OFFICIAL REPORT OF, DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS FIRST SESSION-EIGHTEENTH PARLIAMENT 1 EDWARD VIII, 1936 VOLUME III, 1936 COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE TWENTY-SECOND DAY OF APRIL, 1936, TO THE TWENTY-SIXTH DAY OF MAY, 1938, INCLUSIVE BEING VOLUME CCIX FOR THE PERIOD 1875-1936 INDEX ISSUED IN A SEPARATE VOLUME OTTAWA J. O. PATENAUDE. I.S.O. PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY

[Stage Direction]
of Commons! Berates
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 22, 1936

[Stage Direction]
Hon.. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Marine) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 53, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934.
Mr. STEVENS:: Explain.


Mr. HOWE:: As most hon. members are aware, the Canada Shipping Act, a very extensive piece of legislation, although passed in 1934, is not yet in operation, due to the fact that it was considered advisable to allow the shipping interests of Canada reasonable time to become familiar with the changes proposed, and also to enable the Department of Marine to prepare the regulations called for by the act. The amendments now proposed are not very extensive, and are largely for the purpose of clarifying the intent and meaning of the 1934 measure and rendering it more effective in its application to the existing situation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BANK OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved for leave to introduce a bill to amend the Bank of Canada Act.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest to your honour an examination of the bill as to whether it is within the competence of a private member to introduce a measure such as that proposed.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I shall look into the matter.


Mr. REID:: I think I might have been allowed to give the house an opportunity to know what the bill is.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member may proneed to give his information.


Thomas Reid: The objects of the proposed bill are, first, to allow the Bank of Canada to hold silver coin and bullion in conjunction with gold as a reserve against the note issue and deposit liabilities, and also to allow for the issue of silver certificates against the silver held in such reserve. Secondly, it is proposed to have the Bank of Canada purchase and hold any quantity or amount of newly mined silver when required by the minister so to do.
It will be remembered that at the London economic conference of 1933 Canada agreed to purchase 1,671,802 ounces of silver during the years 1935, 1936 and 1937. But under the provisions of the Bank of Canada Act, the bank, while called upon to purchase this amount of silver during those years, is prohibited from purchasing any greater amount than the 1,671,802 ounces, by mandatory order which states that the bank shall never be required to purchase more than this amount. The amendment proposed would make this amount the minimum instead of the maximum.


Walter Edward Foster: I think my decision in this matter should stand until I shall have had an opportunity to look into the bill and determine whether or not it is within the competence of a private member.
Motion stands.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. GAUTHIER:: 
Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.

Motions jor Papers


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. ROBERGE (for Mr. Boulanger):: For a copy of all documents concerning the official inquiry by the Post Office Department into the charge made by Mr. Gerard Cadrin, mail contractor of St. Vallier Station, against the postmaster of said St. Vallier Station, of illegally opening mail matter.
For a copy of all correspondence passing between the postmaster of St. Vallier Station, on the one hand, and the Post Office Department and the postal superintendent at Quebec, on the other, with reference to the rural mail contractor at La Durantaye, county of Belle-chasse, and especially the alleged purchase of postage stamps by the said rural mail contractor, from the St. Vallier Station post office.


HERVAT CHEMICAL COMPANY
Eusèbe Roberge: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports and other documents in the possession of the Department of National Revenue with reference to the claim of that department against the Hervay Chemical Company of St. Basile, Portneuf county, Quebec, for arrears of sales taxes.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if these papers were produced it would divulge the affairs of a private company or individuals, and my information is that it is contrary to the established practice of the Department of National Revenue to give such information. Therefore I would ask that this motion be dropped, or, if the hon. member proposing it (Mr. Boulanger) is not in the house, that it stand until he is.


Walter Edward Foster: Dropped.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SHAREHOLDERS
Henry Herbert Stevens: For a copy of all correspondence passing between the hon. Minister of Railways and the Chairman of Grand Trunk Senior Stocks Company, Limited (representing shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway), during the past six months, and more particularly a letter dated 18th February, 1936, from the said chairman to the hon. Minister of Railways.
Also for a copy of a petition addressed to the House of Commons and signed by W. A. deVere Forster, R. C. Hawkin, and others, on behalf of the first and second preference stockholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada residing within Great Britain, and dated about 1930.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the affairs of the Grand Trunk stockholders in connection with the Canadian National Railways are before the privy coun-

oil, and as far as I know the decision has not been handed down. I am of the opinion that the matter is sub judice, but I shall be glad to look into it and ascertain the exact position.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the Canadian National Railways, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1936, and to provide for the refunding of certain maturing financial obligations.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). According to dispatches from Great Britain a conference has been called between the governments of Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand in regard to subsidized shipping on the Pacific ocean running between Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the Pacific ports of British Columbia. The trouble arises out of the keen competition of United States subsidized shipping, particularly that of the Matson line, which it is claimed is putting British steamships out of commission. As Canada is, or should be, vitally interested in what transpires in connection with this matter I should like to know if this country has been invited to participate in the conference, because I believe we should be fully represented.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, an invitation
has been received by the government to attend t'he conference to which the hon. member has made reference. The High Commissioner for Canada in London has been instructed to send a representative to the gathering.

Unemployment-Mr. Church


UNEMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved the third 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.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, before t'he bill receives third reading I should like to1 detain the house for only a very few moments. By standing order 38 the motion for third reading is debatable, and I am thereby permitted to speak.
At the outset may I say that I am greatly disappointed in the bill. In the first place, the title of the bill is not correct but, as I said on Monday, it may be changed in another place. In the second place, the bill does not give the employment commission in making agreements with the provinces, corporations and individuals the powers they should have. The functions of the employment commission which will carry out the terms of this bill and the preceding one are purely advisory. Time and again we find in the bills bhat they are "to advise and report" or "to report and advise." What are the unemployed going to do while all this advising is going on? The government has admitted that no concrete or definite plan by the commission can be secured for almost a year. In other words, we shall have to wait another year before any concrete developments or definite plans will be proposed. Then, when they are proposed, what will happen? The commission will report and advise the minister who, in burn, may reject their advice, the same as he may reject the advice of the officials of his own department.
I was pleased yesterday to note the showing of independence of three of the one hundred and seventy members of the party in office. There seemed to be an awakening as to what is going on, as to what people are saying, because we know that Ottawa never knows what the rest of the country is thinking. Those who are new members will have a rude awakening from their constituents. I say that they are elected here to function as members of parliament, and not to alwlays sit still and do the bidding of t'heir party or leader, or of the government or any other group. They are free citizens under a free constitution. Look at the way private government members 12739-1321
in the old land criticize even government bills dealing with social matters and unemployment, and that sort of thing. Perhaps if in this house we had a measure for the relief of unemployment such as was introduced in England conditions might be different. We know that Great Britain is recovering faster than any other country, and its recovery is being brought about because the British people have attacked this great social disease in the practical and the 1936 way. Instead of a commission cure, a cure which will never amount to anything, they have adopted other means. Commissions have never cured anything in Canada since we have been a country. Hon. members have been elected as a commission of 245 members to deal with the problem, but we sit here day in and day out and do nothing about it.
With all due respect may I say that the government is one of conscientious Canadians, but I must add that the house must not be asked to pass Bill No. 19 without knowing the names of all the members of this sevenfold amen, this last word, so to speak, of the government commission on unemployment. We know who one of them is, Mr. Purvis, already named in advance under the new triumph of the present government of separatism. _We used to have the King, the Senate and the House of Commons. Now announcements are made by order in council without reference to the sovereign or his representative in Canada. Before the bill is passed we should know how it will operate, because I believe there will be a conflict of law, and this Bill No. 19, with regard to its industries clauses, will wind up in the law courts. No doubt agreements with industries, individuals and corporations will be taken to court. Application for injunction can be made, because it is my opinion that parliament has no power to pass the bill now before us on account of the interference with property and civil rights in the provinces.
There are at present before the supreme court several bills-ten bills in all-dealing with subjects closely related to this new deal of 1935, and before this measure passes we should know what the Supreme Court of Canada has to say about such matters. No statement has been made about unemployment insurance, or the power of parliament to regulate trade and commerce which has been unregulated since confederation. That field is within the jurisdiction of parliament, and with the exception of some minor laws has been unexplored since confederation.
I for one do not propose to sacrifice my rights as a member of parliament. I know
Unemployment-Mr. Church

the conditions of the industrial workers in the three ridings east of the Don river in Toronto. There is a proposal to appoint the president of an industry in my constituency as chairman of this commission, and about that matter I may have a word to say a little later on. In passing I may observe that he is a gentleman of ability, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his talents.
I wish particularly, however, to say a few words for the great mass of intelligent electors in Canada. I am speaking for those independent people in this country who are not interested in a solution of this problem along political lines. The great mass of electors who send members to this parliament wish us to reassert the supremacy of national over party interests in Canada, and they should compel us, their elected representatives, to discharge our duties as private members. They should make us function and do our duty in order to help rebuild the structure of our social and economic order.
The country is heartily sick of politics as it is played here. We want a new set of rules for the game. Nothing illustrates that point better than does Bill No. 19. Last night the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) asked the government if they were compelled to accept the recommendations' of the commission and he received the reply that the government was not committed to that advice. May I point out that there is a rule of anticipation in the House of Commons. I would not have spoken on third reading had it not been for the action of the government on April 6 when, in the presence of about forty per cent of the members, a committee was set up to handle the railway problem, the greatest problem in Canada and one involving a deficit of about $60,000,000. Without notice in votes and proceedings the government shunted consideration of this important matter to another body; it passed the buck to the committee on railways and shipping. If I were to speak at length about this matter I would be ruled out of order, and further reference in the house will be deferred until the presentation of the committee's report.
What will happen if on May 1 there are demonstrations in the larger cities? And there are bound to be demonstrations. Those men will not read Thomas Carlyle; they will not quote Shakespeare as is done by hon. members opposite. They are going to ask this question: What have you been doing about unemployment? I hope the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) will hear what I am saying, because he is interested in that part of the city where industrial

workers are not getting proper treatment. [DOT]For the balance of the session, if this bill No. 19 passes, whenever we propose anything constructive to relieve unemployment we will be ruled out of order under the anticipation rule. The preamble of this bill says that it is to foster agricultural settlement, and conserve and develop the natural resources, but in the whole bill from cover to cover, there is not one line about these great problems, and when this bill goes to the house of philology, as I call it, we shall see an awakening. This parliament is to blame.
I was very much interested in some of the remarks that were made by my hon. friend from Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) and my hon. friend from Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) in connection with the plight of our municipalities. The municipalities are asking that something be done along these direct grant lines, and they have been looking to parliament for a long time in vain for direct aid for relief works. I agree with what those two hon. gentlemen said in that respect, and on this government, as long as it is the government of the day, lies the responsibility of solving these problems in a practical way. We on this side of the house have made suggestions, but the government will not listen to them. They have millions and millions of dollars to give to the railways and to the provinces for unemployment relief, and the province deducts often ten or fifteen per cent for overhead and other expenses instead of giving the whole grant directly to the municipalities. So, Mr. Speaker, I was very glad to hear those two hon. gentlemen support me in my contention. I believe that instead of Bill No. 19 we should have an up to date, long term policy for providing full time employment, and if the Liberal party- and they are- the government of the day- cannot find a solution, what will happen in ten years will be that the socialists will come into power in this country. That is what is going to take place. Sir Oswald Mosley calls the present state of affairs "a slow crumbling into ruin." But England did not wait for "a slow crumbling into ruin" to develop. The government acted promptly. It tackled this problem in the House of Commons. As far back as 1909 the British government introduced unemployment and sickness insurance, and established a system of pensions and of labour exchanges. A census of labour was made. We have never had a census of labour, and it is all guesswork how many unemployed we have in this country, and how many of those on relief are employable or not. England did not wait for this so-called slow crumbling into ruin. The British people

Unemployment-Mr. Church
adopted a housing and construction policy; they tried to balance their budget; they adopted a policy of preserving their home markets by tariff concessions as much as possible for their own workmen by protection and by reforestation and a suburban policy, and as a consequence they have tided over the depression and have become to-day one of the most prosperous countries in the world.
In this country in recent years we have been too prone to load federal and provincial burdens upon the municipalities. Our constitution in that respect is well on its way to becoming upside down. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that the present government could not make a direct grant to the municipalities. That only shows the necessity of parliamentary and constitutional reform. I had a motion on the order paper dealing with that question, but the resolution was called only once although it had precedence I agree to let five or six other motions have the precedence. It is only begging the question for the government to say that they cannot make direct grants to the municipalities. They have made grants to municipal bodies before. In 1919 they made grants to the municipalities for housing, and ninety-five per cent of that money, millions of dollars, was paid back by the municipalities. So what is the use of the government making that argument? Grants have been made by the federal government to municipal institutions all over this country, for pensions, housing and many other services, and to quasi municipal harbour commissions and other social services. The municipalities themselves have no new sources of taxation. They have increased taxes on property owners so much that property is now taxed to death and nobody wants to own it. This affects real estate; it discourages employment; it discourages housing construction, and it leads to congestion and a lower standard of living. In Ontario the municipalities have found little sympathy from the province, because Ontario is seeking to balance its budget at the expense of the municipalities. The provinces were created for political, not economic, purposes. That was one of the greatest mistakes made at the time of confederation, and that is why we are not able to solve the economic problem in Canada. Four of our provinces would have become bankrupt but for federal assistance. Prior to March 5 of this year the federal government advanced $111,000,000 out of the public treasury to the four provinces west of the great lakes. That is a new constitutional development. If the government, in contravention of the British North America Act, can aid the provinces in this way to the extent of $111,000,000; if they are able to get round the British North America Act and give cash grants for outside services and federal subsidies, why cannot they come to the help of our municipalities? The provinces up to 1930 were able to run their own affairs out of their subsidy and direct taxation, but the municipalities are looking to this parliament for help. As I stated the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Crerar) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) the other day gave a heartless reply to the municipalities.
Look at what the United States senate has [DOT] done to solve the unemployment problem.
I referred yesterday to what it did in 1927 under a senate committee there, and the report that was made at that time. Our own senate last year made 555 amendments to our social and unemployment insurance bill, and yet it did nothing to help relieve unemployment in the past 12 years. This Bill No.
19 is fifteen years too late in getting started here. The government ten years ago refused to adopt the policy which we are now asking them to adopt on the third reading of this measure. I can see no object in the present policy of the government in this bill. The unemployment insurance bill that was passed by this house last year is tied up in the courts awaiting a decision while the unemployed are calling for jobs. This unemployment commission can make rules and regulations and make agreements with provinces and corporations outside the control of parliament altogether. That is what Lord Hewart called the new despotism. Where is the liberty of the subject to be if these matters are taken out of the hands of parliament and handed over to a commission which is given powers over the heads of the law courts in this country?
What does this bill say about business? The commission can make agreements with [DOT] corporations. What corporations? Are they going to make agreements with some of the corporations on which the chairman of the commission is a member of the board, such as the Sun Life, the Bell Telephone and many other companies, including some companies in New York. Are they going to make agreements with these companies? The bill in its present state is an interference with business and with corporate direction of property in this country. It is a most amateur performance and in its present form it will not aid employment because of the restrictions which it is going to place on industry, which should be unfettered if it is going to help give employment. We are giving this commission the right to make agreements with companies
Unemployment-Mr. Church

over the head of the province and with business over the head of parliament. Is parliament no longer to be a sovereign power? I contend that this bill is an interference with the liberty of the subject.
This bill permits extensive regulations to be made. Before it passes I should like to ask the government if this measure represents its long term policy for the solution of this problem? Neither doles, nor insurance nor hand-outs will ever take the place of the desire of the free citizens of Canada to work. The whole proposal is only a palliative and it will be a most bitter bill for the unemployed to swallow on May 1 when many of them hope to get off the dole and into remunerative employment. This bill from cover to cover is nothing but a blank cheque. Section 11 states that obligations are to be met, on and after March 31, 1937, but are any plans or surveys not even to be laid before the house as preparation for meeting these obligations?
On April 1 of next year-no, I am wrong; it is on March 31, 1937, Mr. Purvis' birthday, that this bill will expire. Parliament no doubt will then be in session and will get the bills. We can sit here in an $18,000,000 building as members who have certain rights and privileges; then we can look across the Ottawa river and see the slums of Hull which are as bad as anything I have ever seen, in New York city. We will get the bills on March 31, not on April 1. The money will be spent and all that will be left for parliament to do will be to conduct a post mortem. It will be a post mortem conducted on a sevenfold coroner system, to be known as an employment commission.
The government may enter into agreements with corporations, partnerships or individuals, but no mention is made of the municipalities. Not one cent is being provided for the municipalities. The only way they can get any money is from the provinces, and then a string is attached to it. Deductions will probably be made from this trust fund. Last night the government admitted that they were not aware that deductions had been made from the trust funds handed out to the provinces. This bill is supposed to assist in the relief of unemployment, but I think the Prime Minister said either too much or too little. A survey should be made as to what has become of these federal funds. Have they been audited by the auditor general? Has he seen that the money reached its proper destination?
I should like to say a word about the chairman of this commission. I have known this gentleman for some years, and I know he is a gentleman. He is the president of the largest industry in my riding, The Dunlop

Tire Company, but that is not going to prevent me from speaking my mind as a member of this house. I took part in a by-election in 1934 and at that time the head of this industry was very much interested in the results. Last year he took a great deal of interest in the general elections and efforts were made to defeat the hon, member for Greenwood, a gentleman who has made a great study of this problem and who knows much about the conditions of the people in his district. This Mir. A. B. Purvis of St. James street is to be the chairman of this new hallelujah chorus of government achievements. This is the man who is interested in the Bell Telephone Company and the Sun Life Insurance Company, the insurance company that took millions and millions of dollars out of this country. As I said he is the president of the largest industry in my riding, the Dunlop Tire Company.
The employees of this company have done a great deal to build up the Riverdale section and the over-the-Don district of Toronto. For many years the skilled workmen in this industry had made a most notable contribution to industry. They realized the benefits of protection and they appreciated its relation to employment, but they have been laid off or else are working only part time. During the by-election of 1934, the representative of the party in this section of the house was refused the right to address the workers in this industry because Mr. A. B. Purvis of St. James street was .then opposing this party. The other candidates in that by-election were able to get into the pliant although I probably had done more for this industry as a municipal worker and officer. It obtained many large contracts in the open market. This company was previously headed by a very able man, a former minister of the crown. He was a popular and lamented citizen who did a great deal for Riverdale district, my predecessor, the late Hon. E. B. Ryckman. However, new officers and heads of departments were brought in recently and the result has been that many of the employees are now working only part time, and some heads, who are Americans, to take the old officials' place. This industry wtas a credit to Canada under the protectionist system and the men who built it up were some of our best citizens. The present government candidate in the by-election and in the general elections last October had the active support of the Liberal president of this company. Bill boards in the neighbourhood of this plant were covered with the slogans: Vote Liberal and end unemployment; Beat Bennett and bad times; For action, Snelgrove; Curb the trusts; Secure lower bank, mort-

Unemployment-Mr. Church
gage and interest rates and, Protection for the home owner. That is what appeared on the bill boards as appeals to the workers of this industry.
The announcement of the proposed appointee to this position is irregular. I think it is unwise to make an announcement of an appointment to a public body, whether it is provincial, municipal or federal, before the appointment is actually made. This is a funny state of affairs. I am sure we could fill these desks three or four times with men who would be willing to act as commissioners. There are many who would be willing to go round advising and readvising the minister. The minister is so fond of getting advice himself he got a copy of Carlyle for the benefit of the unemployed in Canada and fed them on quotations from Carlyle. Now it is to be president Purvis who will advise and report to him.
Not only is this gentleman president of the company I mentioned; he is also connected with the Bank of Montreal, the Bell Telephone Company, the Canadian Investment Fund Limited, the Canadian Lastex Company Limited, the Consolidated Paper Corporation, the Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance Company, the Sun Life Insurance Company and the General Motors Corporation of New York. He is an estimable citizen and one who has done a great deal for his country, but in this instance I think he is attempting to do the impossible. I am surprised that a man of Mr. Purvis' ability would lend his name to something like this. He was bom in England and he knows as much as any citizen just what are the conditions over there and in this dominion. All he will be able to do will be to advise and report, report and advise, then take something out of the report and then add something to the report. I am surprised that he would have anything to do with a bill such as this.
I have the figures showing the extent of relief assistance given in the United States. There are 24,000.000 Americans who are living on relief money, about 14,000,000 of them receiving a livelihood from the work relief program, while the other 10,000,000 are getting local relief. The Cleveland News carries an illuminating illustration; it shows a number of smoke stacks of varying sizes indicating the decrease in unemployment since March, 1933. I quote the following statement:
Figures about the decrease in unemployment since March, 1933, show that we are lagging behind Canada, Sweden, Belgium and Great Britain and that we are just a trifle ahead of Japan. These statistics come from official sources in Washington and Geneva. The United States News illustrates with smokestacks of varying sizes the percentage of decrease in the number of jobless in each of the six countries. Through the courtesy of this Washington newspaper, we are permitted to reprint the pictogram, which speaks more eloquently than words or statistics.
This illustration shows that the percentage of decrease in unemployment in the United States since March, 1933, has been 19 per cent; Japan, 18 per cent; Great Britain, 24 per cent; Belgium, 27 per cent; Sweden, 36 per cent; Canada, 42 per cent. Yet, in the face of these figures, an hon. member yesterday blamed the party to which I belong for the unemployment that we have in Canada. Unemployment in this country is attributable in the first place to the government preceding the late administration, for that government took no steps to prevent dumping, nor did it make any effort whatever to preserve the home market for Canadian industry and Canadian producers or take any steps to study unemployment as I have said.
I believe in protection for the industrial worker. We have heard a good deal of criticism of the United States, but I would point out that in that country, under the United States government, under the Home Owners Corporation Act, 1,000,000 homes were saved from foreclosure. Look at what the senate of the United States accomplished in 1927 in connection with unemployment. Look at what was done over there in the investigation of Wall street and of racketeering in financial businesses in their relation to the unemployed, sweat-shops and child labour. The Senate of Canada goes on holidays and does nothing in connection with this matter. Why should it not have done something comparable with what was accomplished in the United States ten years ago? Our senate could have brought down a report the size of a bound volume of Hansard, but instead of that it quibbles about dotting an "i" here or crossing a "t" there.
Bill No. 19 refers to conservation but there is not one word about conservation in it. In my opinion the municipalities are being made the goat in this bill, and home owners are unable to retain their homes. England leads the world in unemployment insurance pensions, and we find Italy helping the municipal institutions in that country with a program which will extend over the next forty-five years In particular I would urge action designed to eliminate the suffering resultant from bringing into Canada immigrants who are inadequately informed concerning the conditions they are called upon to face here, and who are the victims of self-seeking immigration agents No one should be left to go cold or hungry in this country; those who
2062	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
are unable to work and are in need should be provided for adequately. Work should be found or made for all able-bodied workers who, without it, would be in need of the necessities of life, and reasonable means should be adopted to increase the earning power of those who are relatively inefficient.
The Victorian era built up assets for the future, but those assets have been squandered through a mad spending period in the last forty years. The modern politician seems to think it necessary to extend parliamentary interference to every phase of life, business, commerce, imports and exports and everything from Dan to Beersheba, in the form of useless commissions, with the result that we are over-governed. In the early days there were no bankrupt municipalities; to-day there are 247 and they are all crying out for some assistance and receiving none. The solution of the unemployment problem should be found in this house and not in any commission. A committee of this house should be set up to study the whole question, just as we have a committee on so important a subject as railways and shipping. The solution calls for national sacrifice and not for parliamentary repartee. The government of the day must be a constructive force whose object should be the building up of a healthy society; otherwise there is a danger of the people turning to socialism. In sound progressive measures lies the hope of the country. Such a policy may be unpopular in parliament, but if the fight is carried outside we shall find that the rules will be broken, for the man in the street has grown weary. He is of the opinion that the government is dealing with the unemployment question with the object of preserving its own existence and not for the good of the people as a whole, and that its attempts at reform are only halfhearted. The domestic policy has failed, for the stock in trade of the government seems to be summed up in the struggle of the ins and the outs.


Right Hon.   S@: I should like to call the Prime Minister's attention again to section 5. It seems to me it would make for better legislation if this section were enacted in a separate bill. The rest of the bill has to do entirely with the Department of Labour, but the administration of section 5 will be carried out through the Department of Finance and the minister of that department will advise the governor in council in regard thereto. Section 5 is for an indefinite time, being more or less permanent, or effective until it is repealed by parliament; whereas the remainder of the

act expires on March 31, 1937. In my opinion this bill should cover only the matters which are definitely to expire on March 31, 1937, and as I say it would be better if section 5 were put in a separate bill, which would then be lawfully in force until repealed by parliament. However, that is a matter entirely for the government, and if in their judgment it is all right, if they wish it to stand, I have nothing more to say.
In order to be helpful if I can, may I remind the house that an amendment was proposed to section 2, suggested I think by my leader but accepted by the government, that at the end of clause 2, after the word "labour" there should be added the words, "and whenever used in this act the word 'minister' shall mean the Minister of Labour." I believe that was agreed to by the committee, but it does not appear in the reprint of the bill which I have before me.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I thank my right
hon. friend (Sir George Perley) for his words which, as usual, are intended to be and are helpful. To take the last point first, I think the reprint of the bill which my right hon. friend has is the reprint issued the day before yesterday, and which therefore does not contain the amendments made yesterday. The amendment my right hon. friend has referred to as having had its origin at the instance of the right hon. leader of the opposition was adopted by the committee yesterday and will appear in the bill as it finally passes.
As to the other point I may say to my right hon. friend that while the government naturally hopes that it will not be necessary to renew this legislation, or at least all of its clauses, for another year at the expiration of the present fiscal year, it may be necessary to do so. In that event, of course, we will do as my right hon. friend's friends did when they were in office; we shall ask parliament, before the expiration of this fiscal year, to renew the bill for a further period of time. In those circumstances I think the point raised by . the right hon. gentleman, as to the possible effect of other clauses expiring at the end of the fiscal year, will not effect what he has in mind. I may say this, that should it not be necessary to renew the bill undoubtedly section 5 will have to be renewed in the form of a separate bill, and that will be done. This is all part of the law of the land meanwhile, and as the committee considered that point when the bill was before it I think we might allow the bill to receive third reading as it stands.

Unemployment-Mr. Wilton


Mr. H. E. WILTON (Hamilton West):: I should like to say just a few words before this bill receives third reading. I am quite in sympathy with what has been said by my hon. friend from Broadview (Mr. Church) with regard to the burden of debt that has been imposed upon the municipalities. I speak from personal knowledge, having had several years of experience in municipal administration; I do know that municipalities have been burdened beyond the point where they can carry on. But I do think at this time there should be no division of opinion in regard to the necessity of solving the-problem of unemployment, because the solution of that problem will mean the solution of the problem which confronts every municipality in regard to small home owners, many of whom are being forced out of their homes because of the heavy taxation imposed upon them by the municipalities due to their need of extra revenue.
I am only sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot agree with the proposition to leave the solution of this problem to a commission. To me that seems to be simply putting oil the evil day. To my mind it is the direct duty of this government and this parliament to take such action as will lead to an immediate, or as nearly immediate as possible, solution of this problem. If this matter is passed on to a commission no doubt, as commissions usually do, it will take a considerable length of time to bring in its finding, and even after that report has been made probably months will elapse before anything definite is done. Looking at the whole question from the point of view of the people we represent I cannot get away from the thought that the people of Canada look to this parliament itself to settle such questions as that of unemployment. It seems to me that if we have to appoint commissions to carry out everything we want done the people had better elect commissions and do away with parliament. We are sent here to do the business of the country, but we pass that duty on to someone else.
Every speaker has agreed that it is necessary to solve the problem of unemployment and much criticism has been offered, but so far I have heard nothing in the way of a solution. It seems to me that in handling our financial affairs with regard to unemployment we simply go deeper into the mire every time we attempt to do anything, because we follow the vicious system of borrowing money with which to repay borrowed money. No matter what is done our national debt is increased, and we are creating a tremendous burden which will have to be borne by the next generation.
Instead of continuing this vicious circle of borrowing and using the same money over and over again in order to carry on, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the best solution is to find some new source of revenue. By that I do not mean some new source of taxation but some new source of revenue which will bring relief to the overburdened taxpayer and which will help the small home owner to retain his property. I believe this government should adopt some ways and means of developing its own natural resources, thereby creating new wealth which may be used to reduce the national debt and relieve the municipalities of the need for the additional revenue they have had to find. In turn the municipalities would be able to help the home owners who are already overburdened with taxation and debt. It seems to me something along that line would be a very constructive step to take, since it would open up a new source of revenue without any additional taxation.
Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, that in regard to the solution of the problem of unemployment I do not think there should be any division of opinion in this house except, possibly, as to the means to be adopted. My feeling is that this question should be handled directly and immediately by this parliament instead of being turned over to a commission which will take months to prepare and bring in a report, and in all probability after that report is brought in we will find ourselves back where we are now.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


CUSTOMS ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue) moved the third reading of Bill No. 11, to amend the Customs Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. CAHAN:: On division.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 21, consideration in committee of Bill No. 17, respecting the national harbours board.-Mr. Howe.-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Johnston, Lake
Centre): When the committee rose last night it was considering section 3.
National Harbours Board
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest that for greater clarity in. dealing with this clause we discuss it subsection by subsection. The first subsection provides that there shall be, under the minister, a board to be known as the national harbours board. The minister is responsible to parliament for the administration of the harbours by this board, and the word "under" is not clear and definite. We found it necessary in other similar bills to insert the words "under the direction of." It was suggested at one time that it should be "under the supervision of," but there is no doubt that in matters of general policy these boards must be directed by a minister of the crown. Therefore I suggest for the consideration of the minister the insertion of the words "the direction of" in the first line of subsection 1 of section 3, between the words "under" and "the," as making for clarity and definiteness.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I see no objection to the change. I am not just sure what the implication is, but no doubt my hon. friend has looked into it. My thought is that this board will not require a great deal of direction. We hope to have expert management, perhaps more expert than that of any minister at the head of the department could be, and they will act on their own in most particulars. But obviously the minister is responsible for their actions. If the subsection can be allowed to stand I shall be glad to look into it and bring it up latter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then the first subsection will stand.
Subsection 1 stands.
On section 3, subsection 2-Body corporate. Agent of His Majesty.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With regard to the second, I find something that is, I think, new in parliamentary legislation:
The board shall be a body corporate and politic and be and be deemed to be, for all the purposes of this act, the agent of His Majesty the King in his right of the Dominion of Canada.
I suggest that that section should properly end with the word "politic"-"The board shall be a body corporate and politic." I understand the phrase about vesting the title in His Majesty the King in his right of the Dominion of Canada to lands and property; we use this expression frequently in legislation and in legal documents. But this board is not only under the supervision and direction of the minister as to general policy, but is subject in many respects to orders in council. I have no objection to its being a body corporate and politic for certain purposes, but

I do object, I think it is without precedent in our legislation, to a particular board or bureau or commission or commissioner being declared by act of this parliament to be the agent of His Majesty the King. The only agent for His Majesty the King in Canada, outside of the peculiar functions of His Excellency the Governor General, is the government of Canada or some department of that government.. Therefore I suggest that this clause should be reconsidered.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Justice explained the matter to me in this way: That of course "the agent of His Majesty the King" means the agent of the king purely for the administration of this particular act; that the Halifax harbour commissioners in a case before the supreme court were declared by the court to be the agents of His Majesty the King for the administration of the harbour commissioners' act. In other words we are simply calling them what the supreme court of Canada has declared them to be.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I entirely dissent from that suggestion. It may have been stated, in an opinion of one justice, of the supreme court or otherwise, that a harbour commission not under the supervision or direction of the minister but operating under a particular statute, was an agent of His Majesty the King. For instance, as we shall see later, in matters of land expropriation, in matters of other property which is in the possession of this commission, such property will be vested in His Majesty the King in the right of the Dominion of Canada. That expression is clear and definite as to the vesting of property. But I suggest it is a most extraordinary thing to say that you are setting up a new government outside of the government of Canada to administer the affairs of what is really a particular department or branch of a department under a minister of the crowm.
Mr. HOWE; I have before me the act to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act, assented to April 17, 1935, which I assume my hon. friend knew something about.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Perhaps so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Section 3, subsection 5, reads:
(5) The board shall be a body corporate and politic and be and be deemed to be for all the purposes of this act, except contractual dealings between the government of Canada and the board relating to the purchase by that government of the capital stock or bonds of the board or the repurchase by the board of those bonds, the agent of His Majesty the King in his right of the Dominion of Canada and to take security, receive, lend, pay, agree, acquire, hold, convey, transfer and otherwise do as this act directs or authorizes as such agent and not otherwise.

National Harbours Board


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Thiat is a different matter
altogether.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Is the farm loan board under the minister, as this one will be? The harbours board in effect and in practice will be part and parcel of the minister's department. I do not think the farm loan board is.


Mr. DUNNING:: Section 3 of the Canadian Farm Loan Act states:
3. There shall be a board, known as the Canadian Farm Loan Board, which shall be a body politic and corporate and shall consist of four members, one of whom shall be the minister who shall be chairman thereof.
Then, in the interpretation section "minister" is defined as follows:
(i) "Minister" means the Minister of Finance for the time being.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, but that is entirely
different.


George Halsey Perley: Quite different.
The farm loan board is not part of the Department of Finance., but the harbours board is made a part of the department of transport, when it is formed. In effect and in practice this board will be a part of the department.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We would save time if we
were to reserve section 2 and take further advice upon it, because it opens up a great many questions. If this body is a separate, distinct and independent agent of his majesty it certainly should not be placed under a minister of the crown. A minister may be a member of the board, as in the instance to which the hon. member has referred, namely the farm loan board, but the board cannot be an independent agent of His Majesty in his right of the Dominion of Canada and still be under the direction and supervision of the proposed minister of transport. I suggest that if the board is the agent of His Majesty the King, then His Majesty in his right of the Dominion of Canada is liable as principal for all actions of the board, all questions of liability and damage, and, as I suggested on second reading of the bill, it opens up the way for bringing an action against the government, because His Majesty in his right of the Dominion of Canada is the government. It opens up the way to bringing an action against the government by petition of right and like procedure, and leads to great confusion. I can see no reason why the board should be described as an agent of His Majesty the King, any more than any department or bureau of government or any other government commission should be
described in that way. I respectfully suggest that the minister might hold the section for the time being, and seek further advice. If the section is adopted it will lead to very considerable discussion with regard to certain other provisions with respect to which, in my opinion, it is entirely inconsistent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member raised this
point on second reading, and upon that occasion the matter was discussed with the Department of Justice officials. That department has given the definite ruling that the measure contains the correct drafting, and I do not believe anything would be gained by referring it back to the department. We have consulted it once and laid the views of the hon. member before it. As minister I believe I am bound to take the ruling of the Department of Justice.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Of course the minister has the majority.
Subsection 2 agreed to.
On section 3 subsection 3-Board may contract, sue and be sued.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This subsection brings up another matter. As a corporate body the board may sue and be sued, but in my opinion other provisions of the act are inconsistent. Nevertheless I assume that all real and personal property of which the board is in possession and is operating will be vested in his majesty. If so the board will have no property with which to respond to its own liabilities or to any judgment obtained against it. I have no objection to the provision that the board shall have capacity to sue and be sued, but in view of subsequent provisions suit against the board may have very little effect.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This matter has been carefully considered by the Department of Justice. Obviously the board is engaged in a number of businesses, involving a large turnover of money. It has to enter into contractual relations with private parties. This subsection merely contains the declaration that the board may be sued for breach of contract, without obtaining a fiat from the crown. In other words it does away with the necessity of compelling people who wish to take action against it to obtain a fiat from the crown.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I appreciate that point, but in view of other provisions I think the board will have very limited resources with which to satisfy a judgment.
National Harbours Board


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not believe that that is so, because I must point out that the board is dealing in millions of dollars, and has a revenue of about eight million dollars per year, plus such deficiency appropriation as parliament may vote.
Subsection 3 agreed to.
Section 3, subsection 4 agreed to.
On section 3, subsection 5-Salaries.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the salaries of the board are to be fixed by the governor in council should they be left indefinite and subject to change by increases or decreases? I am not objecting to the subsection, but certainly 1 suggest that the salaries should be fixed n the bill.


George Halsey Perley: If the government is bound to pass the subsection we cannot prevent it, but I must remind the government that during the five years the previous government held office the present Prime Minister and his followers in opposition offered continuous criticism of action by order in council and without reference to parliament. I admit that there may be occasions when a salary cannot be stated in a bill, in which event the amount would have to be determined by the government, after taking all facts into consideration, but it does not seem to me that this is in that class. I assume the government must know at this time the persons they purpose appointing to the board, and they ought to be able to state the salaries in the bill. I submit that from the government's own point of view regarding orders in council this is something that ought to be determined here. If everything is to be left to be settled by order in council, what becomes of all the arguments hon. gentlemen opposite used during the last few years against the previous government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The harbour commission is
in business in a very big way indeed, and we hope to secure the services of excellent men for the commission. We believe we should be free to pay what may be necessary in order to get the right type of man from time to time. I am advised by the Department of Justice that this is the usual procedure in matters of this kind, and I see no reason why it should be departed from in this case. My hon. friend is quite mistaken in saying that the government knows exactly how this board is going to be made up, because we cannot consider that until we get the legislation through.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections 6 to 9 inclusive agreed to.

On section 3, subsection 10-In case of vacancy.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I move, Mr. Chairman, that this subsection be amended by striking out the words in the first line thereof, "there should be" and substituting in lieu thereof the word "of."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Subsections 11 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Officers, clerks and employees.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move to amend subsection 1 by adding at the end thereof the following proviso:
Provided that in the employment of such officers, clerks and employees under the provisions of this subsection, other qualifications being equal, preference shall be given to persons who have been on active service overseas in the military forces, or being resident or domiciled in Canada at the outbreak of the war served in His Majesty's forces, or who have served on the high seas in a seagoing ship of war in the naval forces of His Majesty during the war, and who have left any of such services with an honourable record or who have been honourably discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Before the clause as amended is carried I wish to consider the first four lines of section 4. When this board is organized and vested with the property and works of the seven existing harbour commissions it will be, next to the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, the third largest national corporation in the Dominion of Canada. Its employment will at times run into many scores and hundreds of employees who will really be in the service of the government of Canada, just as much in the service of the Dominion of Canada as the five hundred employees of the printing bureau under the Department of the Secretary of State which in itself is a separate and independent bureau or board but is nevertheless a branch of one of the departments of government just as this board inevitably will be one of the branches of a department of government. This bill provides that the three gentlemen who are appointed commissioners shall have complete control of the employment of all other officers, clerks and employees which they may deem necessary for the proper conduct of its business. This board will fix their remuneration and other terms of their employment, and I suggest that if the former system led to patronage and improper admin-

National Harbours Board
istration for political and partisan purposes, this bill is surcharged three times with the same prospective evils. It is an attempt, and a deliberate attempt, of the government to secure the employment of scores and hundreds of persons who will not be subject to the civil service regime or to examination and appointment by the civil service commission. I know the government have a majority and they may put it through, but I call attention to the fact that this is a flagrant violation of civil service principles to which successive governments have adhered in the past.


Mr. MacNICOL:: There are now doubtless large numbers of employees in the service of the different harbour boards throughout the country. Is it the intention to reengage all those who are eligible on the present staffs or is it intended to employ entirely new staffs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I trust that my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) is not serious in suggesting that the civil service commission be allowed to select the staffs for all the business that is conducted by the harbour boards from Halifax to Vancouver, fluctuating staffs, and so forth. I do not like to be unpleasant about the thing, but it does seem to me that my hon. friend might have made some such suggestion when his government was in power and the harbour boards were operating exactly the same business. I cannot imagine that he would seriously make the suggestion. I do not think it would have been wise to put the staffs under the civil service commission then any more than it is to-day. I cannot think of a better qualified board to determine the personnel than the three experts whom we shall appoint to have direction over this enterprise. I cannot think of any better way of building up a service that will be a credit to the dominion than to allow the commission to pick its own personnel, place them on a basis of efficiency, and carry on from there.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest that the hon. member himself last evening made certain declarations with regard to evils which he alleges have grown up under the existing system, and I suggest that by this bill the introduction of patronage which will be under his control will lead to evils far greater and more intense than those to which he called attention last evening. I have no doubt about it. The argument of the hon. gentleman that the previous government should have introduced a reform in respect to the administration of
these boards is not altogether relevant because the previous government did undertake to initiate reforms along the line of the report which my hon. friend has adopted.


Clarence Decatur Howe: W'ould my hon. friend mind detailing the steps which the government took?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The first step was to have a thorough investigation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What was the next step?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is the step that was taken. The other matter, as explained by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was the development work in connection wtih certain of these ports. This work was in progress and it seemed inopportune to introduce a measure of this radical character so near the end of the session. The other phase concerns who would be best qualified to select the employees of these boards and the hon. gentleman suggests that the three men whom he will select will be best qualified. Following out that same argument, I assume that the hon. gentleman thinks if he were made prime minister of Canada he would be best qualified to select all the civil servants in every branch of the government. The argument leads tc that. I suggest that this bill provides for the hon. gentleman a system of patronage unprecedented in the administration of any department of the government. The effect of this bill is to place the harbour boards under the administration of his department; his department assumes responsibility. If my life is preserved for three years, I shall be very happy to sit opposite to the hon. gentleman and discuss the pernicious practices which will inevitably grow up and the evils which will undoubtedly ensue from the adoption of the system of patronage which is embodied in this particular clause.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am glad the Gibb report is referred to, but apparently hon. gentlemen have never read it. Sir Alexander Gibb covered this matter very carefully in paragraph 92 of the report, which reads:
The central harbour board should act under the Minister of Marine, but not under any department. It should have wide discretionary powers in the matter of rates, salaries, terms of service, the settling and administration of contracts, the engagement of special technical assistance, the sanctioning of emergency capital expenditure, and the control generally of all construction and port operations.
That is what my hon. friend's expert said about this.
National Harbours Board


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not responsible for the report. Experts for every other department are selected by the civil service commission upon the report and advice of departmental officers. The Gibb report suggests that this should be under a minister and not under a department. What the report had in view undoubtedly was the creation of a distinct department or bureau or board which would supervise the administration and which would be under the minister. I shall be prepared to come back at the end of three years and discuss with the hon. gentleman whether this system of patronage which he is introducing advances the best interests of the government and the public.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The board we are creating is exactly the one described by Sir Alexander Gibb in his report. Sir Alexander said that the board should report to the minister and not through a deputy minister. This board, as I say, is exactly the same as the one described by Sir Alexander Gibb and the matter of rates, salaries, terms of service and so on will be the same as Sir Alexander Gibb recommended. As my hon. friend has claimed the Gibb report for his party, it seems to me that that rather closes the issue.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend need not be so personal; I did not claim the Gibb report for my party or any party. We are more interested in the proper administration of these harbour boards.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend paid me a compliment by saying that I was aspiring to be prime minister of Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not suggest that the hon. gentleman was aspiring to that position; I suggested that the argument which he was advancing would tend to vest in the prime minister the appointment of all officials and employees in every grade of the service.
Mr. ST-PERE: I do not think we would be the losers by that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Possibly not, although there is a widespread difference of opinion. That sort of patronage has led to evil results; it is a pernicious practice.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. This bill refers to the Minister of Transport, but there is no Minister of Transport. Item 24 on the order paper refers to a resolution to provide for the appointment of a Minister of Transport, but that resolution and the following bill should first be passed. It is only after the principle has been agreed to that the accessory can be discussed in committee. At the present time

the Minister of Transport does not exist and we are being asked to transfer the whole harbour commission business to a department at present non-existent. I am very much surprised that such an eminent lawyer as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has not seen this before.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I took exception to it last evening.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Exception was taken to this particular point, I believe, by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, but I do not think the point is well taken. The last section of this bill states that it will come into force only on proclamation of the governor in council and the resolution referred to by the hon. member will be law long before this bill is proclaimed. The definition of "minister" as the Minister of Transport does not affect the validity of this bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend should not make such a confident declaration, as this bill cannot be enacted and proclaimed without the confirmation of another branch of this parliament.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This bill will not become law until proclaimed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is true.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is every possible safeguard.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was interrupted just
as I was making my point. Has the chair given a ruling on the matter or has the objection been withdrawn? I should like to have a ruling. I do not want to displease anyone, but I want to see good legislation. Our legislation should be one and two and number two should not be number one. It seems to me that everyone will agree with that. I do not want to cause trouble to anyone, but I want to be clear in my mind that the legislation we are discussing is right. This is a serious objection. Perhaps the reason why this resolution has not been passed is because the government have changed their mind. Perhaps the bill we are now studying will never be put into force because the resolution will not be submitted to the committee. We do not know this and I want to be sure. It seems to me that we should first create a department before it is given any power, especially such powers as are granted by this legislation. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it will be very difficult for you to elucidate this matter and give a ruling on the whole thing.

National Harbours Board


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This section stood over last night for further consideration, and I submit that the question does not now arise.


Jean-François Pouliot: This section is not an
independent section of the bill; it is the whole bill. The whole thing will rest upon the shoulders of the minister, for whom I have great respect-, and I want him to be empowered with full authority when these powers are conferred upon him. That is the point. You cannot give powers to a dummy; the minister must first receive authority to control the harbours of the country before these harbours are transferred to him. This is elementary; it is common sense, and the legislation should be drafted in that way. There were complaints yesterday about the way in which the legislation was drafted, and those complaints were serious. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that you are here not to please anyone but to see that the rules are observed and that discussion is carried on in accordance with the elementary principles of parliamentary procedure.


Mr. RINFRET:: May I point out to the hon. gentleman that there is -a precedent for having the legislation in this form. I recollect distinctly that last year the government introduced several bills that were interwoven. There was a bill transferring to the tariff board the activities under the combines act; there was another bill creating a commission on trade and commerce, one of the sections of which bill provided that the commission should be under the tariff board; and then there was an amendment to the Tariff Board Act. These were all considered together on the distinct understanding that none of the bills would be put into force until they had all been passed. I submit to the hon. member that he is raising with some emphasis a point of order which is really not in keeping with the common practice in this chamber. I understand, moreover, that the- point was left in abeyance last night, and I see no objection to our proceeding with the bill in the meantime.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not insist upon it,
but if I raise a point of order it is because an hon. gentleman the other day said that I was an expert on points of order. One thing more. The rulings of the chair in the last five years, and the legislation passed in -the last five years cannot be cited as a precedent; it is all wrong.


George Halsey Perley: There is no
reason in the world why we should not go on with the bill, but I do not think it should
be passed until the department of transport has been set up. I do not see how you can pass a bill referring matters to the minister of transport when there is not a minister of transport. But there is no reason why we should not go on with the bill.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Johnston, Lake Centre):: The section having to do with the
minister of transport was allowed to stand.


George Halsey Perley: The minister is
making light of the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. The minister said that many evils had grown up in the administration of the harbours; he went into that fully and used some extreme language. I can see in this clause, however, nothing that alters at all the situation in regard to patronage. Personally I am glad that he has brought down the bill if its terms are made Satisfactory to everyone. I think something was needed to alter the administration of the harbours and to put them into a more businesslike shape.
But let me submit this to the minister as far as patronage goes, and that is one of the evils to which he referred last night. It is one of the things which, we know, have happened through the years, the difficulties in regard to the employment of persons by the harbour commissions, the manner in which they are to be selected, and the right claimed by members in constituencies in which there are harbours to name the persons to be appointed. There is in the proposal now before us nothing whatever that changes that situation in any way. If, as I assume, the minister is desirous of bettering the administration of -the harbours in respect of patronage, there should be a different arrangement from that which is proposed in this section, because as far as I am able to visualize it the position in connection with the appointment of persons in the different harbours will be exactly the same as it has been in the past. I know the difficulties that exist, but I urge the minister to consider the position in which he will place himself. As Minister of Transport administering the canals, if he has to appoint an engineer on one of these canals he must go to the civil service commission. I see no harm in that; it has been working out very well. On the other hand, if he wants an engineer in the harbour of Vancouver or in Saint John he can appoint that man himself; that is to say, the man is appointed by the board which is under his direction and the minister does not have to go to the civil service commission at all. There is a small canal in the constituency of Argenteuil, which I have the honour to represent, and if a
National Harbours Board

lockmaster or lockman is needed there the civil service commission appoints him. A notice is put up in the post offices and along the canal, intimating that there is a vacancy; applications are made to the civil service commission and they make the appointment. I am not arguing now either for or against the wisdom of this method, but I would ask the minister why he thinks there should be any difference between the method followed in appointing engineers, clerks and so on in connection with these harbours and the method in connection with canals, which he will also be administering.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is an experienced business man. I would ask him to go back over his business experience and ask himself whether he would recommend the civil service commission as the proper agency in appointing men in connection with the various businesses of the ports-the grain elevator business, the cold storage business, the wharf and warehouse business, the terminal railway business, stevedoring and so on-or whether he would not consider it best to leave such appointments to the business heads of enormous undertakings of this kind, allowing them to keep the personnel up to the mark by giving them the power of dismissal for wrong-doing.


George Halsey Perley: The minister
makes a fair argument, and in a business I might be administering I should certainly wish to control the appointments myself. But if he were administering the business of an elevator he would not have a member of parliament coming to him and saying that he wanted certain people appointed; the minister would have that in his own hands. The point I am making is this: Is there not any way in which he can improve the position as far as patronage is concerned, with respect to the people who will work for the board, because pressure will be there exactly the same as it has been? I understood from what the minister said previously that his purpose in bringing down this legislation was to try to better the condition of affairs in the harbours and to see that patronage was eliminated as much as possible.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: "Change the system" were the words.


George Halsey Perley: Yes, change the system in order to eliminate patronage, and try to have this business conducted as the minister would conduct it if it were his own private concern.


Mr. FINN:: I am surprised at hon. gentlemen opposite. Every hon. member knows that the Gibb report was in the hands of the

previous government-and I regret that the right hon. leader of the opposition is not in his seat at the moment-and that the report was pigeonholed so that it did not see the light of day until the present administration came into office. I desire to say to my hon. friends opposite and particularly to the exSecretary of State (Mr. Cahan), who comes from my own province, that the harbour commissions were established in 1928, and in 19'30 we had an election. The Liberal party went out of office; the Conservative party came in, and the late government, led by the present right lion, leader of the opposition, dismissed every employee of the Halifax harbour commission, from engineers down to the men who swept the docks, with the exception of three or four employees.
Mr. ST-PERE: The situation was the same in Montreal.


Robert Emmett Finn: The chairman of the Halifax board was a gentleman whom the ex-Secretary of State knows very well, but during the five years hon. gentlemen opposite were in office they did not dare to bring down legislation implementing the Gibb report. Prior to the election of 1935 all employees of the Halifax harbour commission, from the chairman down to the humblest employee, were told what they had to do. They went out and worked for the Conservative party and did all they could to defeat my colleague and myself. Hon. gentlemen opposite speak of patronage. They had it for five years and their party grew rich because of it. If I wished to make some other statements to this committee this afternoon I think some other hon. gentlemen who sit opposite would be out of the house just now, as the right hon. leader of the opposition is.


Mr. WALSH:: I rise to a point of order. I do not think the hon. member has any right to refer to any other hon. member in the terms he has used, or to make the suggestions he has made. I would ask tire hon. gentleman to withdraw his last statement.


Robert Emmett Finn: I simply said what I meant, Mr. Chairman, and I reiterate it, that when this-


William Allen Walsh: I raised a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and I ask for your ruling.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would ask my hon. friend to state first the point of order.


William Allen Walsh: The hon. member stated that if he cared to make statements which he knew to be true some other hon. members

National Harbours Board
in this house at present would not be sitting in the house but would be absent, as the right hon. leader of the opposition is at the moment. That is a marked and unpleasant suggestion directed to certain hon. members.


An hon. MEMBER:: Face the music.


William Allen Walsh: Face the music nothing; I do not think that is a fair and reasonable statement, and I think it is the duty of any hon. gentleman to withdraw a remark which casts a reflection upon any other hon. member. I ask my hon. friend from Halifax, as an hon. member who is held in general esteem, to withdraw the statement, or at least to make it plain that he is not casting any reflection upon any other hon. member.


Robert Emmett Finn: I desire to say to my hon.
friend that my statement stands, unless I am ordered by the chairman to withdraw it. I said nothing in reference to any hon. gentleman opposite, except that if I should make some statements perhaps some other hon. gentlemen would not be here in the house, not because they were directly interested but because my remarks would not be euphonious to their ears.


William Allen Walsh: Then is the ruling that the
statements are in order, Mr. Chairman?


George Halsey Perley: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you will rule that the hon. gentleman should not make any insinuations against any hon. member. I think that is all you need to do.


Charles Edward Johnston: My position with regard to what
the hon. gentleman said would be that he has not named any hon. member.


Mr. STEWART:: Yes, he said, "like the
right hon. leader of the opposition."


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. gentleman did not charge the right hon. leader of the opposition with any wrongdoing, nor has he charged any individual member of this house with any wrongdoing.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think you
caught the remarks of the hon. gentleman, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think I did, and my ruling would be that anything the hon. gentleman has said so far is in order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should like to make it
clear on Hansard that the right hon. leader
of the opposition is engaged this afternoon, performing his proper duties, in attending a meeting of a committee of this house, which necessitates his temporary absence from this chamber. That is the only reason why he is absent.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I should like to say a
few words in connection with this section, in support of the position taken by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George and those sitting around him. I may say that I am in agreement with the government in bringing down this legislation, because I believe it is an attempt to overcome some of the evils that the minister put on record in moving the second reading of the bill. If any further argument were needed to support what the minister said at that time I think it was furnished by my right hon. friend who has just taken his seat.


Robert Emmett Finn: Not right honourable, just
honourable.


Angus MacInnis: Not yet but at some
other time, I hope. I suppose in expressing my approval of the bill I shall find myself in that category suggested by the bon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, who said in Vancouver recently that hon. members whc supported this bill must have something wrong with their heads. However I do not mind that, since I imagine I shall be in fairly good company. I believe the minister is falling short of what he intended to do if he leaves this section as it now stands. In support of his position he points out that the board will make these appointments, but I should like to suggest that if another government comes into power the term of office of this board will be terminated, and then we shall see exactly what my hon. friend from Halifax says happened in 1930. Therefore we are not going to get over the evils by merely appointing a board. I have before me to-day's Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day and I wish to draw to the attention of the committee two questions which appear thereon. Question No. 3 asks:
1.	How many persons have been dismissed from the staff of the Vancouver harbour commission since October 23, 1935?
2.	How many of those dismissed during this period were ex-service men?
3.	How many persons have been appointed to the staff of the Vancouver harbour commission since October 23, 1935?
4.	How many of those appointed during this period were ex-service men?
Question No. 5, which I suppose was put on the order paper to meet the reply to question No. 3, asks for the number of person*

National Harbours Board

dismissed from the staff of the Vancouver harbour commission during the period from August 7, 1930, to October 23, 1935.
Now, ten years hence, unless we deal with this matter in the proper way and put it under the civil service commission, we shall have similar questions to this on the order paper, and for similar reasons. The minister asked the hon. member who is acting leader of the opposition to-day (Sir George Perley) if he would make appointments through the civil service commission or a similar organization if he were dealing with his own business. But government business is not the same as private business, as has been well pointed out. I suggest to the minister that if he wants to get the credit which is undoubtedly coming to him for introducing this legislation, he go the whole distance and have the appointments under the civil service commission, so that we may get away from the evils of patronage in this matter.
Mr. ST-PERE: All the appointments?


Angus MacInnis: Something can be done. There may be minor appointments that would not come under the civil service commission, but I am convinced that most appointments could be made by the commission just as well as by the board which is going to be appointed.
Mr. ST-PERE: Does the hon. member say that the civil service commission is competent to appoint the manager of a car repair plant in Montreal? What competency have they to appoint a master mechanic? The hon. member talks about patronage; in 1930 my opponent was the leader of a committee which looked after the dismissal of Liberals. These are facts. My hon. friend from Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) is a motorman. He was appointed there because the manager knew what he could do. Would he tell me that specialists administering a harbour board are not more competent to employ men belonging to special trades than is the civil service commission? The hon. member from his place in the house tries to convince the people of Canada that the civil service commission should have the first word in appointing plumbers, mechanics, and men all belonging to working classes. I say that this is impracticable; it is nonsense. The civil service commission is not omniscient.


George Halsey Perley: It seems to me that the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. St-Pere) is strengthening the argument we are trying to make regarding this matter. I say again, I am not trying to assess the blame. My hon. friend from Hochelaga blames the Conservatives for doing certain things when
IMr. Maclnnis.]
they came into office; I could reply and blame the Liberals, but is a tu quoque argument of any use in a matter of this kind? This has been an evil and trouble all through the years. I told my hon. friend, the minister, before that personally I am very glad he has brought in this legislation; I think something was required to improve the administration of the ports, but I submit that he should give further consideration to this point. This government is not going to be in power forever; some day there will be another government. Is he going to perpetuate the idea of having the employees of this board change when there is a change of government? I would take exactly the same stand if the argument were the other way; I do not believe in the principle. If you are going to have a good administration of the harbours you have to build up a competent staff, some of whom, at any rate, will have a certain degree of permanency. Perhaps it cannot be managed to have all the staff of the harbour board appointed by the civil service commission; sometimes I think there are some positions being filled by the commission to-day that would be better not dealt with by the commission. I have known oases like that. I referred a little white ago to the canal in the constituency of Argenteuil; I think some other authority might be more competent to appoint lock men than the civil service commission. We took the small post offices away from the civil service commission some years ago, very wisely I think. The member of parliament is better able to suggest the name of a postmaster for a small post office in his constituency than any one else. I am not suggesting that everyone employed by the harbour board should be appointed by the civil service commission, but I say to the minister, who is evidently endeavouring to improve the administration of these harbours, that some way ought to be found to give permanency to at any rate a large part of the employees of the board, so that when there is a change of government they will stay in their positions. I speak my personal views entirely; I am not in favour of giving the commission authority over everyone appointed, but I am sure that on the whole the civil service commission have improved the service and made civil servants feel that they are more permanent, and so have drawn to the service a better class of men and women, who are willing to make it their permanent calling in life. Surely some way can be found to give to at least the greater part of the employees of this board that sense of permanency, so that

National Harbours Board
a better class of men will be secured and that when there is a change of government or a change of the board, the staff will not change. There may be a change of the board, even under the present government; is the new board to get rid of the old employees and take on new ones? I say to the minister: Surely he can find some way to give to the greater part of the staff of these harbours a sense of permanency which will make for the selection of better men and improve the administration of these harbours.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I agree with the principle
of building up a permanent staff. Perhaps my right hon. friend is not aware that there is considerable permanency on our harbour staffs. I suppose the number of new men employed on the harbours since this government came into power is not ten per cent of the strength of the harbour staffs.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But you have not been in
power ten months yet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But it did not take you three months-


George Halsey Perley: The minister
should not say it did not take the other government three months. I would like to know what he means by that. He is not suggesting that we dismissed all the men in the harbours administration, is he?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A question has been asked
about the numbers; I have the numbers here, if wanted.


George Halsey Perley: I think both
sides have done a good deal of that sort of thing. I do not think we can get on with this discussion on that basis.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think there has been improvement from year to year, and considerable improvement is taking place in the present year. The practice is growing up of binding these people into permanent organizations in quite a satisfactory way. For instance, in the port of Montreal, this group insurance which has been in effect some time, binds the people into a more or less permanent organization,


George Halsey Perley: Would that bind the board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would not bind the board, no. But at the same time it builds up a permanent service, gives the men a status in the books of the commission, which I may say has been respected to a high degree over the years. I believe some method like that, rather than giving the appointment of the entire staff holus-bolus to the civil service commis-12739-133}
sion, is the wise way to work it out. I believe it will work out that way under a permanent board. Remember that this board is being appointed for ten years, and I think the permanency of the heads will build up the permanency of the staffs as far as a business that is seasonal in character, as this business is, will permit. I do not know that I can think of any step at the moment that I can take which will hasten that situation.


George Halsey Perley: Does the minister not draw a distinction between the higher class of the staff and the lower? I cannot remember the name of the bill, but I do recall that a bill was passed some years ago in which it was indicated that certain of the staff would be appointed by the civil service commission and the remainder by order in council. I remember the matter was discussed in this chamber for some time. I am not suggesting that the minister should arrange the section so that all appointments should be made by the civil service commission, but I do submit to him that he should make a beginning. Could he not draw some distinction-he is better able to do it than I am-between the different classes of employees? He could make a beginning towards developing a permanent service for the harbours.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It must be obvious to the hon. member, as it is to me, that it cannot be done this afternoon.


George Halsey Perley: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The matter would require careful study. It seems to me that if we decided to do it to-day it would take a year to put it into effect.


George Halsey Perley: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We would have to declare all positions vacant and ask for new appointments.


George Halsey Perley: No. I cannot remember the name of the bill, but one was passed in which-


Mr. POWER:: I think it was the bill setting up the radio commission. But may I point out that on that occasion the employees in the lower brackets were placed under the civil service commission, and those in the upper were exempt. If I may judge from what I read in the public press and elsewhere, the people most criticized are those who are exempt.


George Halsey Perley: That may be, but the bill setting up the radio commission is not the one I had in mind.
National Harbours Board


Charles Gavan Power: I think the same thing happened in connection with the bill setting up the tariff board.


George Halsey Perley: What about the unemployment insurance measure?


Charles Gavan Power: As I understand it, nearly all the employees are placed under the civil service commission.


Mr. ISNOR:: I shall1 not deal with the question of patronage raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), because that has been answered by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn), who showed clearly that ninety-five to ninety-nine per cent of the employees of the Halifax harbour commission were dismissed immediately after the change of government in 1030. If I remember correctly, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George stated that they took steps at once to change conditions. They did take steps at once, the steps referred to by my colleague.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. member to please take that back. I did not make any such statement with regard to conditions in Halifax or in any other port. I had nothing whatever to do with the employment or dismissal of any person in the port of Halifax or the port of Montreal. I stand in this chamber and say that I was a minister of the crown for five years and never interfered to dismiss from his employ any man, no matter what his political or partisan views or how partisan his actions may have been.


Charles Gavan Power: There is such a thing as hying to wash one's hands of one's colleague.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not trying to do that; I am replying to an insinuation which is entirely unfounded.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I should not like to misquote or make a misstatement where the hon. member is concerned. If he did not use those words, he did say-and I hope I am correct this time-that steps were taken. In other words steps were taken by his government to bring about certain changes. I simply make the statement that they did make changes. They made changes to a very marked extent in connection with one particular activity, that of the Halifax harbour commission, where they dismissed practically every employee. That was a minor step. The allimportant step which they should have taken did not take place until January 15, 1932. At that time a very important step was taken by the late government when it appointed

Sir Alexander Gibb to look into harbour matters.
It is surprising the extent to which hon. gentlemen opposite change their tactics when they lose office. When in power they are ready to bring about changes which will provide for their friends, but immediately they are in opposition their tactics change. "Oh no, you must not do this; you must not do that; you must not make changes, because they will have a tendency to bring about a greater degree of patronage 1" Such observations are not fitting at a time when the Minister of Marine is endeavouring to bring about conditions which will add to efficiency in the handling and development of ports in Canada.
I do not wish to deal with this matter in a sectional way. If I were to do so I would strongly advocate the recommendation in the Gibb report concerning local advisory committees. Last night mention was made of a local advisory committee to cooperate with the central board. However I do not propose to go into that matter now. The minister has laid down a program, which he believes will be effective, but which does not provide for this type of committee, and his judgment is good enough for me. For that reason I will not press the suggestion.
May I offer to the minister a constructive thought with regard to all Canadian ports. First may I call the attention of the committee to one or two facts brought out by the royal commission on maritime claims headed by Sir Andrew Rae Duncan. I do not wish unnecessarily to take up time, but I should like to point out that 'the commission was appointed by the present Prime Minister, and the report tabled is of national importance. Among other recommendations the commission stressed the importance of shipment through Canadian ports. When I refer to that part of the report I am certainly not advancing the claims of Halifax, Saint John, or any other single port. I refer to all Canadian ports, and with that thought in mind I address my observations to the Minister of Marine. After examining records and hearing the evidence of witnesses, they say:
From the records, as we have examined them, we reach the conclusion that Nova Scotia was peculiarly unfortunate in the treatment which was accorded to the claims she pressed forward to the dominion government from time to time, with the result that no consideration-apart from the "better terms" of 1869, which were, in fact, an adjustment made as at 1867-was given her to meet what she regarded as her special wants and interests.

National Harbours Board
I want those words contained in the Duncan report to be borne in mind. They were made after the royal commission had made their investigation. The report goes on to say:
At any rate, the result has been to prevent the healing which time and sympathetic understanding might well have achieved, to leave on the mind of Nova Scotia a sense of continuing injustice, and the feeling that, had her numbers and influence been greater, better treatment would have been accorded to her.
It is with that thought in mind, a better treatment for the maritimes and all our Canadian ports, that I am going to offer for consideration an amendment to be included as subsection 2 of section 4. I could make extended remarks upon it but the minister is familiar with all the arguments that have been advanced. I could cite the statement that was made by the late Sir Henry Thornton, when president of the Canadian National Railways, and his proposal to establish an office at Moncton to bring about closer cooperation between the maritimes, or, as he called it, between lower and upper Canada.
1	could also refer to many recommendations that have been made by other commissions, but without going into further detail I move that the following be inserted as subsection
2	of section 4:
The board shall so direct, provide and procure that all freight destined for export by sea which is consigned within Canada for carriage to National Railways either at point of origin or between that and the sea shall, unless it has been by its shippers specifically routed otherwise, be exported through Canadian ports.
May I say that in pressing this amendment I am simply advocating what has been placed before the government and parliament of Canada time and again, that our goods should be shipped through our own Canadian ports. I could give the tonnage and so forth, but I do not think it would add to my case as the minister is already familiar with those facts. I would like to compliment the minister upon bringing forward this important bill and on the amendments that are provided in the reprinted bill. I feel that the bill is much more satisfactory now that certain changes have been made. I feel sure that it will have the support of all good Canadians provided that our goods are shipped through the facilities provided by our own ports.


Robert Emmett Finn: Perhaps my hon. friend and colleague (Mr. Isnor) has overlooked the fact that in the Transcontinental railway act, which was a legislative agreement between the Grand Trunk and the then government of Canada, the very provision which he now desires to be placed in this bill was incorporated in that act.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Quite so.


Robert Emmett Finn: And as the Transcontinental has been taken over and has become a part of the Canadian National railway system that clause applies to all parts of railways which are part and parcel of the Canadian National railway system. It might be advanced from a legal standpoint that there would be a conflict perhaps between a harbour board appointed by the government of Canada to function at Ottawa and the persons who go out to obtain freight for the Canadian National railway system. While the suggested amendment of my hon. colleague from Halifax is one which, I know, is near and dear to his heart, as it is also to mine, I would suggest that before his amendment is dealt with the minister might consult with the justice department or the hon. gentleman who is acting in the absence of the hon. Minister of Justice as to whether the placing of this specific amendment in this bill would in any way conflict with the legislative contract, which is stronger than a provision, that I have mentioned. When the government of Canada took over the Transcontinental there was placed a double responsibility on the government of Canada. First, the government placed it on the Grand Trunk, and then they took it back when they took over the Grand Trunk, so that we are in an even stronger position than before to ask the government of Canada to see to it that these very things are done which my hon. friend and I so much desire. I compliment my colleague from Halifax upon bringing this matter to the attention of the Minister of Marine and the committee, but I think it would be well if he would allow the amendment to stand until the minister has had an opportunity to discuss it with the Justice department to see whether it might in any way lead to a conflict between the government railways of Canada and the board to be appointed under this legislation.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Speaking to the
subsection under consideration I would like to associate myself with those who are urging that the government should not in any way undermine the principle of the Civil Service Act. It has been found necessary because of the incompetence of the various harbour boards that they should be brought under the direct control of this government. The local boards apparently have been very unsatisfactory. The minister himself has said that the waste has been shameful, and so on. It does seem to me that under those circumstances it is highly desirable that we should start off in the right way. If there is any sense whatever in having a large number of government
National Harbours Board

services come under the Civil Service Act, there is every reason why this new arm of the service should also come under the act.
I cannot see that any case at all has been made for exempting this particular branch that will one day be essentially a part of the service. There are professional appointments to be made, technical and other officers, clerks and other employees. Surely we at Ottawa have all these classes of appointments in the various departments of government. It seems to me that no reason has yet been given for exempting this particular service from the Civil Service Act. I regret very much indeed that by this measure, if it is carried through, the government is doing a great deal to undermine the principle of the Civil Service Act. It is doing this in two ways. First of all, it is creating a new department which is being exempted for no good reason. I am afraid that we shall have patronage there as we have had it in other departments again and again. Second, it is exempting this great field from the rightful ambitions, shall I say, of those who might expect to be placed in positions under this service. Further, it has an adverse effect on other civil servants.
I notice that the next clause provides that the Government Employees Compensation Act is to apply to the people appointed under this board. I notice also that the Civil Service Superannuation Act is to apply. The next subsection provides that all the benefits given under this act are to be preserved. A man may be taken out of the ordinary civil service and placed under the jurisdiction of this harbours board at a larger salary than he has been receiving or is likely to receive. He is taken out of the regular line of promotion and suddenly advanced to a good position. Is it possible for the great body of civil servants to observe that kind of treatment with equanimity? They know this man is advanced and if anything happens to him under the harbours board he can return to the civil service; he retains all the rights which he would have had had he remained in the service proper. This is undermining the principles of the Civil Service Act in a very subtle way; it is undermining the morale of those appointed to the customs, the post office and other departments of the government.
I appeal to the minister to reconsider this matter. I think the hon. member for Argen-teuil (Sir George Perley) was right when he said that if a case could be made out for the exemption of certain classes of employees,
'Mr. Woodsworth.]
then that should be done, but that the others should come under the Civil Service Act. I cannot see where it would take more than a few hours to make the necessary classification in a matter of this kind. If this clause could stand and certain amendments could be introduced, we would affirm the principles of the civil service so necessary to the welfare of our nation.


George Halsey Perley: In order that
we might get on, perhaps the minister would let this clause stand and try and provide for the beginning at any rate of permanency in this service. This bill cannot go through until the Department of Transport is set up, and I think the minister might give this matter a little consideration.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are only at subsection 1
of section 4 and we have had two long sessions of the committee. Section 1 has been allowed to stand and it seems to me that we should try to make some progress.
I can assure my hon. friend that this particular phase has been discussed and we believe it is quite impossible. I am sure he would not ask us to place a vast organization like this under the civil service commission. There is a time and place for all things.


George Halsey Perley: I am not suggesting that it should all come under the civil service commission; I am suggesting that there are certain classes of the staff that could come under the commission. I think the minister should consider that. As I see it, this bill cannot go through this house until the Department of Transport has been set up and there is a Minister of Transport. We can consider it but it cannot go through under the rules of this house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I quite appreciate that, but
I would point out that we should try to make some progress. This is the third month of parliament and we have debated this one section for nearly two hours. Surely we should try to consolidate the progress we have made.


Mr. McNEVIN (Victoria, Ont.):: It seems to me that these employees are somewhat similar to the maintenance of way employees and running trades of the railways. I think you can eventually obtain the same permanency here as was obtained in the case of the railways. A permanent staff can be built up and I think we are only wasting time discussing the matter.

Supplementary Estimates


William Allen Walsh: I was interested this afternoon when the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) asserted his prerogative of dictating the rules of order of this house. I suggest that any hon. member who seeks to wrest that crown from his head should be severely dealt with. Speaking on the second reading of this bill I emphasized this particular point, and I want again to place myself on record. It is all very well for the Minister of Marine (Mr. Howe) to contemplate the pleasant picture I know he has in mind. I believe he is quite sincere When he says that the appointments to be made will be made in a businesslike manner, the same as they would be made in a private enterprise. If that were possible there could be absolutely no criticism of this clause,, but it is not possible under present conditions. I think we need only consider the straining at the leash on the part of certain hon. members opposite who seem to be anxious for this clause to go through to realize that they are anticipating something in the way of political profit. With bated breath and whetted appetite they feel that they are approaching a political millennium as far as patronage is. concerned. It is that very attitude which makes me feel that the minister should give more mature consideration to this particular clause at this particular time. Although I recognize that he is sincere in his desire to remove all positions from political patronage, the fact remains that he has not made his position secure. During the course of his remarks the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) suggested that this measure was being introduced because of the incompetence of the various harbour boards. I do not think he meant to use those terms and I know the minister did not introduce this measure for that particular reason. We have had' harbour boards in the past which were eminently competent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to interrupt? I had in mind the statement made by the minister himself, who said:
To me it shows the most shocking betrayal of public trust I have ever read in my life. I feel in one way that it should be put on Hansard so that the people of this country might learn something about harbour commissions; on the other hand I dislike to do this because it would certainly give the people a very unfortunate idea of how public affairs are conducted.
I based my statement upon those words.


William Allen Walsh: Apparently the hon. member has forgotten that the Minister of Marine
seemed to have certain mental reservations because he qualified the statement which the hon. member has just quoted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I listened to his remarks and I did not hear any qualification whatever.


William Allen Walsh: I am assuming it was qualified for I hardly expect that the Minister of Marine would allow a statement of such severe criticism of previous harbour boards to stand in that particular manner. I just want to emphasize again my opposition to this clause although I am in general agreement with the principle of the bill. Along with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others who have expressed their opinions, I hope that some way will be found whereby political patronage can be absolutely eliminated from the management of our national harbours. If that can be done much money can be saved and greater efficiency established
Progress reported.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1936-37
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1937, was presented by Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.
Charles Avery Dunning: In moving that the estimates be referred to the committee of supply, perhaps I might be permitted a brief word in summarized explanation. The special supplementary estimates are designed to deal with those expenditures which the government deems necessary because of conditions now prevailing, as distinct from the main estimates which were designed to cover what might be described as the normal expenditures of the country. These estimates contain provision for projects already undertaken to the extent of $30,418,000; they contain provision for other projects to the extent of $28,430,000, or a total of $58,848,000 for projects already undertaken, and other projects. I may say that the division is maintained all through the details of the estimates as between these two classes of items. In addition, there is provision for $26,000,000 for grants in aid to the provinces with respect to direct relief, and provision for an estimated deficit of the Canadian National Railways of $39,900,000, a total in all of $124,748,000.


George Halsey Perley: Is there no provision there for relief as such, except what is given through the provinces?
Reports of Committees


Charles Avery Dunning: The other projects contain provision for that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the estimates be given to members?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have just received the estimates from the printer and have given instructions for distribution to be arranged as soon as copies come from the printing bureau, but I am not sure how soon that will be. I move that the estimates be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 23, 1936