, I submit with all deference, is something that cannot be done reasonably, because the two are not comparable. This measure does not indicate that any power is conferred upon a commission to distribute money to anyone. It does provide that the commission shall as an instrument of government, to use the language that is employed by the supreme court of the United States so often, or an instrumentality of government, selected or appointed by the administration of the day, coordinate the various activities that have to deal with the employment of unemployed persons and cooperate with them to ensure, as far as possible, that there shall be a limited number of unemployed in the state. That I cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, regard as analogous to a statute that provided that a fund should be distributed to certain named beneficiaries under conditions which, in the statute itself, are rigid and exacting. That is, there is no power to distribute any part of the fund to any persons other than those mentioned.
I have referred to this because I could not permit the statement to be made by some hon. members that there was any comparison or parallel between the Canadian Patriotic Fund Act and this measure which, as it stands, does not place in the hands of the commission any money for distribution to anyone and does not do other than create a commission, with an advisory committee and honorary advisory members, for the purpose of enabling the government, in the last analysis, to discharge its constitutional functions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say the comparison was not between the provisions of the Canadian Patriotic Fund Act and the provisions of this bill but between methods of dealing with the problem of relief in a time of emergency. During the war it was found desirable for the parliament of Canada to constitute a separate body corporate, giving it certain powers with respect to the administration and distribution of relief and to coordinate the various activities with respect to relief. It was found necessary to do that in addition to all the powers which government departments had. The real point is that it was found desirable to have some body other than the government departments to cooperate with the government and with various agencies in carrying out essential matters pertaining to relief during the war. Now we are faced with an emergency of a similar kind, in times of peace, but in which the numbers of those on relief are unfortunately much greater than were the numbers on relief during the time of the war. The government have thought it desirable that parliament similarly make provision for a body, apart from departments of government, which will be in a position to assist by advising and supervising in matters pertaining to relief and finding employment. The comparison is a perfectly good1 one, and in many features it presents a true parallel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose we must agree to differ in our attitude towards the matter, but I desire to point out to the Prime Minister with every respect that the patriotic fund was limited in its application to three classes of persons, and that the separation
Employment Commission

allowances and the provision for assigned pay and for children as made by the government of the day, had nothing whatever to do with the granting at their sole discretion by this organization of sums of money to three classes of persons and three only. It is true that the patriotic fund organization was set up as a body wholly irrespective of parliament, because it was administering private relief, sums of money subscribed by the people of the country to supplement separation allowances, assigned pay and provision for children. But the government of the day itself had nothing to do with the administration of the fund. The auditor general was selected for the purpose of auditing the accounts, but the fund was administered by the executive committee, with branches in the various communities, with the limitations I have mentioned. We may differ with regard . to the conclusions to be drawn from the illustration, but there can be no differences of opinion as to what the corporation was created for and the limitations placed upon it as to the classes of persons to whom it could make payments.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill as amended reported.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the amendments made the government will not be delayed if between now and the time we meet to-morrow the bill is reprinted, because that will expedite its being dealt with in the senate, and we can give it third reading first thing when the house meets to-morrow. I do not intend to make any address on the third reading-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -although it might be desirable that I should. But if the bill were reprinted I think it would expedite it in another chamber, in view of the amendments made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right hon. friend can assure us that the fact he is not going to make a speech on the third reading means that no one else will, this will effect what we have in view. But if I thought there were likely to be a number of speeches on third reading-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -of course I would like, if the house -would so agree, to have the bill go through to-night to avoid any further discussion. I think the suggestion my right hon. friend has made is all right; the

bill might be reprinted. It will then be taken up as the first order to-morrow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and given third reading.


Walter Edward Foster: At the next sitting of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wondeT
whether in the circumstances my right hon. friend would be agreeable to giving second reading at this stage to Bill No. 19 so that we might proceed in committee with that measure to-morrow afternoon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can speak only for myself and those associated with me. There is no reason why it should not be done. That implies, of course, that any rights we may have have not been compromised, the usual terms, just to expedite the second reading.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, certainly.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 19, to assist in the relief of unemployment, the promoting of agricultural settlement and rehabilitation, and in the development, conservation and improvement of certain natural and other resources.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Walter Edward Foster: When shall the house go into committee on the said bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The next sitting, the second- order of business, I take it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are some supplementary estimates which relate to the fiscal year that has just ended. They will be taken up to-morrow. We shall proceed with Bill No. 19 as a second order in the hope that it may not involve much in the way of discussion, and the estimates thereafter.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, April 8, 1936