[Stage Direction]
Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski) presented the second report of the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, as follows:
The standing committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government, begs leave to present the following as its second report:
Your committee has had under consideration items Nos. 426, 427 and 428 of the special supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1937, and item No. 286 of the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1936, and approves of said items of the estimates.

Railways and Shipping
Your committee has also considered provision for capital expenditures and debt retirements involving $9,959,000 which is to be provided by way of loan to the Canadian National Railway Company, and is covered by a resolution standing on the order paper of the house in the name of the Minister of Finance, and approves of same.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Sir EUGENE FISET:: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I move that the report be concurred in. May I explain that the reason I am moving concurrence is that the committee has been informed by the Department of Finance that certain commitments will have to be dealt with either to-morrow or the beginning of next week.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, the items referred to in this report were before the standing committee on railways and shipping to-day. If the resolution before the house is now adopted, I assume that closes the matter as regards discussion in committee of the whole house, although these items referred to in the report appear in the special supplementary estimates. The understanding in the committee was, I think, that that should not be the case, but that we should have the right here to discuss these items.


Eugène Fiset: I think my hon. friend is mistaken. The supplementary estimates as far as railways are concerned were submitted to the standing committee at the special request of the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who did not want the resolution on which the bill will be based to be considered in the house before the committee had considered these supplementary estimates. The fact that these estimates are being reported to the house does not in any way prevent their discussion in committee of the whole. This is simply a compliance with the request of the leader of the opposition.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The request of the leader of the opposition was, as the chairman of the committee (Sir Eugene Fiset) has said, that these [DOT] items stand over for consideration by the standing committee, but it was understood that that should not close off discussion in committee of the whole of the merits of these items.


Eugène Fiset: It does not.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is what I wanted made clear.


Right Hon.   S@: I think we should have the assurance that the adoption of this resolution and the report of the committee, which seems to be quite in order, will not preclude discussion of the matters referred to when the estimates are under consideration in committee of the whole.


Eugène Fiset: May I again say that assurance was given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), when the resolution was introduced, that the fact that these estimates were being submitted to the standing committee would not preclude discussion in the house in committee of the whole.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is all that I have been asking for.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure your honour being in the chair tomorrow when the Minister of Finance introduces his budget, I would ask the house kindly to give consent to the adoption of the following resolution:
That the provisions of standing order No. 28 respecting the committee of ways and means be suspended for the sitting of Friday, 1st May, 1936.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 57, to amend the criminal code.
He said: The object of this bill is to direct the attention of the house to one of Canada's most serious scandals, the great loss of life at -level crossings and on highways. I hope hon. members will read the provisions of the bill as set out in the various sections. The first section deals with stopping at level crossings other than tramway crossings or those which are protected. The second section deals with driving while under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, and I propose to substitute the law of England for the present statute. Section 3 deals with racing and cutting in, two of the main causes of deaths on the highways. The bill provides that a person who causes death by culpable negligence shall not drive a car for two years, and there is an additional penalty provided. Under section 4, on the trial of any female person by a jury one-third of the jurors shall be female persons duly qualified on the same basis as male jurors. Then the last clause provides thait on the trial by jury of any person for an accident causing death or injury, in every case where a
Questions
[Stage Direction]
true bill has been found after there has been a committal by a magistrate the judge shall leave the case to the jury.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
chateau laurier hotel employees
["1.\tYes.\n2,\t3 and 4:\n(Period December 20, 1935, to April 18, 1936)\n2.\tMr. Alphonse Lepine, R.R. No. 1, An-cienne Lorette, P.Q.\n3.\tNo. 2 timothy hay, $16 per ton of 2,000 pounds; No. 1 clover, $15.50 per ton of 2,000 pounds.\n4.\tMr. Alphonse Lepine, Ancienne Lorette, P.Q.; Mr. Joseph Couture, Loretteville, P.Q. (Mr. Couture's tender was received 5 days after tenders were closed).\n(Period April 18, 1936, to approximately June 30, 1936)\n2.\tMr. Nestor Lachance, Charlesbourg, P.Q.\n3.\tNo. 2 timothy hay, $10.50 per ton of\n2.000\tpounds; No. 1 clover, $10 per ton of\n2.000\tpounds.\n4.\tMr. Nestor Lachance, Charlesbourg, P.Q.; Mr. J. Elzear Begin, Beauport, P.Q.; Mr. John Byrne, Charlesbourg, P.Q.; Messrs. Begin & Frere, Quebec; Mr. Gerard Cote, St. Gregoire, P.Q.; Mr. J. Omer Daigle, St. Gerard Atalante, P.Q.; Mr. Alphonse Drolet, Ancienne Lorette, P.Q.; Mr. Arthur Drolet, Quebec; Mr. Alphonse Lepine, Ancienne Lorette, P.Q.; Mr. Arthur Martineau, St. Frangois, P.Q.; Mr. N. Lachance, Charles-bourg, P.Q.; Mr. J. H. Bureau, Ancienne Lorette, P.Q."]
Mr. HOWE:: Mr. Speaker, I may say that this question has been referred to the management of the Canadian National Railways, who have replied that it is against the policy of the railways to answer such questions. They point out that an answer to the specific questions asked would not give a true picture of the situation, as a great part of all wages in hotels is made up of gratuities. However, I did ascertain from them definitely that the wages paid at the Chateau Laurier are equal to if not better than the wages paid at any other hotel on the Canadian National system or any competing hotel of which they have knowledge. I also ascertained that the provisions of the Ontario fair wage law are being fully complied with.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Answered.



Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Is it a fact that it is customary for canning company corporations to make contracts with growers in the spring of the year for the delivery of their products to the cannery at a contract price?
2.	If so, what was the prevailing price paid to the growers for tomatoes for the season of 1934, and for the season of 1935?
3.	What is the figure being offered by the canners for the season 1936?
4.	Has the agriculture department, or any other department of the government, been keeping in touch with and advised of the activities of the canners this year in their preparation of contracts with growers for the delivery of vegetable and fruit products?

5.	Did the bureau of statistics request the filing by the canning companies of the "carry over" of canned goods stocks from one season to another?
6.	What was the "carry over" of canned tomatoes for the year 1934, and for the year 1935?
7.	Did the canning corporations request the withdrawal of this demand by the bureau of statistics; if so, who made the request?
8.	Has the government authorized the discontinuance of the filing of statistics regarding "carry over" in the canning industry?
9.	Have representations been made by growers' organizations or individuals requesting that "carry over" or "stocks in store" should be published from time to time?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	1934, 29 cents per bushel in Ontario, $10.25 per ton in British Columbia; 1935, 50 to 30 cents for No. l's and 35 to 22i cents for No. 2's in Ontario; $13.33 per ton for No. l's and $8.33 for No. 2's in British Columbia.
3.	Ontario, approximately same as 1935. British Columbia, some contracts at $15 per ton for No. l's, $9 for No. 2's, and $12 for combination l's and 2's, others same as 1935.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	December 1, 1934 October 1, 1935 2,148,661 cases 1,785,661 cases
7.	Yes; the Canned Foods Association of Ontario.
8.	Yes.
9.	Yes.


LABELLE BUILDING, MONTREAL
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What is the name and address of the owner of the Labelle building in Montreal?
2.	What is the municipal assessment of this building?
3.	What is the monthly and yearly rental paid by the government for the use of said building?
4.	What amount has the government expended upon this building in improvements, repairs or maintenance from 1930 to 1936, inclusive ?
5.	What floor space does the government occupy ?
6.	When does the lease of this building
terminate?
7.	Was any reduction in the rental made during the depression?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Labelle Building Limited c/o Sun Trust Company, Limited, 10 St. James West, Montreal, P.Q.
2.	Land $125,600; Building $154,400; Total $280,000.
3.	(a) $3,497.32.
(b) $41,967.95.

Questions as Orders for Returns
4.	From January 1, 1930, to January 31,
1936.	Minor repairs and improvements $2,451.80 for six years and one month. (Large repairs and improvements made by owner). Caretaking, lighting, power and water $49,79654 for six years and one month.
5.	25,613 square feet.
6.	May 1, 1937.
7.	No.


HAMILTON, ONT., FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	In connection with the erection of the new federal building at Hamilton, Ontario, was the general contractor supposed to provide a watchman during the day and another at night while this building was under construction?
2.	If so, has this regulation been complied with and at what hourly wage were these men employed ?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) night and day watchman at $15 per week each, and two gate watchmen at 45 cents per hour.


VALCARTIER CAMP
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Since the change of government, has the Department of National Defence or the Department of Labour purchased any wood for Valcartier camp?
2.	If so, what quantity?
3.	What was the price?
4.	To whom was the contract given?
5.	Who were the tenderers?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Forty-five cords of hardwood.
3.	$6.50 per 72 cubic feet.
4.	Mr. Maurice E. Bastien, Loretteville,
P.Q.	.
5.	Mr. Maurice E. Bastien, Loretteville, P.Q.; Mr. Cleophas Turcotte, Quebec, P.Q.


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Since the change of government, have tenders been invited by the Department of National Defence or the Department of Labour for supplying hay to Valcartier camp?
2.	If so, to whom was the contract awarded?
3.	What was the price?
4.	Who were the tenderers?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Yes.
2,	3 and 4:
(Period December 20, 1935, to April 18, 1936)
2.	Mr. Alphonse Lepine, R.R. No. 1, An-cienne Lorette, P.Q.
3.	No. 2 timothy hay, $16 per ton of 2,000 pounds; No. 1 clover, $15.50 per ton of 2,000 pounds.
4.	Mr. Alphonse Lepine, Ancienne Lorette, P.Q.; Mr. Joseph Couture, Loretteville, P.Q. (Mr. Couture's tender was received 5 days after tenders were closed).
(Period April 18, 1936, to approximately June 30, 1936)
2.	Mr. Nestor Lachance, Charlesbourg, P.Q.
3.	No. 2 timothy hay, $10.50 per ton of
2.000	pounds; No. 1 clover, $10 per ton of
2.000	pounds.
4.	Mr. Nestor Lachance, Charlesbourg, P.Q.; Mr. J. Elzear Begin, Beauport, P.Q.; Mr. John Byrne, Charlesbourg, P.Q.; Messrs. Begin & Frere, Quebec; Mr. Gerard Cote, St. Gregoire, P.Q.; Mr. J. Omer Daigle, St. Gerard Atalante, P.Q.; Mr. Alphonse Drolet, Ancienne Lorette, P.Q.; Mr. Arthur Drolet, Quebec; Mr. Alphonse Lepine, Ancienne Lorette, P.Q.; Mr. Arthur Martineau, St. Frangois, P.Q.; Mr. N. Lachance, Charles-bourg, P.Q.; Mr. J. H. Bureau, Ancienne Lorette, P.Q.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	From August 7, 1930, to October 23, 1935, who are the civil servants in administrative or executive positions who have received additional remuneration for work done outside of prescribed hours and what amount has been received by each of them?
2.	From August 7, 1930, to October 23, 1935, who are the civil servants who have received additional remuneration for work performed outside of prescribed working hours, in conformity with article 85 of the civil service regulations, and what is the amount received by each of them?


NAVAL REDUCTIONS ARMAMENT CONFERENCE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has any white paper or other document been received by the government showing the proceedings of the recent naval reductions armament conference in London, which agreement was signed in London last month on behalf of Canada, by the high commissioner?
2.	Will a copy of it be laid on the table to include the text of an address at the execution of the treaty by the Canadian high commissioner?
3.	Is Canada committed in view of this treaty to reduce armaments in so far as Canada's navy is concerned; if so, to what extent are we obligated by it?
4.	What does Canada's navy consist of and where is it now located, and is any of it now in Mediterranean waters?
5.	What are the total expenditures for the last year of record on Canada's fleet (a) capital; (b) maintenance?
Loan Companies



DISMISSAL OF MARINE AND PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	What are the names of the employees of the Department of Marine at Richelieu who were dismissed between the months of November 1, 1935. to April 1, 1936, in (a) shipyard; (b) the fleet; (c) buoy service?
2.	What are the names of the employees of the Department of Public Works at Richelieu who were dismissed from November 1, 1935, to April 1, 1936?


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	How many employees of the Department of Marine at the (a) Sorel shipyard; (b) Sorel buoy service; (c) Sorel fleet department, were dismissed during the months of November and December, 1935?
2.	What are their names?
3.	What were the dates of their respective appointments ?



VALCARTIER CAMP ARSENAL

Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Since November 1st last to the present time, what persons from outside Valcartier camp have been employed in the erection of the arsenal and cartridge factory?
2.	When did each of said persons commence work ?
3.	When did they finish such work?
4.	What salary or wages did they receive?
5.	By whom were they recommended for appointment?
6.	What was the particular trade of each of these employees?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) gave notice of a question as to whether I or the government had knowledge that a contract was about to be entered into with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for a long period of years, leasing the line from Windsor to Windsor Junction which is owned by the Canadian National Railways.
I may say that no such agreement has been entered into. The agreement in question refers to an arrangement permitting the Dominion Atlantic railway to use the tracks of the Canadian National Railways, as well as the terminal facilities, from Windsor Junction to Halifax. That arrangement has been in existence since 1914, but when the Dominion Atlantic railway acquired the property in 1928 the agreement continued without formal sanction. On recommendation of the Canadian National Railways a formal agreement has been entered into covering the old arrangement.



LOAN COMPANIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) following a number of complaints from the Toronto district with regard to what are called in this house shark loan companies. I understand that they are sending through the mails a large amount of literature, and that they charge fabulous rates of interest. I found some of this literature in the mail the other day, but it had no post office stamp on it, and I have been wondering how it gets in the mail in the residential districts, particularly in the poorer districts of Toronto. In view of the large number of complaints that have been made about the methods used by these companies I would ask the Postmaster General to look into the matter and see if the regulations of the Post Office Department are being complied with.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intimation that my hon. friend was going to ask this question or I would have had the matter looked into, but I shall be very glad to make inquiries. The matter had not come to my notice previously.


Thomas Langton Church: Some of the mail is going through station K, No. 12, North Toronto. [DOT]

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
Projects already undertaken-amount required to provide for agricultural settlement and resettlement, $500,000.
Mr. POULIOT:: This is a very concise
form of legislation, but due to the questions that were asked yesterday the committee was enlightened on its purpose. Some people attach much importance to jobs. I understand that a great many of our fellow citizens are inclined to lean on the government since the leader of the last government told the country: Let everybody come unto me and I will serve them. This time I intend to discuss the matter not subjectively but purely objectively, by way of showing the importance of legislation to every man, woman and child in Canada. Let us suppose for a moment that there is a certain definite number of jobs available, 25,000, or even 100,000; it will not satisfy the country at large. But when a piece of legislation is enacted by parliament it affeots everyone from coast to coast; therefore legislation should be drafted with the

Supply-Labour-Relief Plan
utmost care. It is not a matter of pleasing or displeasing anyone; the thing must be discussed without fear or favour. It is either right and good, or wrong and bad, and one has to decide whether it is right and good or wrong and bad.
Sir, this piece of legislation is a consequence of the policy put into force in 1932, as the minister stated yesterday. I wonder whether according to section 7 of the act respecting the establishment of a national employment commission the commission will in fact and in law be empowered to check the expenditures made by the provinces. There is a strange doctrine which has many supporters in this house and in the senate

I have heard it supported by prominent legal minds in this house-that even if under the constitution the federal power or the provincial power have no authority on a certain matter, if there is common agreement they can proceed. Let me illustrate this. Under the British North America Act exclusive powers are conferred upon the provinces on the one hand and the dominion government on the other. "Exclusive"-the word is clear and definite. Therefore suppose that in one instance the provinces have jurisdiction; if that jurisdiction is exclusive it means that on that matter the dominion government has no jurisdiction at all. On the other hand where the dominion government has exclusive jurisdiction the provinces have no jurisdiction at all Therefore if the dominion government is endowed with jurisdiction in a certain matter the provinces have none, and if the provinces have jurisdiction the dominion government has none. How then can we say that the party which has no jurisdiction can by common agreement be a party to the thing proposed? This argument is not only theoretical; it comes to a practical point, namely, the checking of expenditure. The money will be advanced to the provinces, we were told yesterday. Legislation recently enacted, section 7 of the act which was formerly Bill No. 14, respecting the establishment of a national employment commission, provides:
The commission shall, under the direction of the minister supervise the expenditure of funds voted by parliament for purposes of relief and providing employment, and perform such administrative duties with respect to relief and employment as may be assigned to it from time to time by the governor in council.
Having in mind a logical interpretation of the most important sections of the constitution, those that divide the powers between the federal government and the provinces, do you not think, sir, that the provinces will take advantage of the constitution to refuse to permit inspection of their books by the employment commission? And if the matter is
brought to court it is doubtful whether such a contention on the part of the provinces will be rejected. Therefore on the one hand tthe money will be granted to the provinces, and on the other hand it will be impossible to check the eiipenditure made by those provinces of the dominion's money. This is a very serious objection. I submit it now in order that we may have an explanation from the minister as to how the federal Department of Labour will proceed with regard to the checking of expenditures. One method that could be adopted would be to allot a certain amount to the provinces to meet the expenditures themselves, provided that afterwards they may come to the dominion government for refund, with vouchers; then the federal government would be able to check the whole thing. But if the money is advanced to the provinces they can refuse afterwards to have an audit of their expenditures. May I ask bhe minister what he thinks of the suggestion of making first an allotment to each province according to its population or needs, the province to spend the allotted amount and afterwards come to his department for refund with complete and satisfactory vouchers?


Mr. ROGERS:: The point made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) relates to the efficacy of supervision over relief expenditures which might be exercised by the dominion government. May I point out to him that section 7 of the act setting up the national employment commission refers specifically to the supervision of the expenditure of funds voted by parliament for purposes of relief and providing employment. Obviously it does not apply to expenditures voted by provincial legislatures for such purposes. Of course at all times we have the power of following through our own expenditures. So far as the expenditures made under specific agreements are concerned, may I say that the whole question of supervision is covered in the agreements, and where for example an expenditure is made ostensibly under the terms of such agreement, and it is afterwards discovered that the agreement has been violated, the auditor general may refuse to pass the account and refunds may be requested from the province in question.
Section 7 of a typical agreement may place the situation clearly before the hon. member. It is as follows:
The province agrees that it will maintain adequate records of all expenditures, supported by proper documents and vouchers, and that such records, documents and vouchers shall be segregated from, although reconciled with the usual records of the province.
The province further undertakes to make all or any of the said records, documents and



Supply'-Labour-Relief Plan
vouchers available to the dominion for audit or examination upon request, and to furnish information in relation thereto.
I agree with the hon. member thait the question of supervision is a very important one, and I assure him that in connection with the negotiation of further agreements with the provinces we shall be glad to keep his suggestion in mind.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, sir. But the time will soon come when the policy of the previous government will have to be repealed. On October 14 the people of Canada said clearly that they did not desire a continuation of the same policies, that they wanted a change. Everyone regrets the careless drafting of legislation passed in the last five years. Every bit of it should be repealed and replaced by good, Liberal policies. Not one piece of legislation will stand the test of public opinion. It was always a matter of having a peg to fill the hole. During the past five years the policy of the then government was one of expediency, and in many cases when the government had its back to the wall it decided anything. But, sir, it is not "anything" that we need; we need something, and something constructive, something which will bring nearer the dawn of normalcy.
First of all we have to make an inventory of conditions in Canada. We must make a survey of mortgages on farms. Here we are asking that money be voted for the relief of farmers, and I believe the vote would refer to relief in the broad sense of the term. Specifically it is to provide "for agricultural settlement and resettlement." Many farmers have had to leave their land because they were not successful in securing adjustments from the farm loan board. Sometimes there was a difference of $200 or $300, and because on occasions the board refused to lend the farmers two or three hundred dollars more, those farmers had to quit their lands.
The vote under discussion is for $500,000, a large sum, but only a drop in the bucket when we consider the needs of the farmers. It is impossible for the government to pay all the debts of the farmers, because those debts are too great. In order to know what the farmer needs it is essential first of all that the government be made acquainted with the total amount of farm mortgages in each province. We must have that information if we are to find out how money can be lent to farmers, either by governments or by other organizations, to permit their survival. If we are to lend money the amount must be defined according to the needs of the farmers, and that information can be secured only by first having the amount of the mortgages. This information is not available at the present

time. The figures supplied in the last census are incomplete and far from satisfactory. If we are to take into account the best way of reestablishing farmers we must also consider the farm loan policy. Not only that, but there must be a careful consideration of the tariff, because we know the tariff plays an important part in the sale of farm products. Further, the Department of Trade and Commerce should play the game hand in hand with the Department of National Revenue, in order to find new markets for the farmer. Therefore I say that under item 329 the whole policy of several departments with regard to farmers might be considered.
As was stated yesterday, there must be one head or one leader in every field of activity. That is my humble understanding. The Prime Minister should be the leader of all the leaders in the cabinet, by directing the policy which will bring about the desired change. We cannot expect a change of any kind if we continue to follow the policies of the previous administration. We need a drastic change of policy. Moreover, every minister should be careful in the acceptance of advice given to him by some deputy heads. I know one of them who is most dangerous, because he is a crank. I am not now speaking about the Department of Labour but about another department with which all other departments have to deal. When a man tries to make experiments on too large a scale at the expense of the country, it is most dangerous. A check should also be made of the few men who composed the outside brain trust of the last Prime Minister, and those men should be superannuated right away. They were behind the curtains, but there they played their role by giving wrong advice. I hope this government will not accept any more of the advice given by those people, and will see to it that they are made inoffensive. The government cannot be expected to settle the question of unemployment even within five years if the policies of the Tory government are continued. There must be an end to that. Of course, I appreciate the fact that farmers must be helped, but in order to help them and relieve unemployment all the former Tory policies must be repealed and thrown into the wastepaper basket, and new and progressive legislation must be brought forward for the benefit of the farmers and other citizens as well. I am ready to give this a chance, but the policies of the previous government have proved a failure, and how can we expect anything by continuing them? The few men who are responsible for the disaster that has taken place in the settlement of farmers should be made innocuous, and I hope, Mr. APRIL 30, 1936
Supply-Labour-Relief Plar
Chairman, that within a very short time I shall be in a position to receive more information about these fellows.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Can the minister give us some idea as to how this amount of $500,000 will be divided among the provinces?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I sought to make it clear yesterday afternoon that this sum of $500,000 includes $250,000 to which we are committed under existing agreements, and $250,000 which will be required to meet the anticipated demands from provinces with which the dominion government has relief settlement agreements. As to the precise provincial distribution of this amount, my hon. friend will understand that this must depend upon the number of relief settlers in each province. I am not able to give him in dollars and cents at the moment the exact distribution. It depends upon the number who have availed themselves or will avail themselves of the opportunity to take advantage of the relief settlement schemes. I put on record yesterday the numbers who had been assisted in the various provinces.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wanted to make a suggestion to the minister with reference to the problem of agricultural settlement, and particularly as it refers to the province of Saskatchewan. When the drought was at its worst in Saskatchewan, farmers who had been forced off their farms by reason of indebtedness and climatic conditions volunteered to go into the northern part of the province. I know many of them. A utopian picture was painted for them. They were told they would be able to shoot enough and fish enough to keep themselves in food, they would be able .to get enough fuel from the forest, and all they would need would be a little money for clothing. It was painted as a paradise compared with the country they were leaving. I am not blaming anybody at all. The government was faced with a drastic situation and applied what seemed to them to be the best remedy. But what do we find at the present time? Many of these families are now in the northern part of Saskatchewan where the land is so densely overgrown that it will take a number of years to clear even enough land to feed stock. These people are away from roads, railways and telephone communication. Whole communities of them are on relief, and dependent on some type of government assistance, while in the south, the very country which they left, conditions are improving and that country is coming back, climatically speaking. In the part of the province from which I come you can travel mile after mile and see farm after farm
that has been abandoned, with good buildings, telephone communication, good roads, close to the station; with elevators, and yet you will find whole stretches of country uninhabited. Instead of taking people up into the north to settle them there or continuing to assist the settlers who are now up north, it would seem better to enter into some agreement by which the government could take over for settlement purposes farms which have been taken over by the municipalities for non-payment of taxes. A great many mortgage and loan companies own large tracts of land in Saskatchewan and would be very glad to get rid of some of it for the taxes and indebtedness against it. Many of these settlers could be brought back into what is really a grain growing country. They are grain farmers and are not qualified for settlement in the northern part of the province, where they find themselves in a type of country to which they are not suited and for which they have no inclination. I suggest that some such agreement might be worked out. The time has certainly come for a new orientation on this problem by which much of this desirable land in southern Saskatchewan could be taken over by the government and these settlers brought back into their own community, with some of the comforts of life. They would be back in association with their fellow creatures, and a scheme could be set up under which the families brought back could repay at a very low rate of interest some of the debt against this abandoned country. I submit that for the minister's consideration.


Mr. QUELCH:: Mr. Chairman, under item 310 assistance can be given to settlers to transfer them from a drought area into a more productive area. Item 329 deals to some extent with the same subject, and there may be some overlapping between the two. When the dollar for dollar bonus legislation was before the house I referred to the fact that the soldier settlement board had been formed in 1919 and supervisors appointed for the purpose of reestablishing and settling soldiers on the land. I think a considerable number of them were settled in the drought area in spite of the fact that the government knew then that these areas were not suitable for settlement. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Crerar) has asked me for my authority, and I should like to quote from a letter which I have received on this subject from the Department of Immigration. It says in part:
The area from townships 27 to 32 was subdivided in 1905 in a very dry season. Of the eighty-four townships fifty per cent was rated as too dry and unproductive; thirty-

Supply-Labour-Relief Plan
seven per cent was rated for grazing, and, given sufficient moisture, about thirty per cent was conceded for farming.
Although thirty per cent was cenceded for farming, a far less proportion than that is really suitable for farming. It is not a question of dry cycles at all, because that district has been dry ever since 1905. A number of farmers have moved out of the district but there is still a large number who desire to be moved out, who are on relief and are unable to make a living there. Would they be eligible under this item to be moved into other districts?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The vote under consideration applies to agricultural settlement and rehabilitation. I have already pointed out that this is a commitment under existing agreements for relief settlement, and the purpose of these relief agreements is to take from municipalities families with previous agricultural experience and place them on the land. Obviously in order to qualify for that opportunity they must previously have been on relief. It is not, properly speaking, a scheme of colonization such as my hon. friend perhaps has in mind. The situation to which he has referred and which has been referred to by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) has been brought to my attention. Unquestionably in the settlement of western Canada there has been at times an unfortunate selection of land. That raises a very large question for consideration. I would point out that a discussion of colonization in its wider aspects does not come strictly within the terms of this vote. I have no desire to curtail the discussion or to withhold information, but I should like to direct the attention of the committee to the fact that this item and those that follow immediately relate to projects already undertaken, in other words, to which we are already committed. We are simply meeting our obligations. Any general discussion on any of these subjects would come more properly under the items which follow immediately under the heading "other projects." As I have said, I have no desire to curtail discussion or to withhold information; I am simply suggesting that it would expedite the progress of these estimates if we passed the items to which we are committed already and then dealt with the items under "other projects," most of these duplicate in some manner or relate to methods of dealing with the relief situation which have been already undertaken and tested by experience.


Mr. COLD WELL:: If the minister could spare the time this summer, I suggest that he

personally look into some of these projects already undertaken.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I intend to.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I have in mind particularly the settlement in the Loon Lake district of Saskatchewan undertaken by the cities of Saskatoon and Moose Jaw. People have been encouraged by the municipalities to settle on land in this district, and a tremendous problem is likely to be created due to the fact that some of this land is believed to be deficient in certain essential chemicals. North of this district other people settled on rather good land, but they went in there believing that they were going to get a railway. Incidentally I may tell the minister that if he goes there he will find that these people expect the federal1 government to build that railway. I suggest that before much more of this kind of settlement is undertaken, it might be well for the minister personally to look into some of these projects. Reference has been made to the use of single men in connection with the railways, and I would suggest that labour of this type could be used in clearing bush from land which would be suitable for settlement. People could then be settled in communities where they could have schools and other facilities, and in that way we would be actually reestablishing these people.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I understand from the
minister that the back to the land movement would not come under this vote.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It would be confined to those who are on relief in the municipalities.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It has nothing to do with the back to the land movement inaugurated four years ago?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, but it is confined to those who are relief recipients.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe I have more of this type of settler in my constituency than will be found' in any other section of the country. I agree entirely with what certain aldermen of the city of Ottawa said the other day when they advised the recipients of relief to stay in the city and not go on the land. I do not want the government to enlarge this scheme, although it should look after the people who went back to the land three or four years ago. The present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) told me two years ago that after the $600 given to these people had been expended, it might be found necessary to give further aid. I am glad help has been given to some of these settlers, but I do not want to see any more people coming from the industrial centres of Ontario to settle on the land when we have many sons of farmers,

Supply-Labour-Relief Plan
men who are experienced, who cannot get settled on the land. The government should be very careful before going further with these schemes.
Next session I should like to see this back to the land and settlement question brought before the agriculture committee in order that it may be thoroughly discussed. I believe I have about 600 of these settlers in my constituency, and before and during the last eleotion campaign I visited nearly every one of them. I found them to be splendid men and women, industrious and courageous, but in most cases they had come from the industrial sections of southern Ontario. They were ready and willing to take up their new life, but the odds against them were very heavy and in many cases insurmountable. Many of them have found their way back to their previous homes, some of them even walking back. Many of the women to whom I spoke told me that they were dreaming of the day when they would be back again in Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor or some other urban centre of population, although they were willing to make all necessary sacrifices to succeed.
I do not want to enlarge upon this matter, as I realize the minister is eager to have the item passed. But I do not want the government to bring one more man from the older centres of population into the newer sections until it has been found possible to give the necessary aid to farmers sons, who want to settle >on the land and those under the $600 scheme. These young men are thoroughly experienced and would be following their natural lives. The minister is a student of human nature, and if he looks into this question I know he will realize the impossibility of placing craftsmen from the cities on farms in the newer sections of the country. These men are used to life in the urban centres and the odds against them are too great when they are suddenly transplanted' to newer sections. Perhaps next session the government may find it possible to set up a special committee to consider this question. If we can make things more eomfortabe for the rural population we will be making a long stride towards bringing prosperity and comfort to Canada.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Answering a question
yesterday the minister stated that some eighty to eighty-two per cent of those who had been settled on the land in this manner had remained there. Has the minister any information as to how many settlers left their farms during the same period?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am quite sure my hon.
friend would not expect me to supply that information without having had some previous notice of his question. I am not sure that we have the information, but if it can be obtained from the bureau of statistics, I shall be glad to get it. I agree that it would be very interesting. I should like to point out-this applies to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Mac-Innis) as well as to those of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette)-that the dominion government does not place these families upon the land. In the first place, a choice is made by those who take advantage of this relief settlement scheme. Then the approval of the municipality must be obtained, and, lastly, the actual selection of the land and the administration is carried out by the province which is concerned in the colonization activities. In making a selection both of the land and of the settler the province has the advice of an advisory committee, and, speaking generally, the municipality also has the advantage of that advice. I am far from saying that the condition of those who have been settled under these agreements has always been satisfactory. I can quite understand that in many cases it is far from satisfactory, and I shall be glad indeed to keep in mind the suggestions which have been made both this afternoon and yesterday regarding the importance of continued supervision. I am free to confess that I have not yet had an opportunity to see some of these schemes in active operation, and I think that my time would be spent more profitably there even than in this house. But that opportunity has not yet occurred; I shall take advantage of it as soon as it does occur. In the meanwhile I have had consultations with the general advisory committee, with representatives of the railway colonization departments present,, and we have sought to go into the whole matter as carefully as possible. I assure the committee that before there is any extension of the existing schemes we shall see our way very clearly.


Angus MacInnis: One hesitates to criticize
in this matter the minister, or the department, or even the government, because in these last five or six years we have been thrown into a condition for which the country, both in respect of organization and, if I may say so, psychologically, has been totally unprepared. I have great pleasure in associating myself with the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) in the sentiments he expressed a little while ago. I think that the money now being spent could be used to better advantage in creating a good community life for the people who are already on the land and who,

Supply-Labour-Relief Plan
unless conditions get much worse than they are, are going to stay there. The minister points out that his department is not selecting the people who go on the land, neither has it selected the farms or the districts in which they are settled. I am pleased to hear him say it is intended to look into this matter before the nest session of parliament, because if the dominion government is to give financial assistance in this way it must provide the organization that is necessary to put these people back on the land. It is useless to place people on the land when many of those who have been living there have been compelled to leave because of the conditions under which they had to live. If the minister will try to formulate some organized plan for putting people back on the land and making conditions there fit for human beings to live under, as far as I am concerned he will not only be immune from criticism but will have my assistance as far as it can be given.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I rise not for the purpose of opposing the vote but rather to commend the minister and the government for continuing this scheme. To students of social conditions no subject has been more thought-provoking than the drift of people from the land to the cities. Perhaps that is a factor contributing to the difficulties that are experienced in the larger cities in the matter of relief. There are men in the cities and larger towns who came from the farms, young men who thought that tiheir prospects in life would thereby be improved. They must have found out by this time that they made a mistake; many of them would be glad to return to the farms of their fathers, which they never should have left, and which would have been in much better condition to-day if they had remained there, because many of the older people were left without that loyal interest and cooperation which in past days have contributed to the upkeep and the improvement of the farms. This scheme is for the purpose of assisting those in the cities who are on relief to return and resume a vocation for which they are qualified and which they wish again to take up. There is nothing compulsory about it. An individual decides that he wants to go back to the farm, to return to work that he is familiar with. He is now on relief, a charge upon the city and community in which he lives. Under this scheme, with the approval of the municipality and the province and the dominion, the desire of that individual is promoted and a joint contribution is made which establishes him to a certain extent upon the land and provides for assistance in the future. By this means he is not confronted
[DOT]"Mr. Maclnnis.]
with the payment of rent and the purchase of fuel, vegetables, and supplies, with which he can now provide himself in large measure. It may not be an ideal condition; the scheme may not be a one hundred per cent success, but the fact that between eighty and ninety per cent of those who harve gone back to the land have remained, that the large number referred to by the minister yesterday-I think it is 18,500 individuals and about 3,500 families -are being cared for in this way, indicates in a measure the success of this undertaking. I recall very well how severely this policy was criticized in the house by those who are now on the other side. But after all time is merciless in its vindication or its condemnation, and time has vindicated and justified in large measure the policy of the former minister of labour and the former government in this respect. We ourselves had some doubts about it, but it succeeded beyond our most cherished expectations. I believe that a large number of the people who are on the farms will remain there, that they will be better off there than they were in the cities, and that the cost of relief in this connection will be materially reduced. I am glad the minister is continuing this scheme and making provision for an extension of it. I think he is on the right line, and that the scheme is capable of further development.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Stewart) says he still remembers how those who were then in opposition, now supporting the present government never criticized the principles of the back to the land scheme. I happened to be a neighbour of the then minister of labour, and I know he put all his heart into that scheme. I criticized the scheme in 1931, because the minister at that time made the statement in the House of Commons that the back to the land movement had been a success without any expenditures of public money. I rose on the opposition side at that time and said it could never be a success unless both the provincial and the federal government found it possible to spend large sums of money out of the public treasury. That is the only criticism of the scheme I ever offered. When, later on, the so-called S600 movement was inaugurated, I do not recall that there was any criticism from any member of the then House of Commons. But I repeat that I do not believe we can enlarge that scheme at the present time without consolidating the condition of those who are now on the land and assisting farmers' sons and others who are working their holdings to stay on the farm, because you will not get a majority of these fine people to remain in their present oc-

Supply-Labour-Relief Plan
cupation if ever the industrial situation rectifies itself; you may be positive of that. I have been told by some of these people that in a year or two they are going to walk back to Toronto if they are unable to get a lift on the way. Apparently many of them are not satisfied with their present occupation; I think that is the case with the majority. I know some good came from that scheme, and to that extent credit must be given the previous government, but the responsibility rests with the present government to maintain those who were placed on the land a few years ago so that at least they will be comfortable, and substantial help should be continued in the majority of these cases.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin):: I do not want to hold up this item because, as the minister said a few moments ago, there are other estimates under which the discussion can be carried on with better effect, but I should like to know what has been the average cost per family that is still on the land. Some of these families must have been on the land for a couple of years now.


Norman McLeod Rogers: For more than that, some of them. Perhaps it might be useful if I made a brief statement as to the financial obligations that have been assumed by the dominion government under this scheme.


Percy John Rowe: No doubt that will cover it. What I was chiefly interested in was the average cost of the scheme so far per family.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It would be $600 for the two years, and then in some cases there have been renewals for a further two years at $100. Does that answer the question of my hon. friend?


Percy John Rowe: Yes, that is it.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Since this item refers particularly to a resettlement scheme, under which it was possible to take people from the cities and put them back on the land, I think this is the time to express our ideas in this connection. Yesterday the minister said there had been no coercion practised, as far as those people were concerned, when they went on the land. Even though that was the case actually, we find that in many cases there was indirect coercion. The minister also said some of the members of these advisory committees were people representing the railways. I have before me a mass of reports, some seventeen in all, written since last January by one of the persons in the province of Quebec who was most active in regard to this back to the land movement. There is one
point that strikes me. We give these people something like $600 when they go on the land. In my own constituency we have had many people come from the eastern part of Canada, particularly from the province of Quebec. They came of their own accord; some of them brought as much as $2,000 with which to begin farming operations in the locations of their choice, but what is the situation today? Even though they had $2,000 instead of $600, the only food they have at times is moose meat in the winter, if they can possibly get it, and if it were possible they would be very glad to get back to the cities. The figures do not show the people returning to the cities simply because when we put them on the land we see to it that they stay there. I believe if we were to give them the same encouragement to come back to the cities we would find that the movement back would be very rapid. We put these people on the land; we want them to produce and become self-supporting to the greatest extent possible. On the other hand we dread the day when they will begin to produce, because then they will add to the so-called surplus of products we have to-day. First we say we have too much grain, and then we shove these people back on the land to produce more. I understand, of course, that the idea is to have these people become self-supporting, but, as has been said so frequently during the discussion of this question, if the people who are experts in farming cannot make a go of it how can you expect industrial workers to do any better?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I should like to ask my hon. friend a question. Does he think it is better for a man to consume without producing or to consume while producing?


René-Antoine Pelletier: This is the point I am coming to: if the government finds it good policy to put people back on the land I have a constructive thought to offer the minister, even though it may not be taken into consideration at present. Perhaps when the remarks of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) are considered further it may be possible to give consideration also to the suggestion I am going to make. In connection with the Ford industries in the United States, it is well known that for quite a time Mr. Ford has been considering what he calls the decentralization of industry. I quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
The industry does not use a single warehouse-everything is in transit. The centre of the industry is at Detroit, Michigan, and at River Rouge, Michigan, on the outskirts of Detroit; but with the method of assembling cars at the point of use, a decentralization of

Supply-Labour-Relief Plan
manufacturing is taking place and comparatively small plants are being located out in the country wherever proper water power sites are available. Each of these plants makes only a single part; the thought behind their establishment is to strike a balance between industry and agriculture. None of these plants employs more than five hundred men, and in most eases the men divide their time between agriculture and industry. This is one of the most important developments.
I think it might be worth while looking into that idea. If we desire to take our workers out of the cities I believe it might be done by the decentralization of industry in this way.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I should like to answer the question asked by the Minister of Labour by asking another question. We say the unemployed should produce. Why should we think in terms of agricultural production only? Why not think in terms of the production of automobiles, we will say, which are admittedly much more expensive than they should be?
Mr. ROGERS; I should be very glad to answer that question, though I am not sure that I can do so to the satisfaction of my hon. friend. It so happens that our industrial life has become so highly complicated through division of labour that it is practically impossible for more than a few general craftsmen really to produce the things they consume, but in agriculture it is much easier to do that.
Miss MACPHAIL; Is it?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Most certainly; I do not
think there is any doubt about it. The question I put to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) was this: Does he think it is better for a man to consume without producing than to produce and consume at the same time? I think that was a relevant question, because that is the choice that is presented to the people who come under these relief schemes. It is a test of their moral fibre and, of their courage as well, that they should be willing and anxious to produce as much as possible of what they consume instead of remaining on relief with very few opportunities for work. We all recognize that we are dealing with an entirely abnormal situation, but as between the choices proposed by my hon. friend, at least by implication, I should think there would be very little doubt as to the answer.
Mr. Ma-cINNIS:	The minister asked
whether it was better to consume while producing or to receive our consumptive needs in idleness. I should like to point

out that most of our best people consume without producing, and no one thinks it is in any way derogatory to them. And the more they can consume without producing the higher they are in the social scale.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My point would apply right along the line.


Angus MacInnis: All right; apply it along the line and we will go along the line with you. Why not put people back to simple production with the spinning wheel and hand loom? Why not have them make their own pants and shirts and all that sort of thing? That is just as reasonable as putting them on the land to-day to produce their own food. Let us take a realistic view of the production process as it is in this country. Whether it be industrial production or agricultural production, it is to-day a social process in which industrial workers in the city and agricultural workers in the country take part. To-day the farmer does not produce without machinery, and that machinery is not made on the farm. It is made from materials obtained in the mines and forests, which then go through various processes in the industrial centres and out over the transportation systems to the farmer. Then he begins his production. When he carries on production with machinery of that kind he is not producing his own needs. It was never intended that he should produce his own needs by the use of machinery of that kind. He is producing for those who take part in the building of the machinery; he produces the food and they produce the machines. It is specialization of labour. So that if you take people out of the cities and put them on the farms a first consequence is that you are lessening the market for the farmer's products, which he produces with complex and high power machinery. The farmer cannot sell to his neighbour the things he produces; if he is to sell them at all he must sell to the people in industrial centres, so that you are not improving his position in any way or the position of those you are putting on the farms from the cities. On the contrary you are making the farmer's position worse by lessening his market to that extent. These people can be self-supporting on the land only on a subsistence basis unless they have access to machinery and to markets. The question cannot possibly be solved in this way. If you wish to ameliorate conditions and help towards the cooperative production that the world must come to if humanity is to survive, use this money to promote that, but to use it in the way proposed here is useless; you might as well throw it in the lake.

Supply-Labour-Relief Plan


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Hear, hear; that is my opinion too.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I have heard a lot of argument like that in reference to matters such as we are discussing, and it appeals to me as being just so much bunk. The city of Winnipeg, in conjunction with the province of Manitoba, has put three hundred of these families on the land, and to the best of my knowledge and memory, which I think is fairly good in this matter, they are all doing well and making a living for themselves. Certainly no one can grow food on the city pavements, but if people are sent to the country they have an opportunity to provide a livelihood for themselves and to that extent relieve the finances of the federal treasury. I cannot see any sense in criticism of this kind. I think this is one of the best measures that the house has adopted, and I am glad to think that before it was adopted I was one of those who urged it most strongly.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: May I ask the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) why he did not think of training 100,000 of these people for doctors?


John Power Howden: We have all the doctors we need at the present time and probably more. These people could make a living for themselves off ordinary land, but the doctor cannot make a living off a dead body.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: My understanding is that doctors are doing fully as well as farmers. We have a lot of farmers who are not making a living for themselves. What always irritates me about our philanthropists is that they are anxious to put people on the land in order to produce food, but they are very careful that they do not set up a model textile factory or sugar refinery or train them for doctors and lawyers. Why not?


John Power Howden: I would advocate a good many doctors going to the land, because a lot of them are having a pretty difficult time. They might get a living from the land which they cannot get in the city.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Do I gather from the hon. member that all the men living on the land now are prosperous? Is that the impression he wishes to give?


John Power Howden: The impression I want to leave with the committee is that ninety-nine per cent of the settlers established on the land in Manitoba have succeeded in remaining there and are in a much better position to-day than when they were sent there.


Mr. FAIR:: I would remind the hon.
member that ninety-nine per cent of those
on the land have not the wherewithal to get off or they would be off.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Amount required to provide for commitments arising out of agreements with the provinces-
Trans-Canada highway, $3,527,125.
Provincial highways and roads, $1,534,197.
Municipal works, $634,252.
Greater Winnipeg sewage disposal scheme, $900,000.
Direct relief, $190,541.
Other commitments, including farm placement, $259,000.
Norman McLeod Rogers: This item, as stated, covers the amounts required to provide for commitments arising out of the agreements with the provinces. As hon. members know, the dominion government through the Department of Labour enters into agreements with the various provinces for the execution of relief works of various kinds. Inasmuch as the term of the agreements is limited by the term of the relief act there usually has been an unexpended balance due to the various provinces in respect of various projects. This item is designed to meet our commitments in that regard.


Mr. STIRLING:: To what extent have the provinces made use of the second item provincial highways and roads? The trans-Canada highway of course stands by itself. To what extent have the provinces cooperated with the dominion, or indicated their desire to do so, and particularly has the question of maintenance of the roads so constructed been gone into by the government?


Norman McLeod Rogers: With regard to the contributions made by the dominion government for provincial highways and roads, these will be found in the report of the dominion commissioner of unemployment relief of the present year, table No. 1, which sets out in detail a recapitulation of dominion commitments and disbursements as at March 31, 1936. If it will suit the convenience of my hon. friend he will find that information there. As to maintenance, he will understand that the dominion government has not in the past assumed any responsibility for the maintenance of these highways.


Mr. GLEN:: What is included in this vote as far as Manitoba is concerned? What are the different highways that it is proposed to build, and the amounts to be expended?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does my hon. friend wish me to place upon Hansard precisely the projects which are to be undertaken in Manitoba under this item?

Supply-Labour-Relief Plan


James Allison Glen: Yes, I would like to know what the highways are on which operations were started in 1935 and how much money is being expended on these projects under this vote. There are not many in Manitoba, I understand, but I should like to have a list of them.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I can assure the hon. member that the information is available and I can place it before him. Several agreements were concluded with the province of Manitoba, and they are all summarized in the information before me. Perhaps at this time I might indicate the highways under provincial works. There was the highway, including bridges from the town of Boissevain to the International Peace Garden, under the agreement of July 15, 1935; the highway from Dauphin to Riding Mountain national park; the highway, including bridges and culverts, from the town of Russell to a point on the Brandon-Clear Lake highway, under the agreement of September 20; the highway, including bridges over the Red river from Morden to the junction of the Winnipeg-Piney highway; the highway, including bridges and culverts, from the city of St. Boniface to the international boundary under agreement of September 20; the highway, including bridges and culverts, from the village of Roblin to the village of Benito, under the agreement of September 20; the highway, including bridges and culverts, from Dauphin to Fork River and thence to the village of Winnipegosds, under the agreement of September 20; on highway 17 from the village of Crystal City to the international boundary line, under the agreement of September 20. Those complete the projects, so far as expenditures on the trans-Canada highway are concerned.


James Allison Glen: Could the minister give the
amount to be expended on these different works?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The amount in the estimate covers the balance that has not already been paid under the agreements respecting the construction of these roads in Manitoba and other provinces.


Mr. LAWSON:: Would the minister repeat that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The vote of $1,534,197 for provincial highways and roads covers the amount due from the dominion government for works undertaken under the agreements which were concluded under the relief act of last year.


James Earl Lawson: Due now or contemplated to become due during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1937?
[Mr. Rogers.)


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


James Earl Lawson: For the completion of
works already agreed to?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


James Allison Glen: The vote now before us will
be for the completion of undertakings entered into with the provinces in 1935.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. that is the purpose of this vote.


James Allison Glen: And the money will be expended during this year.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, that is the intention.


James Allison Glen: Has the minister the figures
showing the amounts to be expended on the different highways?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No; we have the estimates from the provinces.


James Allison Glen: Are all the provinces satisfied to go on with the work in the same way?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is a matter which we take up with the provincial governments, when we are negotiating agreements with them. In respect of some of the provinces there has been a diversion of certain amounts from one project to another, but within the amount provided for under the agreement.


Mr. MacNICOL:: The two items for the
trans-Canada highway and provincial highways and roads call for the expenditure of over $5,000,000. Is the minister in a position to give the committee figures showing the amounts allocated for expenditure in each of the provinces?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall first give the information with respect to the trans-Canada highway. These figures are in respect of the payment of accounts under this item-


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to see the amounts allocated to each province under the first item, namely the trans-Canada highway. Then I should like to have broken up the figures for the provincial highways and roads.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As the hon. member is no doubt aware, this amount is to cover unexpended balances which were due under the previous agreements. I have a breakdown of that information, by provinces, with regard to both the trans-Canada highway and the provincial highways and roads. I shall place on Hansard information with respect to the trans-Canada highway:

Supply-Labour-Relief Plan
Breakdown of Unexpended Balances Under Commitments in 1935 Agreements
Prince Edward Island	 Nil
Nova Scotia	 $	59,875
New Brunswick	 17,155
Ontario	 1,740,000
Manitoba	 24,318
Saskatchewan	 226,000
Alberta	 119,177


James Earl Lawson: There is no agreement with Quebec?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In addition to that there is included in the item an amount required to provide for the completion of works, that is, an amount apart from the accounts still to be paid, and to be expended for work already done. The figures are as follows:
Amounts Required for Completion of Commitments Under 1935 Agreements not Completed by March 31, 1936
Prince Edward Island	 $	4,950
Ontario	 1,147,750
Manitoba	 171,400
Saskatchewan	 16,500


James Earl Lawson: What about Quebec?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Are both those tables included in the vote of $3,527,125?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: The purpose of that vote, then, is to take care of commitments made last year, and to provide for the completion of those undertakings?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is true.


James Earl Lawson: Is there any agreement with Quebec?


George Halsey Perley: Yes, is there any amount for Quebec?


Grote Stirling: Or for British Columbia?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have covered only the trans-Canada highway.


George Halsey Perley: Part of that highway is in Quebec.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There was no agreement covering trans-Canada highway construction in Quebec last year.


Grote Stirling: Or British Columbia?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No.


Percy John Rowe: Would the minister tell us if these commitments were made up to January 1, 1936, or up to March 31? I understand they are made right up to the end of the fiscal year.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, during the terms of the agreements. As I said a minute ago, the vote of $3,527,125 includes the amount required to meet accounts for work already done-that is one item, and it runs up to March 31. Then, it is also to complete works to which we are already committed under existing agreements.


Mr. NEILL:: Would the minister give the committee some information with respect to the trans-Canada highway in British Columbia? First of all, in the past year did he have an agreement with British Columbia and if so what was the nature of that agreement? Secondly, does the vote provide for further expenditures in British Columbia during the present year? I have heard it alleged that in British Columbia we did not get a cent for the trans-Canada highway, having regard to the true meaning of the word, and that all the dominion government did was to provide inlets or outlets to some of its national parks. It is alleged that that work was described as national highway construction. It is stated further that on that part of the national highway on which we wanted money spent, namely the part in the lower and western sections of the province, no money was spent. Is any of this sum in the vote to be spent in the future, and if so for what purpose? If any has been spent in British Columbia, would the minister state roughly the nature of the agreement, if any?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There was no agreement last year with British Columbia covering the construction of the trans-Canada highway


Alan Webster Neill: Did you spend any?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am informed a certain amount of work was done on certain sections of the trans-Canada highway, through relief camps which were operated by the Department of National Defence, and also through work done in the national parks. For instance, work in the section known as Big Bend was undertaken entirely by the federal government


Alan Webster Neill: Does "agreement with the
province" indicate that the province was to put up fifty-fifty?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was the understanding.


Alan Webster Neill: And British Columbia made
no such agreement-had not the money to do it, I suppose.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There was no agreement
last year. As to the second question, there is provision in the estimates for works to be undertaken with the provinces, and the dominion government will deal with British Columbia or any other province upon the basis of what is possible under that item.

Supply

Labour-Relief Plan


Alan Webster Neill: But not under this item?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is not covered by
this item at all.


James Allison Glen: There is one point on which
I should like to be clear. So far as Manitoba is concerned, has there yet to be an agreement made with the province for the completion of any highways in the province that were already started in 1935, or is it a fact that the agreements having been made in 1935 the projects will be continued now as then contemplated and that the appropriation now being made will be for the completion of all these projects?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The agreement with the
provinces, as my hon. friend has himself suggested, cannot continue in existence after the life of the relief act, and that act expired on March 31, but we have put in the estimates an amount sufficient to meet what will be required to complete the works covered by the agreement. We shall negotiate a new agreement with Manitoba, and in the negotiation of that agreement we shall take up the completion of the works already started under the previous agreement. An amount is made available here for that purpose.


James Allison Glen: Is there any danger of any
moneys under this appropriation being diverted to other projects within the province of Manitoba by way of relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That really is a matter
of negotiation between the province and the dominion. I would point out that in the past we have acted on the basis of programs submitted by the provinces themselves.


James Earl Lawson: What is the number of
the item in the estimates covering the amount which the minister says would be for new agreements with the provinces?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Item number 335.


George Halsey Perley: Will the minister be good enough to let us know what progress has been made with the Winnipeg sewage disposal project? It is a matter in which we were all much interested last year.


Norman McLeod Rogers: One of the subjects under this item covers the appropriation required for the Greater Winnipeg sewage disposal scheme. It will be noted that the amount here is $900,000. That means that we are making an appropriation of $800,000 to cover the commitment for the work to be done this year, and $100,000 is the unexpended balance of the amount to which we were 
committed during the past year. We are informed that the work has been proceeding satisfactorily.


George Halsey Perley: Will this complete it?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, it will complete the
work as originally planned and to which the dominion government was committed.


Grote Stirling: May I take it that
amount of $354,000 odd which is given in the table on page 6 of the report of the dominion commissioner of unemployment relief is the amount that has been expended on the Winnipeg sewage scheme up to March 31 last?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The dominion commitment is $800,000 and dominion disbursements $354,612.16. My hon. friend will understand these were disbursements on the basis of the accounts submitted and there are accounts now on hand for further expenditures.


Grote Stirling: More than the amount of work indicated by $354,000 has been done?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Has a definite understanding been reached with regard to the routing of the trans-Canada highway through northern Ontario? The acting leader of the opposition smiles, but I recall that the minister of labour in the former administration during the 1930 campaign made the definite statement in my section that the routing of the trans^Canada highway would be through the northern section of northern Ontario. I must confess that after five years of waiting we do not yet know how the road will be routed. We 'have tried to get information from Toronto but have never succeeded. Ther answer has always been evasive. If I understand the situation aright it is this: that until the province has decided on the proper routing of the trans-Canada highway within its borders, no money will be contributed out of the federal treasury. We have been told in our section, in the riding of Temiskaming and Cochrane that the routing will be through our section. There is an alternative route. One route is via Sudbury and Fort William, and an alternative route would branch off from North Bay to Haileybury, Cochrane, Hearst, and go away down to Hornepayne. Very little work has been done in my section although we had the promises of the late government and of the then minister of labour in the closing days of the 1930 campaign, and subsequent to that campaign, that the routing would be through the northern

Supply-Labour-Relief Plan
section of northern Ontario, but we have been left entirely in the dark as to where the road will be routed. I am going to protest against depriving nearly 300,000 people of direct communication with the trans-Canada highway if the routing is not through northern Ontario. I have no quarrel with tens of millions of dollars being spent in the southern section of northern Ontario, but I do not want to see my fine section of the country in the north left out of the picture by being cut off from the trans-Canada highway. The province of Quebec has been certainly left out in the cold so far as this is concerned, but the onus must rest on that province. The most direct route would have been from Montreal to Mont Laurier, Amos, Cochrane and Hearst and on to Winnipeg, but that is now out of the question because Quebec is going to build its own part of the road. Is the minister in a position to state whether the government of Ontario has decided on the exact routing of the trans-Canada highway so far as northern Ontario is concerned, and if so, where will the road be located?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It has been the practice in the past for a province to make its own designation of the route to be followed by the trans-Canada highway. The dominion government merely exercises a discretion as to approval, which in the past I think has been in the main wholly formal. Ontario has [DOT]designated the route of the trans-Canada highway as from Sault Ste. Marie to White River, and from White River to Schreiber. There have been suggestions of an alternate route, but of course it is not for me to suggest anything as to the feasibility of .alternate routes. I do know that there have been proposals of alternate routes which would serve other sections of northern Ontario, but the provincial government by order in council has made the designation I have indicated.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I thank the minister for the information. Apparently we are out of the picture, although we had the promises of Premier Ferguson and of the Hon. Mr. Gordon and several others of the Conservative faith, and also members of the Liberal faith, as to the routing of the trans-Canada highway through the northern part of northern Ontario.


Percy John Rowe: Page Mr. Heenan.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: But I am not losing faith, because I gathered from what the minister said that the alternate route would likely receive some contribution from the federal treasury. Is my understanding correct?


Angus MacInnis: You will find out about 1940.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Frankly I am not in a position to answer that question at the present time.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Would it be within the federal regulations to grant moneys for the alternate route?


Norman McLeod Rogers: We are not bound in any way so far as our contributions for highway construction are concerned, to confine them to the trans-Canada highway.


Percy John Rowe: Is the minister implying that we are going to build two trans-Canada highways in that district?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I assume my hon. friend's question is whether or not assistance from the dominion government might be expected for some alternate route. I pointed out to him that so far as contributions from the dominion government were concerned, we were not limited to the trans-Canada highway. In the past contributions have been made in certain areas solely in connection with the trans-Canada highway, but in other areas contributions have been made in connection with subsidiary highways.


Mr. GREEN:: Will this be sufficient to complete the trans-Canada highway?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, by no means.


Howard Charles Green: What portion will still remain to be completed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The vote before the committee is simply to deal with commitments already undertaken.


Howard Charles Green: What portion of the highway will remain to be completed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps I might place
before the committee an extract from a report of the dominion engineers who reviewed the situation. They reported to me some little time ago as to what had been accomplished up to the present time and what still remained to be done. Their report reads:
The trans-Canada highway could be com pleted as a through route by the fall of 1938
The estimated cost to the dominion government on a fifty-fifty basis of completing the Montreal-White River gap in Ontario, and improving the balance of the Ontario trans-Canada route to the standard of construction now being used by that province, would be $8,390,650 plus the unexpended balance of the current fiscal year estimated as $555,250.
The estimated cost to the dominion government of completing the Big Bend gap in British Columbia entirely at dominion expense would be $1,950,000 exclusive of the cost of maintenance during construction.
The entire route through Ontario would be built to a high standard of grades and alignments.

Supply-Labour-Relief Plan
The poorest section of the highway would probably be just south of Donald, British Columbia, but this short section (seven miles) will likely be improved by the parks branch this season as a part of the Golden-Revelstoke road.
So far as the province of Quebec is concerned, there has been only a small contribution from the dominion government for this purpose. This is due to the fact that in order to bring the existing highways in that province up to trans-Canada highway standards, it would be necessary to make expropriations on a very large scale.


Howard Charles Green: The government has only to complete the highway in Ontario and British Columbia?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is to complete existing gaps. It would still be necessary to straighten out the highway and generally bring it up to the contemplated standard of construction.


Howard Charles Green: Then we would have a passable highway from Halifax to Vancouver.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I take it that that is the conclusion reached in the report which I have just quoted.


Howard Charles Green: Does the government propose to pay the cost of completing the Big Bend gap in British Columbia?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sorry, but I am not in a position to answer that question at the present time. That would not come under the Department of Labour; it would be constructed wholly under the parks branch of the Department of the Interior.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I was surprised at the question asked by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), who aspires to the leadership of the Conservative party in Ontario.


Percy John Rowe: Who told you that?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I heard that and I say quite sincerely that I hope the hon. member will get it. We do not want the construction of a new road to connect with the trans-Canada highway. The hon. member is familiar with the Ferguson highway which is almost completed from North Bay to Cochrane. There is a continuation westward of that highway from Cochrane to Hearst, a distance of nearly 150 miles, and what we want is a connecting link south from Hearst on the Algoma Central about eighty miles in length to give us access to the other sections of southern and northern Ontario. We do not want the construction of an entirely new trans-Canada highway; but the fulfilment of promises made to our section.


Percy John Rowe: That is why I suggested the hon. member should page Peter Heenan.


Mr. BOULANGER:: The minister stated that very little had been contributed by the dominion government to the province of Quebec to bring the roads of that province up to the standard of the trans-Canada highway and he said that to do this would mean considerable expropriation in order to straighten and widen the existing roads. I hope the minister will consider the special situation of this province. Quebec is an old province, having been settled for more than three hundred years, and the roads were not built in contemplation of motor cars, motor trucks or other motor vehicles. The situation here is not the same as that prevailing in the constituency of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette). The district represented by my hon. friend is a wilderness; it is uninhabited, and in order to construct a highway it would not be necessary to make costly expropriations. In Quebec the highway traverses many old villages where the houses are built right up to the edge of the road. I hope the minister will take into consideration this special situation and contribute something to Quebec towards the costly expropriations which will be necessary to complete the Quebec section of the trans-Canada highway.


James Earl Lawson: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the fifth item in this vote, which provides $190,541 for direct relief. I direct his attention also to item 337, amount required to provide for monthly grants in aid to the provinces, $26,000,000. Am I right in understanding that item 330 is to meet outstanding commitments?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Accounts.


James Earl Lawson: To meet commitments
made by the former government when it was paying to the provinces a pro rata share of the amounts involved?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct.


James Earl Lawson: Then item 337 would be anticipated payments for the current fiscal year under the fixed monthly payment agreements made by this government with the provinces after it came into power?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend has stated it correctly.


James Earl Lawson: I was wondering at the small amount of the first item.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is to meet accounts which have come in belatedly.

Supply-Labour-Relief Plan


John Power Howden: Will the federal authorities have any check on the moneys to be spent on the greater Winnipeg sewage disposal scheme?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In our agreement in connection with this sewage disposal project we have arranged for dominion representation to be assisted by a technical adviser, who is an engineer by profession. All accounts are to be approved by the dominion representative, who will have close and continued association with the progress of the work.


John Power Howden: I assume that the giving of contracts in connection with this work will be done by the city of Winnipeg and possibly the province. During the Easter recess I was made acquainted with certain information with regard to expenditures on this work which seemed to me to be rather startling. The endeavour of this federal authority is to expend these moneys for the benefit of people who are on relief; that is the idea of the enterprise. While I was in Winnipeg I learned, with regard to the building of the fifteen foot section of this sewer, that the cost of material was $50, the cost of labour was about $62, and the contractors received $570 for the section. To me that seems a ridiculous piece of business. This enterprise was for the purpose of extending relief to families in distress, and those families actually got $62 out of $570. I do not know how true this is; I learned it on pretty fair authority, but it seems to me that an incident of that kind, at a period such as the present, certainly requires investigation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will bring this particular case to my attention by letter in a way which will permit us to investigate it, I shall be very glad indeed to look into it further. I agree wholly with him that in respect of all these expenditures for relief works we should see to it that they reduce relief rolls. That is the essence of the scheme, and I am not sure that it is carried out as completely as is possible. We must profit by the experience we have had in past years. It may be that we can insert in our agreements provisions which will require that those working on these contracts shall have been employed through employment bureaux and that a quota of them, at any rate are taken from relief rolls.


George Halsey Perley: I think in the agreement we made with the province, and through the province perhaps with the city, there was a provision that that should be done. That was the object and the only one of our giving assistance in connection with this work.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Just for the information of the minister, and in harmony with what he has said, if he will look at the Public Works Construction Act, 1935, in which provision is made for this item, he will find a section providing definitely for the employment of those in need of relief or on relief and the order in which they shall be taken, first, married men, and so on. It is a most comprehensive provision.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) asked me a question a few moments ago to which I did not reply. I think it is rather important. This item is for $7,045,115, and it comprises six different items. I asked if the item had carried, and I meant all the items. The committee has dealt pretty well with every item there. I think probably we should have an understanding if the committee is ready to pass the whole item.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further objection.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Could the minister state whether any agreement has been arrived at between the federal government and the government of Quebec regarding work next summer on the trans-Canada highway? I should also like to know if any arrangement has been reached between Quebec and Ottawa in connection with the expropriations. I wish to make myself very clear. In a new country expropriations do not amount to anything; they form a very small part of the cost of building a highway; whereas in the oldest parts of Quebec, where you have to expropriate property in an old village, or farm land in a district which has been settled for a long time, the land is valuable and the cost of expropriation represents a great part of the cost of building the highway. I hope the minister will take that particular point into consideration and will see his way clear to give special consideration to the case of Quebec. First, I should like to know if an arrangement has been made for work in the coming summer, and also in regard to expropriations.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No arrangements as yet
have been made with the province of Quebec. As a matter of fact the statute under which we would enter into agreement with the provinces ha3 not yet received royal assent, but we propose as soon as possible to enter into negotiations with the various provinces respecting the work to be done jointly during the coming year, and we shall be pleased, of course, to receive representations from the Quebec government as to the particular direc-

Supply-Labour-Relief Plan
tion in which they feel that our contributions can be used most satisfactorily for relief purposes.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I wish to say just
another word, in order to suggest a policy which possibly would take all settlers on farms, at any rate those in the wooded areas of Canada, off relief this summer. My suggestion is that the federal government inaugurate a land bonus scheme and also a bonus for ploughing. It Should seem to be only natural for a man who comes from a partly rural community to ask for a bonus for ploughing and a land bonus, but I believe that if the minister will do that he will take at least eighty per cent of the present settlers and farmers of this country off relief. I rementber a few years ago, when the late Hon. J. E. Perron was Minister of Agriculture of Quebec, I asked him in the second year of that policy how much he had spent for land bonusing and land ploughing. He said that he had spent, in round figures, $350,000, and that he thought it was the best investment the province of Quebec ever made. It may astonish the committee to learn that in my own constituency, which has the finest soil in the northern clay belt, nearly eighty per cent of our settlers and farmers are on relief. Direct relief to our settlers has been a curse. They do not want it; they want a certain amount of occupation on their own farms, and work, and I believe that it is within the capacity of the federal government to inaugurate a land bonusing scheme in the wooded areas of this dominion. I have no time to enlarge on this, and it is not my intention to do so. There should also be a bonus on ploughing. If these measures are taken, the eighty per cent of the farmers who are looking for relief at the present time will find fruitful occupation on their present holdings and clearings. I say that sincerely, as one who knows the situation. I have spoken to hundreds, if not thousands of our own settlers, and they have told me that they do not want to have money handed to them without doing work for it. I do not believe in governments inaugurating big public works schemes in rural sections, but an extensive road policy should be established. The farmers have all the work they can accomplish on their own holdings; that is particularly true of those in the wooded sections. I hope the minister will find it possible to give a little study to these suggestions, and if he adopts them I am positive that in a year's time he will be astonished at what will have happened as far as direct relief is concerned among the settlers and farmers of our country, and that will certainly make them more selfreliant.


Angus MacInnis: Could the minister tell
the committee the rate of wages paid to labourers on these various projects?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The works are actually
done, as probably my hon. friend knows, by the provincial governments themselves. Tenders are called for by the provincial governments, and they actually let the contracts, the dominion government, making a contribution for this purpose and also exercising continuous supervision of the work as it progresses. In our agreements with the provinces whereby we make a financial contribution for these relief works we have had inserted clauses providing for the payment of current or pre-* vailing wages and also for the recognition of the eight hour day. I think I might take this typical agreement and quote from it the provisions touching the matter raised by my hon. friend:
All workmen shall be hired through government bureaux wherein the dominion may instal a representative, and a proportion of said workmen to be agreed upon by the parties to this agreement shall be taken from relief lists.
This is the agreement between the Dominion of Canada and the .province of Manitoba of July 10, 1935.
(b)	No person other than residents of Canada shall be employed.
(c)	No resident of Canada shall, with relation to his employment, be discriminated against by reason of bis religious views or political affiliations.
(d)	Political favouritism and political intimidation shall alike be avoided.
(e)	The maximum number of hours of work per day per employee shall be eight.
(f)	The rates of wages paid shall be fair and reasonable and shall be fixed by the municipalities with the concurrence of the province.
(g)	Only goods and materials of Canadian manufacture or production shall be used if available.


Mr. McIYOR:: I should like to support
the remarks of the hon. member for St. Boniface. I think a thorough investigation should be made in connection with that contractor in greater Winnipeg who is taking money in the worst possible way. To me it is the worst kind of graft that a contractor should take for himself the money of the taxpayers that has been voted by parliament for the relief of the needy.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have secured the
statutes of 1935 containing the Supplementary Public Works Construction Act, which is chapter 34 of the statutes of that year. Section 2 of that statute, I think, meets the point raised by the hon. member for Fort William. That section reads:
The governor in council may authorize the execution and completion of the several works

Supply-Labour-Relief Plan
and undertakings mentioned in schedule A to this act, and for such purposes may authorize the performance of such acts and the execution of such contracts as may be deemed necessary and expedient: Provided, however, that in the execution of such works, as far as practicable and consistent with reasonable efficiency and economy, first consideration shall be given to the employment of those who if available and competent are most in need in the locality in which the works are to be performed, without any discrimination whatsoever; preference being shown to unemployed ex-service men and unemployed married and single men with dependents; and that the minister of the department responsible for the execution of such works may take such action as he may deem necessary and proper to enforce compliance with the foregoing provisions.
Exactly the same provision has been embodied in Bill No. 19, which was brought down by the minister this session, and if I remember correctly the contract for this work also contained a similar clause, so that where the work is done by contract the contractor is under obligation to follow these specifications.
Mr. HOWDEN;	I am not finding fault
with these works, but this rumour came to me through a former contractor who is now working as an inspector on this job. If his statement to me is true a fifteen foot section of that sewer cost S570, and that amount of money was paid to the contractors. Of that amount $50 went for material and $62 for wages. If that is true it is a queer state of affairs to find during this depression, when we are trying to relieve distressed people by the expenditure of government money.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: All I have to say is that we received similar complaints, and almost invariably on investigation we found that they were not well founded. I cannot understand how any such condition could exist.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Might I also suggest to
the minister that in checking up on these fair wage agreements the matter of the charge for bed and board should be looked into. I have in mind a project which I drew to the attention of the minister last December, in connection with which the prevailing rate of wages I thought was too low, namely twenty-five cents an hour, and the charge per day for board seemed quite excessive. I remember that several years ago the provincial government of Saskatchawan tried to work out something in connection with the lumber camps in the north country. When the men came out of those camps the charge for board and bed during the winter, and the deductions for the days when they could not work, left them very little indeed after they paid their railway fares back to their homes.
That is a point which I think the department should watch very carefully.


Mr. BROOKS:: In connection with the employment of the needy I think that section in the act is splendid, but my experience is that it has not been carried out. I know the returned soldier or the needy man is not always the one who is given consideration, and I am sorry to say that in many cases political expediency seems to be the consideration rather than the need of the individual. I know in some sections very little of the money goes to the men who really need it, so I think there should be some contract between the federal and provincial departments providing that abuses of this kind shall not enter into this work. I know of a great many cases in my own constituency, especially during last fall, where men were given work on these projects simply because they were supporters of a certain party and not because they were particularly in need of the money. I am very much afraid that in many projects of this kind more money goes to those who are not altogether needy but who have expressed their willingness to support a certain party for election purposes, than goes to those who are really in need. This was brought to my attention very forcibly last fall; it was quite a scandal in certain sections of my constituency.
I should think that where so much money is being expended for practically the sole purpose of helping the needy, the federal government should try in some way to curb the provincial government which has control of these expenditures. I should like to ask the minister if it is his intention to try to see that some control is exercised by his department over the expenditure of this money, which should go to the men who need it and not to the friends of some political heeler. In that connection I might say also that it was not always men with families who received this money. Very often it was young boys with no great responsibilities, who were given jobs because their parents had influential friends, or for some other reason. I am not saying this by way of making a charge at all; I am simply stating a fact, and I am sure the minister would be the last to tolerate such a condition if he knew about it. So I think the federal department should try to exercise some control over the provincial departments in order that the money which is intended for the needy people should go to those who deserve it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am wholly in agreement with my hon. friend as to the purpose of these expenditures for relief, and I can assure

Sup-ply-Labour-Relief Plan

him that we will do everything possible to see that the objects he stated are carried out. We have sought to effect that purpose in the past by the appointment, in the various provinces, of dominion representatives whose duty it was to see that the terms of the agreements were carried out effectively. I can understand that in the past there might have been some departure from either the letter or the spirit of the agreements, but obviously it is our duty to see that these expenditures are made in such a way as to have the best possible effect in reducing unemployment. After all, that is the object of the expenditures.
' A moment ago my hon. friend from Leeds mentioned the clause that appears in the Supplementary Public Works Construction Act. If I remember correctly that clause was preceded by the phrase "as far as practicable." You always have these qualifications, and obviously there must be some restrictions. But that shows the need of effective supervision of the manner in which contractors, for example, procure their employees.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I suggest that this might be done through the municipalities. In the small towns they always have a list of their unemployed, and are unprejudiced. Also in the parishes and counties it would be easy to get a list. As the situation is now there seems to be no system of that land, and the money is not going to the people who deserve and need it.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I notice that the vote is divided under headings which are fairly general. I wonder whether one of them is general enough to include the draining of bogs or marshes or savanes.


Percy John Rowe: That would come under "new projects."


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, the next item.


Mr. ESLING:: Have any projects from British Columbia been suggested under this item?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not under this item; this deals with projects already undertaken, but certain proposals have been made from a number of the provinces for new projects to be carried on during the coming year.


Mr. CAMERON (Cape Breton):: I am in thorough accord with the suggestions made that moneys voted for relief purposes should be employed as far as practicable for that purpose. I am glad to see that even at this late date such suggestions are coming from different parts of the house. I am confining my remarks entirely to circumstances which came

under my own personal observation. Relief money has been voted for four or five years now, but during 1931, 1932 and 1934 perhaps the last thing that one would surmise was that any relief work was being carried on. Men could not get work on any project unless they had a card from the chairman of the Conservative executive in the district. I protested against this then and I am equally ready to protest against it now. I do not think any discrimination should be made; selection should be on the basis of need only. I know one fairly substantial proprietor of a garage who had three trucks on a relief project, and I know of one man who was too proud to go on relief, and who had to borrow money but he could not have his truck put on the highway because he happened to be a supporter of the Liberal party. I know it is a characteristic of human nature to be virtuous when in opposition, and I welcome the signs of repentance which are now evident in certain parts of this chamber. I hope we have seen the beginning of a better day.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The shoe does not fit at all.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I was not referring to the hon. member.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No, you could not. As a matter of fact I had considerable to do with local politics in New Brunswick-


John Charles Alexander Cameron: Never in New Brunswick.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: -and I had a lot to do with unemployment when the former Conservative government was in office in Ottawa and there was a Conservative government in New Brunswick. I say that as far as those two governments are concerned the money that was expended was expended for the needy, but unfortunately since that provincial government went out of power on June 27 last, the money has not been expended in that way.


Mr. HILL:: Coming from New Brunswick I may be pardoned if I do not allow those remarks to pass without comment. When the hon. member's friends were in power in New Brunswick the handling of relief money was notorious. I know of one case in which relief road work was carried on in my hon. friend's own constituency-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I could give a dozen.


Burton Maxwell Hill: *-under the Conservative government in New Brunswick and in which twenty-five or thirty men were employed, supposed to be on relief and they came to the work in their own motor cars.

Supply-Labour-Relief Plan


Percy John Rowe: I do not like to discredit the good name of Ontario but I think we could qualify in the same role. One newspaper advertisement said everybody was welcome to the Liberal association meeting and applications would be considered for jobs on a certain highway.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Apart from whatever feelings we may have as to what happened in the past, I take it we are all agreed as to the importance of inserting clauses which will ensure that this money shall go for relief purposes. That is the matter in which we are really interested at present. I do not feel that any useful object would be served by going into what happened in the past.


Mr. McCANN:: If I understood the minister correctly he said that the purpose of spending relief money for these projects was to take from the relief rolls those who were employed on such works. Let me suggest to him that this is exactly what has not been done.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I agree with my hon. friend that we have a great deal to do in that direction.


James Joseph McCann: I say that is exactly what has not been done. It is a question in my mind whether the enormous expenditure on the trans-Canada highway is in the best interests of the countiy at the present time, or affords most help to the relief situation. Is it a good policy to transport people who are on relief to an unpopulated part of the country, and not give relief in those parts where it is most urgent? Even if people who are on the relief rolls were given preference with regard to employment, this does not to my mind entirely meet the situation, because a great number of people in counties in central and eastern Ontario, although not exactly on relief, are very much in need of work. I suggest to the minister that as the federal parliament is voting huge sums for the trans-Canada highway and other projects it should have something 'to say as to where and how that money shall be spent. I suggest to him that perhaps at this time a 'better policy with reference to road building would be to build feeders to the trans-Canada highway through eastern and central Ontario. At least one hundred miles of that highway go through the county which I have the honour to represent. Last year work was carried on in that county prior to the election. I do not propose to make reference now to how this work was carried on, but the hon. member for Dufferin-Simeoe (Mr. Rowe) knows all about the patronage element at that time.


Percy John Rowe: I know nothing
about the hon. member's district.


James Joseph McCann: I want to urge the necessity of the federal government keeping supervision over that part of the money which they contribute to these public works. I say to the minister that we, the government and its supporters, are held equally responsible with the provincial authorities for the efficient and economical carrying on of this work. I must say that, in some instances, it was not well done. There is at the present time in Renfrew county a strip of road which was built just last fall, and part of which has already gone to pieces. I do not know whether the federal authorities had inspectors there last year, whether the contractors carried out the terms of their contract, but I know that at the present time the federal authorities are held equally responsible with the provincial government for the manner in which this work was done.
Relief is a very important problem in the county of Renfrew at present. There is an unfinished part of the trans-Canada highway in that county. I have been urging upon the provincial government for the last three years the necessity for starting that work immediately in order to furnish relief, especially to the town of Arnprior, which with a population of four thousand people has over one thousand on relief. It is hard to get the province to take immediate action. My submission is that when a contribution of fifty per cent is being made to that work it is the duty of the federal authorities to urge that it be started immediately, and that they have equal supervision with the provincial authorities. I would further suggest that through the counties of Hastings, Peterborough and Renfrew feeders be built to the transcontinental hiwhway, and that federal expenditures be made in that connection to afford some relief of the distressful conditions existing in those counties at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to provide for administration expenses generally, including salaries and travelling expenses, $175,000.
Norman McLeod Rogers: As hon. members are
aware, the unemployment relief branch of the Department of Labour has a temporary status, and in the past provision for administration expenses has been made through the provisions of relief legislation. We are now seeking to make provision in the estimates, and the amount of $175,000 is the sum which we anticipate will be required for this purpose in the coming year. .


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2330	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Commission
Other projects-amount required to provide for expenses of the national employment commission, including salaries and travelling expenses, $125,000.
Norman McLeod Rogers: The same applies to this
item.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What progress is the minister making in the appointment of the commission which, I am sure we all agree, should be working now? Legislation has been passed and announcement has been made as to the chairman of the commission, and I believe hon. members and the people of Canada generally would be interested in having the minister announce the complete personnel and when it will begin to work. If he is not in a position to make a statement just now, could he say when the commission will je appointed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I can understand the interest taken by the hon. member in the announcement with respect to the personnel of the national employment commission. As the committee is aware, some progress, I think I may say notable progress, has been made towards completing the personnel. I am not in a position to-day to announce the complete personnel, and I believe there are obvious reasons why, before further announcement is made, the complete personnel should be within our knowledge. I believe, however, that it will shortly be possible to make an announcement respecting the personnel of the national employment commission.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has anything else been
done by way of drafting a plan or scheme for the commission, or is that to be left to the commission?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That work will be given
immediate consideration by the national employment commission, but I may say that there have been preliminary conferences with Mr. Purvis who, as the committee is aware, has indicated his willingness to accept the chairmanship.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Does	the	$125,000cover employees who will work for the commission, or is it just for salaries of the commission and	additional	travelling	expenses?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is intended to cover all expenditures	connected	with	the	nationalemployment	commission, with	such	fees or
travelling expenses as may be required by the members of the commission, and to cover such administrative staff as may be necessary.


Percy John Rowe: This is about
the only new feature in addition to what was done by the former government. While the personnel of the commission has not been named, I believe the Prime Minister announced that Mr. Purvis of Montreal would be the head of it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As chairman designate, shall I say?


Percy John Rowe: Chairman designate, the minister says. It would not cost him anything, so long as he is just chairman designate. I believe at this time the committee should be advised as to how much salary these men are to be paid. We are asked to vote $125,000, to include salaries and travelling expenses. If Mr. Purvis were going to ask for a salary, I should not think he would ask for a small one. He is not one of the unemployed, but has been very busy. He is one of the largest industrialists from St. James street, Montreal.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Maybe he does not need the money.


Percy John Rowe: As the hon. member has said, perhaps he does not need the money. So that if it is an honorarium we would be glad to express our gratitude to Mr. Purvis for his effort, and if it is a salary we may expect it will be a substantial one.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As the hon. member will understand, the actual appointment of the national employment commission has not been made. I believe it was fully understood by hon. members that Mr. Purvis had indicated his willingness to accept the position. May I say, however, in answer to remarks by the hon. member which, I believe, were received with approval by some other hon. members, that from all I know about Mr. Purvis, from all I learned through conversations with him, the house and country at large will have reason to be grateful for his offer to assume this most difficult and responsible post. I believe I may also say that when we understand the conditions under which he has accepted the chairmanship of the national employment commission we shall have reason for further confidence in the high sense of public duty held by some industrial and commercial leaders in Canada.


Percy John Rowe: Of course that is true, and we would not expect the government to select as the head of a commission a man who had not those peculiarly fine qualities. I have no doubt that even the announcement of the appointment of Mr. Purvis enlists a substantial amount of con-

Supply-Labour-Employment Commission
fidenee. Undoubtedly he has been a successful man and one whose integrity is above reproach. However I think that is all the more reason why we should know what his salary will be, and what those of the other commissioners will be. If we are expected to pass a vote of $125,000 we should have information enumerating salaries, travelling expenses and so on. If Mr. Purvis is head of the commission, or is chairman designate as we were told, no doubt he has considered working for either no pay or small pay, or a rate of pay commensurate with his merits.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have no desire to withhold information from the committee, but I can only say that I am unable at present to give the information. I believe my reasons will be obvious to hon. members.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the vote of $125,000 cover the salaries of the commission and secretaries?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, it covers all expenditures which we anticipate.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is, the expenditures of the several commissioners.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: For how long?


Norman McLeod Rogers: During the coming year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That would be at the rate of approximately $18,000 per commissioner?


Norman McLeod Rogers: This covers such administrative posts, secretarial and otherwise, as may be set up.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Office expenses?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; it is designed to cover all the expenses connected with the administration of the national employment commission and their various investigations.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And office equipment? Will there be motor cars for the commissioners?


Jean-François Pouliot: I should say that $125,000 is a large amount of money. It is equal to the salaries for a period of four years of three ministers who, owing to the merging of departments, will not be appointed. That is, the national employment commission will receive in one year the salaries that three ministers would receive during four years, so that the merging of departments will really mean no economy in the end. I would like to make a suggestion to the minister. A member of this House of Commons has done part of the work which is to be assigned to the national employment commission. He is
still ready to do that work for nothing, and if the government is ready to accept him it will save $125,000 because he will do the job for nothing provided he can pick up a staff of people to assist him in the work. It seems a fair offer, to save the country $125,000.
We do not know the names of the gentlemen who will be appointed with Mr. Purvis, but I know that one who will be recommended is a man who has been idle since July of last year. Although he has been receiving a salary at the rate of $8,000 a year he has done nothing except draw his cheque. He has done nothing all his life, and yet he is going to teach the unemployed how to work. I find it inconceivable that there should be in the department a person who has done absolutely nothing all his life except submit reports to the government once a year. He is well known; I shall not identify him more closely than that. Since July last he has been receiving a very large salary. He is still doing nothing and he is being recommended to teach the unemployed how to work. Everybody knows him. It is no secret. I find this most extraordinary, and I hope that the minister will take into consideration the suggestion I have made when the names of the commissioners come formally before the government.


James Earl Lawson: Is there anywhere else, either in the main or in these special supplementary estimates, provision made for the administration of the Employment and Social Insurance Act which has been referred to the supreme court?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The administration of that act does not come under the Department of Labour.


James Earl Lawson: I beg pardon; I thought it did.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In any event there would be no provision for that here. The place would be in the general estimates.


James Earl Lawson: I was just wondering
whether there was such provision made.


Angus MacInnis: The minister in reply to a question in regard to the salaries of the national employment commissioners referred to four commissioners.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not to my knowledge. I must have been misunderstood.


Angus MacInnis: Do I understand then
that seven commissioners will be appointed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The act provides that not more than seven will be appointed.
2332	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Commission


Angus MacInnis: Has the government
come to any decision as to the number that will be appointed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The decision of the government will be apparent when the announcement is made respecting the personnel of the commission.


Angus MacInnis: I am quite aware of that because you cannot very well keep it under cover, but I would like a little information now, particularly in view of the fact that this government, when in opposition, was very loud in condemning the former government, which action I did not mind at the time, for its blank cheques. This, in my opinion, is another species of blank cheque. If my memory serves me aright the salaries of the various commissions that were established by the former government were mentioned in the act itself, at least in some cases, and the house knew when it was dealing with the bill what the salaries of the commissioners would be. The present government now wants a blank cheque for a certain number of commissioners not exceeding seven, and we are not to be given any information as to their salaries until such time as the appointments are made and the salaries fixed by order in council. I think before we pass this item we ought to know how many commissioners are going to be appointed and then we would have some idea of what their remuneration would be.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I sought to explain to
the committee, when this item was first brought before it for consideration, that this amount was intended to cover not merely the fees or living allowances or expenses of the commission but also such secretarial or other administrative staff as might be established t-o assist the commission in its investigations and in carrying out its duties as laid down in the act. This is only an estimate. We are obliged to work on the basis of an estimate. We are entering a now field which has not hitherto been explored. We believe that this amount will be adequate for the purpose, but in advance of an announcement of the personnel of the commission, which, after all, is the decision of the government and not merely the decision of the Minister of Labour, I am not able to give my hon. friend the information he requires as to the precise fee or living allowance that will be given to each commissioner. This commission differs somewhat from others in that it is a continuing body over a period of a year at least, and possibly longer. So far as royal commissions

which are set up under the Inquiries Act are concerned, there is in it no limitation upon the amount which shall be paid to the commissioners, and in the past there has been a wide variation in the amounts paid to royal commissioners, either in the fees allowed or in their living expenses. So far as other commissions are concerned, my hon. friend has in mind perhaps the tariff board and the railway commission. They are continuing bodies, really a part of the civil service, and it is simpler, therefore, to provide for them by means of the regular estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to provide for farm placement scheme, $1,000,000.
Percy John Rowe: Would the minister explain the difference between this farm placement scheme and the farm settlement and rehabilitation scheme? I notice that $1,000,000 is appropriated for each.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The farm placement scheme
is a plan that has been in operation for some years and has been found on the whole a satisfactory method of affording food and shelter, and ultimately an opportunity for employment, to single homeless men who otherwise would be on relief in our cities. The farm placement scheme was commenced under the provisions of the 1931 Relief Act, at which time the dominion government contributed fifty per cent of the cost. This plan was put into effect by Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In Manitoba a total of $10 per month per placement was paid out, $5 for the worker and $5 for the farmer. In Saskatchewan the provision was $5 to the worker and $10 to the farmer. Under the 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1935 legislation the dominion has paid $5 per month in respect of each placement, this being given to the worker. The dominion has made different contributions to Alberta and it is understood that to some extent the federal contribution of $5 per month has been supplemented by the province. I have before me the number of those who have been placed in this way. I received a very encouraging letter from the Minister of Public Works and Labour of Manitoba, which perhaps I might quote. He said:
I wrote to you some time ago about the results of the Manitoba farm placement plan for single men. You will recall that we received post cards indicating whether the boys were staying or not.
Up to date we have received 2,950 replies, out of which 1,937 are either staying or still negotiating terms.
On the whole I think that is very encouraging.

Supply-Labour-Farm Placement


George Halsey Perley: How much was
spent in this way last year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In Manitoba the figure is
$28,021.20; in Saskatchewan, $18,951, and in Alberta, 84,383.72. Those are the only provinces that have taken advantage of the farm placement scheme.


George Halsey Perley: When the minister expended only something like $50,000 last year, will he tell us why he puts in an item of $1,000,000 for this particular scheme?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be very glad to deal with that question, which I believe is a natural one.


George Halsey Perley: I think it will be pretty hard to explain.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The reason will be found
in the strong support given to farm placements by hon. members from the western provinces during the previous debate. My hon. friend will doubtless remember the remarks of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader). There is another factor to be considered. We have determined, we believe on good grounds, to close the relief camps and it is possible that we shall be obliged to make greater use of this farm placement scheme. We may have to offer greater inducements to the farmers in order to relieve the large centres of population of the single homeless men who otherwise would congregate there during the winter months. Obviously this is only an estimate of what may be required, but we wish to arm ourselves with the means of dealing with this situation should it arise. It may be possible that this scheme will be extended to the other provinces.


George Halsey Perley: I am very much in favour of this plan and I always have been. I have always been sorry that more use has not been made of it. I heartily sympathize with the minister who has given his department a great deal of attention. He is very much interested in these matters, but so far as I have been able to ascertain, he is following the same plan that we followed during the years we were in office. He has stated that this farm placement plan has worked out very well and that he has come to the conclusion to make more use of it if he can. Without introducing any politics into the matter, I think that what the minister has said would indicate that the previous government had done the best it could under difficult circumstances. The minister is inclined to follow along the same lines followed by the previous government. It is true he has said he proposes to close the relief camps and I hope he will succeed in doing so.


Norman McLeod Rogers: With the assistance of the national employment commission.


George Halsey Perley: I shall come to that. I hope he will be able to close the relief camps, but he must not forget that he will have to provide for these men in some other way. There will be unemployed single men to be taken care of and many of them will not want to go to work on farms. If the minister closes the camps he will have to find some substitute for them. I think all this shows that the previous government took care of these single unemployed men in the right way. It has been stated in reports, as well as by the minister, that conditions in these camps were quite good. I should like to refer to the many references made to the so-called blank cheques. Apparently the minister has adopted the same line of reasoning. He wants perhaps $100,000, but he puts in $1,000,000 in order to have enough to spend.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is not a blank cheque as the amount is stipulated.


George Halsey Perley: Technically it may not be a blank cheque, but I think it is the equivalent of one when the minister puts in an item of $1,000,000 when he may need only $100,000. He finds himself unable to make anything like a close estimate of what the cost is going to be, the very reason why the previous government passed the legislation they did. They were unable to make a close estimate of what would be required and the minister finds himself in exactly the same position. He was unable to make a close estimate of what was required, so he decided to provide for an ample amount in order that he might not be short of funds for this purpose.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: In view of the evidence of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) at page 194 of the report of the committee on banking and commerce-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. BENNETT:: This is not the place for that; the House of Commons is the place.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the hon. member speaking on a question of privilege?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am sorry: it cannot be brought up before the committee.

Supply-Labour-Farm Placement


Jean-François Pouliot: I think it can be brought up anywhere, that I am willing to withdraw the six first lines of the first column of page 2214 of Hansard.


Frederick George Sanderson: With all due respect to my hon. friend, he cannot bring it before this committee. He has to bring it up when the Speaker is in the chair.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I have shown my willingness, anyway. I will not do any more. I think that is enough.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, we will see as to that.


Frederick George Sanderson: We are still on item 333, which was before the committee when it rose at six o'clock.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could the minister give us any idea of what plan the government intends to follow with reference to this farm placement scheme? I am very interested in it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As I think I pointed out this afternoon, the farm placement scheme as now operated has been adopted only in the three prairie provinces. We have placed in the estimates this large amount in the expectation that other provinces will wish to avail themselves of the opportunities afforded under this scheme to place single homeless men on farms during the winter months. There is also this other possibility, that the scheme may be extended beyond the winter months. At the present moment I am not able to give my hon. friend a precise plan. Obviously it is the type of project which ought to be considered very carefully with the provinces, and when we meet the provincial authorities, as we shall do within the next few weeks, we shall discuss this question with them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What I had in mind in asking the question was whether the federal government had some precise plan in mind. It is true that some sort 'of plan has been operating in the prairie provinces during a winter or two, but during this last year no such scheme has been operating in Saskatchewan.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh yes, it has, if my hon. friend will permit me to correct him. It has operated in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. As a matter of fact I have before me the figures for Saskatchewan during the last year. Under the 1935 act 6,700 single homeless men were placed on farms in that province.
[The Chairman.]


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Was that under the old scheme whereby the farmer received $5 and the man received $5?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is under the scheme which has been in operation during the last two years, under which the dominion government has paid S5 a month to each man who has been so placed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But nothing to the farmer?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not to the farmer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That scheme must have been discontinued, because I have received a number of communications from farmers who have applied to get under the scheme and who were told that it had been discontinued. Apparently the $5 to the man is being continued but the $5 to the farmer has been discontinued.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I might point out that under the farm placement scheme $5 was paid by the province, and the province has discontinued paying $5 a month to the farmer. The dominion government under this scheme in the last two years has continued to pay $5 a month to the man who was placed on the farm.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think the minister realizes the need under this item for some type of scheme. I do not intend to go over what was dealt with again and again in the house while the question of unemployment was being discussed, namely the need for some means of providing work for the large number of unemployed farm labourers. Just before recess the question of the blank cheque was under discussion. The minister said that it was not a blank cheque because the amount of money was specified. It seems to me that in a cheque you fill in not only the amount of money but the payee. Yet here is a million dollars to be spent, with no concise or precise details or even information of a general nature as to how the money is to be spent. I think the committee is entitled to some outline of the procedure the government intends to follow in the placement of agricultural labour.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sure my hon. friend does not suggest that we should include in this item the names of those who will receive this $5 a month from the dominion government. Obviously that would not be a reasonable suggestion. In ordinary estimates, although an accurate description is given of the project for which the money is to be appropriated, that is as far as one can go with respect to appropriations. In this particular matter we have set forth in the estimates a certain sum for farm placement. That leaves us some latitude to discuss with the provinces the

Supply-Labour-Farm Placement
precise terms under which we shall proceed in this farm placement scheme. The acting leader of the opposition, the right hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), referred before six o'clock to the fact that we were continuing a number of schemes which had been inaugurated by the preceding administration. I make no apology for that. We shall cleave to that which is good and reject that which we find evil; as far as I am concerned I should like to have it understood distinctly, in regard to this whole question of unemployment, that I am prepared to share the credit with anybody as long as we can get on with the job, and that, I take it, is the view of all hon. members on this side of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be recalled that the late government appointed an official of the Department of Finance to ascertain whether the moneys which were being advanced for the purpose were being paid to those who were validly entitled to them under the farm placement scheme. Is such an official being continued now in this work, or have his services been dispensed with? That is the first question. The second is: Has the minister seen the report or was a report made by the representative of the Department of Finance with respect to farm placement payments in Saskatchewan? My third question is: How many persons are receiving farm placement payments in Saskatchewan at the present time; of the number, are any of them farmers' sons; and as a result of the investigation by the representative of the Department of Finance, how many of the whole number could be considered as persons entitled to receive the payments?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not before me the report from the Department of Finance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has been a report, has there?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not aware-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am assuming.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not aware of any such report. I know in the past, there was some criticism of this scheme upon the ground that it lent itself to an exchange, so to speak, of farmers' sons whereby this $5 a month could thus be made payable to each of the farmers taking part in that transaction; that is, it could be made payable to them through their sons. I believe that as a result of charges of that kind great care has been exercised in the selection of men to be sent to farms under this scheme. Under any arrangement of this sort I suppose there is an opportunity for fraud. I can only assure the committee that in our discussions with the provinces we shall bring this point to their attention and try to arrange matters in such a way as to eliminate this possibility of fraud as far as that can be done. I say to the committee that on the basis of the information which has been placed before me this would appear to be a promising method of providing relief to single homeless men. I am not suggesting that all single homeless men are willing to come under the scheme, but those who do have some urge to take up a rural life, and our information is that a considerable number of the men remain on the farms on a wage basis during the summer months, during the seeding season and the harvest season, following the completion of the period during which, under the farm placement scheme, they receive $5 a month from the dominion government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid that the minister's statement does not go quite far enough. When the scheme was launched by the Minister of Labour of the late government it was intended to meet what was regarded as a situation of some difficulty. All of the single homeless men were not put in camps, and wherever there was an opportunity of providing them with employment on farms it was believed that this might create a sentiment, perhaps not as strong as an urge, but at least a liking for rural life that would ensure their remaining on the farms and ultimately going into agricultural pursuits. It must be remembered that the scheme is not entirely new; it has been going on for a considerable period of time.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Four years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, four years. Mr. Gordon, the previous Minister of Labour, was satisfied with the results which were being obtained, when information was conveyed to the government that there were abuses under the scheme, and in the public interest it was felt desirable to protect the exchequer from, shall I say, improper payments. Those who read the last report of the commissioner of unemployment relief will realize the difficulties that the auditor general has had and that we have had, too, in consequence of complaints which were received in respect to the broader question. With regard to these farm placements we did send a man to the west; I am trying to think of his name.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Burgess?

Supply-Labour-Farm Placement


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, Mr. Burgess. He was sent to Saskatchewan with instructions to cooperate with the provincial government and see that there was no improper use of the moneys provided for the purposes indicated. My memory is that he is no longer employed; that he was removed from his position. I have this recollection, however, that before we left office there was on the farm placement list a number totalling something like five thousand said to be entitled to these payments, and the check by Mr. Burgess indicated that no such number were legally entitled to receive payment. The matter was being still further investigated when the election took place.
I do not want to be insistent about this matter, in view of the situation, but I am curious to know just how the matter stands now, because at the time the reports were made they indicated that some immediate and drastic action should be taken to prevent the improper use of public moneys under the circumstances to which the minister himself has referred. It was an opportunity for, shall I say, an easy diversion of public funds from one purpose to another. I should like to have that information, as far as it is possible to obtain it, with regard to the period since last October, because during the winter the payments were made more extensively than at other times of the year; in fact it was originally intended to confine the operation of this scheme to the winter. I am not sure whether it was extended beyond the winter this year.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That being so, I think the records of the Department of Finance and of the minister's department will indicate just what has been done since attention has been directed to the situation to which I have referred. How are the payments made now, as a matter of fact? How were the last payments made to those entitled to receive them? Perhaps the minister could tell me that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the first place I may say that no report dealing with this matter, sent in by any official, has been placed before me, but I did have some knowledge of certain criticism which had been directed against the scheme in its actual operation. Perhaps I should add also that Mr. Burgess, whose name I mentioned a moment ago as having had some connection with this matter, was sent to Saskatchewan, I think, to deal rather with the distribution of the accountable advance to that province in connection with the drought area.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think his instructions were to deal generally with all the moneys which were being paid by the dominion, to satisfy the Minister of Finance that the payments reached the persons who, under the agreement made with the Department of Labour, were entitled to receive them. I think that is the fair way to put it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If any report of that kind is in existence I shall certainly avail myself of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there is; I was told there was.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As to the payments made to the provinces under the farm placement scheme, we are presented with certificates from the provincial governments as to the number of men placed under this scheme when it is in operation during the winter months, and on the basis of these certificates we make our payments to the provinces. I might give the numbers of men concerned in the various provinces during last winter, because this will indicate that the scheme has had a considerable measure of success. The figures are as follows:
Manitoba	 5,200
Saskatchewan	 6.700
Alberta	 2,269
14,169
In other words during the winter months you have a larger number coming under this farm placement scheme than the average number, let us say, who have been in the relief camps. The scheme does not operate in the summer time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would it be possible to know just what money has been paid to the western provinces under this scheme?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend will find that information in the report of the commissioner of unemployment relief which was tabled in the house a few days ago, and which I understand has been distributed to members of the house. I trust that it has been so distributed; instructions were given to have that done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the minister at hand the figures for last year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The total amount is in the neighbourhood of $50,000. Some accounts, of course, have not been received as yet, so the total will be considerably in excess of that figure.

Supply-Labour-Farm Placement


Mr. LEADER:: It has been suggested that some abuses may have, and I believe have, prevailed under this scheme. So far as Manitoba is concerned, I was informed by a member of the government that there had been no widespread abuses. I just want to make that statement to the committee, because I have more or less advocated this scheme in the past, though I realize that it is not an entirely satisfactory way of taking care of our single homeless unemployed men. But I would prefer to have them go out among the farmers rather than have them maintained in the relief camps.


Major James William Coldwell: The difficulty in connection with this problem is lack of information regarding it by people on the prairies. For example, I have before me a resolution from a farmers' organization, urging that the same bonus be given to the farmers as to the railways, because of the probable effect upon the wages of farm help, which the farmers will be unable under the circumstances to meet. I have under my hand a copy of a letter received by a farm organization in Saskatchewan from Mr. Mitchell, director of labour transfers, in which he makes this statement:
I regret very much that I was not sufficiently clear in my letter to yours of April 16. As you no doubt are aware, the government's policy evolves from day to day, and I endeavoured to intimate to you the position as it was of that date.
That is dated April 24. I can understand that people interested in this problem, receiving a statement of that sort that the government policy evolves from day to day, would not quite know where they stood.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will
allow me to correct him, he would understand from that letter that the reference to policy related to the finding of alternative employment for men in relief camps.


Major James William Coldwell: No, I did not gather
that from the letter. There is no explanation of that sort in it. It goes on to speak of the railways after that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, that has to do with
the same problem.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the information
I mentioned should be available to the committee before this item finally passes. I am not going to ask that the item stand over in order to secure that information, but if on some item in the main estimates-I think the minister's main estimates are not all passed, are they?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If he will secure the
information and permit me to discuss it on one of those items, this will serve my purpose and not delay the passing of this item. Otherwise, having regard to the criticisms which were made against the late administration as to lack of careful attention regarding the expenditures of public money, and the appointment of Mr. Burgess to go to Regina, I think it is of the utmost importance that we should see what his investigations disclosed, if he carried on investigations in regard to farm placements. I have only had a hearsay statement about the matter, and therefore I shall not mention what that was, but in fairness to the late administration and the efforts they put forth to ensure that expenditures should be made in accordance with the will of parliament, I think we should know to what extent the investigations indicated that the certificates given by the province were wholly warranted as being within the terms of the agreement in that regard. And following that, of course, would be the matter of what has been done since October to continue those investigations and to secure accuracy with respect to payments during the winter months in the western provinces. If the minister will permit that discussion to be carried on in connection with one of the items in his main estimates dealing with this agricultural relief matter, that will be quite satisfactory for my purposes, and the item can pass. Otherwise I think, following the usual practice, it would be reasonable to ask that it stand until the information which is not now in the hands of the minister may be available. Whichever better suits the convenience of the minister is satisfactory to me.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Naturally I am anxious to expedite the passing of the estimates, and I express my sense of obligation to the right hon. leader of the opposition for his willingness to help, by leaving discussion of this point until the main estimates are before the committee. I ought to say, however, that I cannot at the moment recall any item in the main estimates which pertains to relief. As far as it is within my power I shall be very glad indeed to afford such an opportunity when the main estimates are before the committee.


Percy John Rowe: How much is this increased over the amount spent last year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think it is roughly indicated by the numbers. Under the 1934 act the numbers were 12,219, and the numbers under the 1935 act are 14,169. We pay $5 a

Supply-Labour-Farm Placement
month. Of course these numbers do not necessarily represent those who have taken advantage of the scheme during the entire period.


Percy John Rowe: It depends how many months they worked.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, quite. And these figures before me do not afford that information.


Percy John Rowe: Did not the minister give the amount before recess?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I gave the amount we have paid to date, but we make our payments on the basis of accounts rendered, and all the accounts have not come in. I am informed that they are about two months in arrears.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I notice under the Relief Act, 1935, the amounts paid to the different provincial governments on the prairies for farm placement are as follows:
Manitoba	 $28,021 20
Saskatchewan	?	
18,951	86Alberta	
4,283	72
Totalling, roughly, $50,000.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, those are the amounts paid prior to March 31.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could the minister give an idea how much farm placement cost altogether last year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not until the accounts are all in, I am told that they are about two months in arrears. I think it would be in excess of $100,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The amount of $1,000,000 seems to be an increase over last year. If it means that we are to have an increase in this scheme I think the minister should be congratulated.


Percy John Rowe: The letter the minister read before recess is an interesting vindication of the former government, showing the number placed, evidently with satisfaction, and continuing their jobs. Now we find that the amount is increased for this year.
I am sure that it is very interesting for you, Mr. Chairman, and those who sat in the last parliament, to recall the vigorous condemnation of this vote a year ago, when one follows the projects already undertaken and other projects to be undertaken. Not only are the same blank cheque system and the same projects, you might say, that were most vigorously condemned when the former government was in power being proceeded with, but the vote is being increased. I was glad 
to hear that letter of satisfaction from the people who have been dealt with, and it is striking to observe that the minister now brings in an increased vote, further illustrating the practice of the government from the beginning of the session of adopting policies which last session they vigorously condemned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Looking roughly through the estimates I do not find in the minister's department an item that would enable us to discuss this matter further. Unless I have overlooked something I think the minister was right in what he was good enough to say.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: The minister and my right hon. friend can agree to discuss the matter on any specific item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But as the minister
pointed out, possibly the chairman is bound by the rules to confine the discussion to the items themselves; therefore it might be held that I was no longer within my rights in endeavouring to discuss what I regard as very important, this whole question of farm placement, in view of the fact that the public exchequer is concerned solely with the certificates given by the province. If a certificate came in for $5,000, the dominion, until we appointed a special officer, did not make any investigation of it and paid the money out. But in consequence of information received it was thought desirable, yes, necessary, that this action should be taken. I am curious to know where we stand with respect to that matter since October last. While the winter is now past, from the standpoint of operation of the statute it will be of importance to the minister for future guidance, because he, like the rest of us, is particularly anxious that the exchequer should be charged only with money that he proposes it should be charged with for this purpose, and not for anything else.
I am in this position, therefore, that unless the report to the Department of Finance is available and we know exactly what the numbers are, I cannot discuss the matter. I should like to make it clear that if the item stands there is no doubt about our right to discuss it. But I cannot see any item upon which such a discussion might arise, and I thank the minister for thus frankly directing my attention to the point. I thought there was such an item, but I must say that I do not see it at this time. Unless we can have the discussion under some general item, which I do not see at the moment-


Norman McLeod Rogers: If there is anything I can
do by consent I should be pleased to arrange to do it.

Supply-Labour-Farm Settlement


Richard Bedford Bennett: We can discuss it under
an item respecting advances to provinces. Obviously that would be an item comprehensive enough for the purpose. Later in the estimates there is an item dealing with advances. and therefore it is understood that in not asking that this item stand there may be a discussion on a future item.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to provide for agricultural settlement and resettlement, $1,000,000.
Agnes Campbell Macphail: I should like to ask
the meaning of t'he word "resettlement." Does it mean settlement in another year? What is the difference between settlement and resettlement? After one settler has gone does another settler come in?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I agree that there is some
redundancy. I take it that the reference is to original settlement, and a continuation of the provisions for settlement. I do not know that we are particularly restricted by the wording of the item. I agree witlh the hon. member that there is a possibility of a certain amount of confusion.


Victor Quelch: What is the difference between this item and item 310, which was piloted through the committee by the Minister of Agriculture? They appear to be about the same.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The explanation is that the item piloted through the committee by the Minister of Agriculture applied only to the drought area, where there is special provision for rehabilitation. This item is not so confined. Under it we are permitted to discuss with the provinces, and on agreement with the provinces to enter into schemes whereby those now on relief may 'be placed on the land. I believe I have mentioned before that existing relief settlement schemes are now in operation in only four of the nine provinces. Two other provinces have placed before the Department of Labour alternative schemes for land settlement, but we have not yet reached a decision regarding them. The present item is in the estimates so that if it should appear desirable we may be in a position to cooperate with the provinces which as yet have not entered into relief settlement schemes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would this relief settlement include a scheme which was tried out in Ontario a few years ago, under which farmers living in remote districts in Hali-burton county, and may be some from the remote districts of Muskoka-I am not certain as to Muskoka, but there were a number
from Haliburton and from parts of Renfrew who resided on what was generally known to be poor land, but land which in former years was fairly well timbered. When the timber was taken off only rocks and gravel remained. The Ontario government moved quite a number of the descendants of the pioneer settlers from these districts to northern Ontario, and gave them land in the clay belt of that section, where crops grow well and prolifically. Does this vote cover such a scheme as the one I have described?


Norman McLeod Rogers: This vote is broad enough to cover any scheme of resettlement which might be negotiated with any of the provinces. I am not sure whether any of the localities mentioned by the hon. member fall within the relief settlement scheme, or within some settlement scheme inaugurated separately by the province. A number of provinces have carried on their own settlement schemes, or back-to-the-land movements, without support from the dominion treasury.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the minister
endorse a scheme such as I have outlined? Personally I am strong for it. There are many districts in Ontario and perhaps in other provinces where the original pioneers had to cut the standing timber. The land was covered with excellent pine, or other timber, and in due course as the years went by the timber was all taken off. The sons and daughters of the pioneers did not like to leave their native districts. Their relatives had been buried thereabouts; they had been raised there, but in time it became impossible for them to earn their livings. It was on that account that the Ontario government moved a number of them to northern Ontario. If the vote now under discussion covers a scheme such as I have described I would say it is a most worthy cause and one which should receive support. In the circumstances I have related, families raised on the soil, who apparently loved it, if we may judge from the length of time they stayed on it, were taken from where they could not make a living to a place where they could make one. If the vote includes a movement of that kind I maintain it is a worthy one.


Grote Stirling: I cannot find any reference to this item in the report of the dominion commissioner of unemployment relief. Is it a new undertaking?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member will observe that item 329 in the special supplementary estimates deals with commitments under existing projects.
Mr. STIRLING I understand.

Supply-Labour-Farm Settlement


Norman McLeod Rogers: This is designed to permit the negotiation of new projects.


Percy John Rowe: Is this an increased vote?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Percy John Rowe: I would say that the government is well justified in increasing the vote, if only as a further vindication of the former government's policy in this regard. I suggest that the government would have been well advised to make a much greater increase. From the information given to the committee this afternoon by the minister it was quite evident that those who were assisted on the settlement and resettlement basis secured much less, and that it took much less from the treasury of Canada to reestablish them on the land than it did to pay a man on relief to do nothing. The minister pointed out in answer to a question from this side of the house that he preferred to subsidize men doing something than to subsidize men doing nothing and thereby sacrificing their morale and initiative. At a time like this I believe the government might have been well justified in increasing the grant substantially. They could have worked out, in cooperation with the provinces from coast to coast, different schemes that would have cost the dominion treasury less than the cost of direct relief. The average cost of assistance under this scheme, as the minister pointed out, was considerably less per family -personally I think it would have been more than a hundred dollars less-than the cost of direct relief. I do not think we need any commission to satisfy this house and the country that if we can keep the head of a family working at some remunerative employment and producing for less than it costs us to keep him doing nothing, it is surely sound economics to keep him at work, and it also has the advantage of preserving his morale. But we have established an employment commission and provided this afternoon for their salaries and expenses, $125,000, although the minister told us this afternoon that he did not know how much each of the commissioners would receive, and they are to investigate and find some means of handling this gigantic problem which faces this government as it did its predecessor.
Before the commission reports to parliament at its next session we all hope that the major portion of this crisis will have passed, and it is quite possible that the government trusts that before the commission has found a solution the problem will have solved itself. I think the government, therefore, would be

well advised to consider increasing this grant rather than providing $9,200,000 for new public works to be undertaken in cooperation with the provinces, building public works here and there, thereby constituting a steady drain on the treasury of the dominion. An expenditure of that kind simply means that millions will be spent to employ men in work that is only temporary after all, a few months' work in the summer before the snow comes next winter. It costs more than it would to settle them on the land; there is no permanency about it unless the government is going to ask parliament again next year for more millions for the same purpose, to build harbours here and there and highways in the byways and side roads of this province, and, as one hon. member said, in districts not densely settled the government could easily expropriate land and lay down pavement here, there and everywhere to provide what would be only short term employment after all.
I believe sincerely, and independently of politics altogether, that it is high time the government considered this problem with a view to finality and applied some policy which might have at least some semblance of permanency. The government might well have made provision for a larger vote than is provided here for this purpose. If under this vote you can place the head of a family on a farm, where he can take his wife and children and maintain himself and keep his self-respect in accomplishing something and making his 'own living, it is worth the price to restore the initiative and morale necessary to enable a man to carry on. I think two dollars spent in that way is a much wiser expenditure from a national standpoint than one dollar spent to give a man something for nothing. I think the former government as well as this government probably failed in that respect, and I would urge upon the government, and ask them to urge upon their advisers in this new and highly paid commission which is going to report perhaps after the major difficulties are over, that they should consider during this year an extension of this type of policy rather than expenditures which, after all, amount to only extravagant expedients to meet the needs of the moment and have no permanency about them.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I think, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot tell if the scheme is a wise one or not until1 we know the number of people who have been forced off the farm through economic conditions over a given period of time, and until we know the cost to the municipality, in the first place possibly, to the province, and to Canada of fore-

Supply-Labour-Farm Settlement
ing these people off the land. I was astonished to hear the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) make the speech he did. I could not have believed until he spoke that he was a joy farmer, but the indications were strong in his speech.


Percy John Rowe: A what?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: A joy farmer.


Percy John Rowe: I have certainly had a lot of joy in it.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: And you must certainly have done very well to be willing to have everybody else go back on the land. One would almost think, to listen to this debate, that we could handle any number of people on the land, but the difficulty with agriculture in Canada to-day is that we do not know what to do with the products we produce on the farm. Members who are on the wheat committee are bothered about the wheat situation, and people who have to do with live stock are troubled about the live stock situation. Our problem is not underproduction. We do not need to go out and spend millions to bring in settlers from other countries or to get our own people to go back to the land. Our problem is how to get for our products a price which will enable the farmer to get a living from the commodities he produces. To put more people back on the land is simply to continue going round in a circle. You are on the land; you go broke, and no matter how much you might want to become reestablished on your own farm, it is absolutely impossible. You go broke. Innumerable farmers have high blood pressure and heart disease through worrying, and they have finally had to leave the farm and go on relief. After having forced them on relief, to propose to put them back on the land-why, it is a sort of merry-go-round. You are starting to work at the wrong end. I certainly want to disagree with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe as strongly as I can for I do not think he was speaking as an agriculturist. May I ask the minister how many people have been put back on farms under this scheme, both in Ontario and in Canada?


Mr. BAKER:: I do not take up much of the time of the house, but I would like to put myself on record that I sincerely regret this vote is not fifty million instead of one million dollars. I am absolutely convinced that the trouble to-day is that we have an unbalanced population, too many people in the cities and too few people on the land.
Let us try to bring about a better balance.
I would more willingly vote for this appropriation if it were fifty million dollars than the one million it is.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Following up what the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Mac-phail) has said, I draw the attention of the minister to something that might possibly be overlooked. We simply cannot overlook the fact which is being forced upon us, that farming as a business does not pay any longer. It was altogether different twenty-five or thirty years ago, but to-day we are faced with a new set of conditions. I should like ' to read an excerpt from a recent book by Stuart Chase. This book Government in Business was published in 1935 and although it deals with the United States, conditions in Canada are similar. I find the following on page 39:
Even in such a prosperous year as 1927, Recent Economic Changes shows a net loss of $1,717,000,000 to farmers as a class, a loss enormously accelerated by the depression. Agriculture has failed as a self-sustaining sector of private business.
While I agree in the main that it is wise to get men out on the land, I think we should be careful not to make our country agriculturally top-heavy. If we do that we will regret it in sackcloth and ashes. We will have an agriculturally bankrupt community for the very reason pointed out by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Maphail). If we can add to this idea of establishing men on the land the idea of establishing in the midst of a little community a factory, something like the sugar factory in the town of Raymond, where I have lived for some time, the farmers will have some means of adding to what they can make on their farms. If a proper combination can be arrived at, we shall be working on a sound basis.
I have lived on a farm all my life. My father was one of the pioneers in Alberta. I know of the good times years ago, and I know what bad times are like. I have brothers who are closely connected with the farming business and I know exactly the problems they are facing. I contend that any industry carried on in farming, such as pork production, dairying of various kinds and other industries, takes the most skilful man and the one who is ready to sacrifice himself, as far as clothing and amusements and that sort of thing are concerned, to make it go at all. If that is so, what is going to happen to the great majority of others? I contend that hon. members would be astounded if they could see a cross-section of the agricultural communities of this conn-
2342	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Farm Settlement
try. They would then see upon what a narrow thread people on the farms are holding out. Any hon. member who is acquainted with farming will bear out what I say. If we place great numbers of men on the land and do not provide other means for their earning a livelihood we shall be faced with disaster.
There are other industries than the sugar industry which might be established. For instance, potato processing factories could be set up. I have been in factories where potatoes could be processed into thirty different commodities, every one of which was saleable. These ranged from potato flour to alcohol, mucilage, paints and varnish, and such things as that. Such an establishment can be set up without a great deal of cost and it could be carried on by a small group of farmers located close by so long as it was in charge of a capable man. There are wood processing plants which could be set up in the wooded regions and which would enable the farmers close by to make a living. If we are to place great numbers of men on the land and have them permanently established, we must provide some additional means of livelihood. Many skilled farmers are just able to make it go; they are fighting to their utmost to retain the savings of a lifetime. I want to commend the minister for providing this item as it is a move in the right direction. Expenditures of this kind are wise, but unless some other means are provided to enable farmers to make a living, we shall meet with great disappointment.


Mr. THOMPSON:: I had not intended saying anything on this item, but I hear so many arguments pro and con and see so many statements made about agriculture that I thought perhaps I should say a word before this item passes. I have farmed all my life, and I have on a farm to-day a son who is the fourth generation on it. If I had to live my life over again I should go back on a farm. I am surprised to hear hon. members talking about smoke stacks, tariffs and that sort of thing. If we want to build up agriculture in Canada we must build up industry in order to provide markets for our agricultural products. The urban and rural people in this dominion cannot fly at each other's throats; they must either prosper together or go down together. The people in the urban centres provide the markets for the agriculturist. Wherever you find an industrial town or city you will find the farmers prosperous in the surrounding territory. The reason is that they have markets for their products.

I believe that this item is worthy of commendation and perhaps it should be increased. During the last four or five years we paid out about $700,000,000 for relief and what have we for it? We are not one bit further ahead to-day than we were when we started. I contend that the most sensible proposition which has been brought up in this house to deal with the unemployment situation is the proposal to place men back upon the land. Our forefathers came to this country and they settled in the primeval forest. They fought that forest and they conquered. The reason why the farmers are not making a success to-day is because they, like the municipalities, the governments and everybody else, have refused to live within their means. Everything we require, everything we eat and wear, must come from the dark brown earth; it must be taken from the farms and from the land of this dominion. Everyone is familiar with the old story that when Adam was turned out of the garden of Eden he was told that he must till the land and earn his bread in the sweat of his brow. That is what we lack in this country. We have thousands and thousands of acres of land which are fit for agricultural purposes, where men could make a living, but they want the white lights of the city; they do not want to go out and rough it a bit as their fathers had to do.
On several occasions I travelled through northern Ontario and saw there thousands of acres of land off which the pulpwood had been cut, and the people had deserted it. Yet that land was producing, wherever it had been sown, immense crops; they might not mature but they would provide an abundance of feed for stock. I know that any man who is willing to work and has average intelligence could go in there and make a living. I will say further that it takes more intelligence, more hardihood, more of the qualities that go to build up a real man, to make a success of farming than to prosper in any other business in Canada. We shall never be relieved of our unemployment until our people are willing to go on the land and earn their own living. This dole system that we have to-day is breaking down the morale of our people. I am in favour of any scheme that will assist men to go out upon the land and become independent citizens of this country.


Victor Quelch: I desire to say only a
few words. If the government would take the necessary action to guarantee to the farmers of Canada the cost of production for their products, they would not need to in-

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
troduce any bill or any scheme to persuade the farmers to return to the land; there would be a general movement back to the land. The only reason farmers are able to stay on their farms now is because of the existing debt legislation. If that protection were removed the farmers would be forced off their land wholesale. Those who are carrying on at the present time can do so only by going progressively more into debt, and are we advocating that more farmers shall go into debt? The first step is to guarantee farmers their costs of production: if that is done, nothing more will be necessary to get back on the land those farmers who have left it.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I asked some questions on the item which have not been answered.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not forgotten the
question.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I asked how many
people have been reestablished on the land in Ontario, and how many in all Canada.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I remembered the question of the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, and was going to tell her that yesterday the question was brought up, and that she will find the complete table on page 2298 of Hansard of yesterday.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Did the minister place
on Hansard the amount expended last year under this same heading?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. That was done, 1
believe, this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required for new works to be under taken in cooperation with the provinces. $9,200,000.
Mr. HEAPS:: Before this item is carried,
the first question I should like to ask is what is meant by the words, "in cooperation with the provinces."


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the past, when the
dominion government has assisted in the construction of works which ordinarily would fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces, it has done so upon the basis of a fixed contribution, either a fifty per cent contribution or a forty per cent contribution or less, as the case might be. This item is so worded as to permit of reaching agreements with the provinces upon the basis of a fixed contribution by the dominion for specified works, which will be set out in schedules attached to agreements with such provinces.


Alan Webster Neill: Does that cover work on the trans-Canada highway?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That would cover any work undertaken by the dominion jointly with the provinces upon the trans-Canada highway. It is for existing commitments.


Percy John Rowe: Would that cover assistance to provincial highways and roads?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It would be wide enough
to cover assistance to subsidiary highways, as well as highways which have been designated as part of the trans-Canada. It is wide enough to cover that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could the minister give
the amounts spent last year on undertakings similar to those embraced in this item?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have before me the
total amount expended in the last five and a half years, and I think it will explain to the committee how we have arrived at this figure of 810,000,000. The total amount spent by the dominion government in conjunction with the provinces on road work is $53,855,527.90, approximately an average of $10,000,000 a year. The $9200,000 in this item would be $10,000,000, were it not that we have placed $800,000 under another item; it is allocated to the Winnipeg sewage disposal project.


Grote Stirling: Do I understand the
minister to say that we are being asked to vote a little over $9,000,000 and that a description of what it will be used for will be given at a later date? Can he not tell us now what the expenditure is for?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It. is not possible at this
time. It was not possible, I believe, at this stage in any previous year-


Grote Stirling: But we worked under
a blank cheque.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -for the government to
announce precisely the projects to which the dominion government would contribute. But we have indicated that this amount will be used for works to be undertaken in conjunction with the provinces. That does not confine us to the trans-Canada highway; it does not confine us to a subsidiary highway. It permits us to enter into agreements with the provinces whereby projects shall be undertaken which will assist in reducing the relief rolls. When we are able to enter into these negotiations with the provinces we shall naturally inquire into those projects which will of themselves afford the maximum immediate employment, and which will as far as possible



Supply-Lab our-Relief Works
supply additional collateral or ultimate employment. In other words, we hope to expend the greater portion of this money upon what may be termed developmental projects. It is not possible to be more precise than that at the present time.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Could the minister
give us some idea as to the allocation of this amount as between the provinces?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not able to give
that allocation at the present moment. As I have examined the accounts for relief as between the dominion and the provinces during the last few year? I have been impressed more and more with the fact that these accounts were, so to speak, running accounts. I know of no principle of distributive justice under which one could bring about a distribution of these amounts which would commend itself to everyone. We shall take into account the moneys that will be expended, for example, on public works in the various provinces, the amounts that will be expended under farm placement schemes, relief settlement, and1 so forth, and try to arrive at a distribution which will be fair and equitable. But we shall have to make that division in the manner which appears to be just and equitable in the light of expenditures in the past and in the light of other expenditures which are contemplated during the coming fiscal year.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister says that the division should be fair and equitable, but surely he must have in mind some principle which would suggest what would be fair and equitable. Is it to be according to population? Is it to be according to the unemployment that exists in each province? Surely the minister must have some principle in mind.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps it would be more proper to say that we shall seek to obtain a distribution upon the basis of a combination of principles. If we were to put it on the basis of population it would work out unfairly to those provinces, for example, which have maintained very low relief scales as compared with other provinces. The same would be true if we worked it out on the basis of the number unemployed in relation to the total population. It is a matter of great difficulty to work out a principle of distribution that would be entirely beyond criticism. All I can do is to assure my hon. friend and other members of the committee that we shall seek to make that allocation among the provinces on the basis of need as we are able to determine it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the minister has no principle in mind as to how this amount is to be distributed among the provinces; if he has no principle in mind as to what classes of work are to be undertaken, I should like to know how he has arrived at this figure of $9,200,000.	Surely it must have
some very definite basis.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think I have already given the committee the statement that during the past five and a half years some $53,000,000 has been expended for relief works. That works out at an average of about $10,000,000 a year. The item under consideration provides for an expenditure of $9,200,000. There should be added to that an amount of $800,000 which has been allocated to the Winnipeg sewage disposal project, under another item


James Shaver Woodsworth: All I can say is
that we have waited for some weeks now for this moment to arrive. When we were discussing the earlier part of the government's relief program we were told that it was quite impossible at that stage for the government to disclose just -what it had in mind. We had to pass at that time some general legislation which would empower the government to go ahead with matters of this kind. It will be recalled that we tried then to get the government to give us a full picture of the situation. Further, when another bill came up under which a commission was to be appointed to investigate and survey the situation, we asked what the government had in view. At that time we were told that there was still a third part of the scheme, consisting of the estimates, and that then we would know exactly the general scheme of the government with regard to unemployment relief. Now we have come to that third part of the program, and again we are told that we must go it blind; that we are not to be given any clear-cut idea as to the policy of the government.
I do not think that is fair to this committee. During the past two or three years I have not been among those who have been overcritical with regard to the blank cheque proposals, as they were called. It seemed to me that the government had to be left with considerable discretionary powers in dealing with an important matter of this kind. However I recall distinctly that many of those who now sit on the government side at that time sat to my right and day after day after day they were insistent that the government of that time should not be given any blanket authority. They said, "We are quite willing to vote particular items for particular matters, but we do not believe in the blank cheque

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
method." I would simply point out-and perhaps I can do so with better grace than my Conservative friends-that the government is adopting precisely the same policy to-day, because they are refusing to give us even a general idea as to how this money is to be expended. I would not care so much about that, but what I should like to get is some sort of clear-cut statement as to the program of the government with regard to this great unemployment problem which faces us. Personally I get so weary of reiterating-


An hon. MEMBER:: So do we.
Mr. WO'ODSWORTH: Then why don't you do something about it, now that you are in a position to do so? We all have become weary of this. Ever since I came to this house, as far back as 1921, I have had to stand in my place and try to plead for the unemployed.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: There were no unemployed then, and there was none half the other times you said there were.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There were vast numbers of unemployed at that time. I have known unemployment in this country for twenty or thirty years. I do not think anyone in this chamber knows western Canada better than I do; I do not think anyone has been more closely in touch with unemployment in my own city of Winnipeg for the last thirty years, and anyone who says that there were no unemployed in the earlier days simply does not know what he is talking about. What I was about to say is this, that as unemployment has increased during the years some of us have tried to point out that some more fundamental method should be adopted of coping with this great problem. We have been said to be idealists; we have been said to be impractical. Well then, we said: Let the government in power undertake some definite scheme. And I would say that whether the Conservatives or the Liberals have been in power we have supported to the extent of our ability any scheme that seemed to look in the right direction.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Certainly.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend were in power, are we to assume that he would follow the policies which were pursued by the Labour party in Great Britain when they were in power some years ago? Is that a reasonable expectation?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the minister tell me precisely what he has in mind with regard to those policies? What policies?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think we are justified in assuming that my hon. friend is in sympathy with the program of the Labour party in Great Britain, and he is continually reproaching us for lack of action in relation to this question of unemployment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have not mentioned the Labour party in Great Britain.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is your proposal?	.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Just a moment, please. If the minister will indicate to me what particular part of the Labour program he has in mind I might give him some idea of the way in which it appeals to me.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In relation to unemployment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to know what part of the policy in regard to unemployment the minister has in mind. Does he mean the unemployment insurance scheme of Great Britain? If he does, then I say distinctly yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was not what I had in mind.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That was part of their policy.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I assume that my hon. friend must be aware of the policy of the Labour party in Great Britain with relation to unemployment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is too general a proposition. I have indicated that one of the most important parts of the policy of the Labour party in Great Britain during the short time they were in office, though not in power, and one of the policies upon which they relied and upon which all governments in England in recent years have relied, was that of unemployment insurance. My friends the Conservatives did attempt to put an unemployment insurance scheme on the statute books. I did not think it was at all adequate. Now it is before the courts and we do not know what will be the outcome.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit me to interrupt once more? He has said in effect that he would support the policy of the Labour party in Great Britain in relation to unemployment generally.

Supply-Labour-Relief Works


James Shaver Woodsworth: Oh, no, pardon me;
I did not say that. I say that I want to know precisely what that policy is. I refer for the moment to the general scheme that has been adopted in Great Britain for a number of years, unemployment insurance.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If I might complete this now, I would point out that when the Labour party came into office in Great Britain in 1929 the percentage of unemployed among insured work people was 9-6.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In June, 1929. When the Labour party left office in August, 1931, the percentage had risen to 22 per cent.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is not a fair comparison; the minister knows it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, I do not. I asked for these figures because I wanted to know. My hon. friends are continually reproaching us for lack of action. I would remind them that there is a very material distinction between activity and progress.


Percy John Rowe: You are not showing either.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not quite sure what the minister means by activity and progress. I do not think we have had in this country either activity or progress.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We had from 1930 to 1935.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think we get very far by taking certain limited periods during which an administration has been in power in the old country or in this country and trying to draw conclusions, quite disregarding general economic conditions.
If we speak of general policies in the old country, at all periods there they have had as one part of their way of dealing with this problem a system of unemployment insurance. We have urged such a system for this country. The late government did attempt that; the present government apparently are not attempting anything of the kind. A decent sort of unemployment insurance scheme would be far more satisfactory than the present haphazard dole scheme, for it has been practically a dole for many years, a dole on a totally inadequate scale, which condemns people to live below any standard which we should accept for decent Canadians. There is no doubt about that, and if the scheme of the previous Conservative government with

regard to unemployment insurance was not constitutional, there is no real reason why this government should not adopt some scheme that would be constitutional.
There is another scheme that has been adopted to a large extent in Great Britain- since the minister wants to refer to Great Britain-'that is the housing scheme. We have had fantastic schemes of public buildings; I hope the present government will not resort to some of the schemes that the late government resorted to. We seem to be incapable of thinking in any other terms than the recognized channels of public expenditure, huge federal buildings, harbours, wharves, highways. From this corner we have urged again and again housing schemes, but not schemes which are dependent upon the loan companies, and which may to a large extent play into the hands of the loan companies. In any case the poor are not aided by such schemes because they cannot possibly obtain the funds to take advantage of them. We have urged a thoroughgoing housing scheme such as they have in Great Britain. Why cannot the government undertake that kind of thing? In nearly all our cities, as committees of this house have definitely reported, there is a great lack of proper housing accommodation, and we have never had a survey of the housing needs in rural districts, where conditions are even worse than they are in the cities. What is the government doing about that? If we adopted some such scheme as that we might get somewhere.
I hope I am mistaken, but I have been waiting here for three months, and as I see the situation to-day, the government are going on the general principle that if they have slightly lower tariffs, in some way or another foreign markets will open up; foreign trade will increase, and that will solve the problem. To go back to Great Britain, we find that a country which for generations had free trade was forced by economic conditions to abandon that policy and adopt another. Is it likely then that a lower tariff policy is going to solve worldwide problems such as that of unemployment? I cannot think so. It may be that the gov-eminent-I will not say it wants this; I do not for a moment think it does-is banking on some sort of upheaval in Effrope, thinking that if we could keep out of the struggle it might possibly benefit us economically. That might be a way out for Canada for the moment, though of course it would be temporary in character.
But failing some such catastrophe, how can we hope that this vast number of almost one

Supply-Labour-Relief Woikf
and a third million people now on relief are going to be provided for in the near future 7 And not only these people, but as anyone who moves about this country must know, there are tens of thousands of people who to-day are living in the homes of their fathers and mothers or being carried along by their relatives. Everywhere you go across the country you hear stories of that kind; every social worker will tell you the same thing. What is going to be done about this host of people who so far have not come on relief but who one of these days will inevitably be forced to do so? What are we going to do about the young people who are being turned out of our schools and universities? I do not for a moment suggest that the government are not interested in these matters. I 'hope the minister does not think I am accusing him of lack of interest, but I do accuse the government of not bringing forward a well defined plan that gives any indication whatever of being adequate to meet this situation which has so long faced us in this dominion and which is becoming more and more acute.
I say that it is becoming more and more acute, because while it may be all very well to talk of grants to the provinces and for the minister to base his estimates upon what has been given to the provinces in the past, we all know that the provinces are not in as good a position as they were a few years ago. We have the case of Alberta; we know the situation more or less in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and even Manitoba, where many necessary services are being starved in order that their government may by almost desperate means come somewhere near to balancing their budgets. And not only that, but in the past the provinces have been able to devolve a great deal of this relief burden on the municipalities, and we know that the municipalities cannot much longer carry the load. It may be that car loadings show a little increase; it may be that a few more automobiles are being sold this year than other years; it may be that some companies are beginning to pay a little higher dividend; it may be that there is a little upward swing. But I submit that neither in the United States where we see to some extent similar conditions to what we have in Canada, nor in Canada itself is there any indication that within the next few years this upward swing is going to be big enough to lessen in any material degree this problem of unemployment.
For this reason I say that it is the responsibility of any government which is in power
to bring some definite scheme before parliament. This should be not a mere scheme of doles such as we have had, not merely a scheme of public works such as we have had, but some much more comprehensive plan. Some of us have suggested the kind of work that has been undertaken in other countries; a number of speakers referred to measures undertaken in New Zealand, Australia, Sweden and elsewhere, that have shown at least a certain degree of success. Apparently the government has not considered any of these, but has simply fallen back on the old time emergency methods which we have had for a number of years past. When we finally come to this last part of the government's plan we find the whole thing is still hazy and indefinite. I do not know what more we can say. I should hope that my remarks might possibly lead the minister to divulge to this committee to a greater extent than he has. done his own ideas as to what can be done in the next six months. I would urge that he give us some indication of what is to be done in October or November when the men come in from maintenance of way work, and when they are dismissed from the farms. I asked him a few days ago and I again ask him to-night what is to be done with those 5,000 single unemployed men in my own city who are not in camps but who are being fed daily out of the public purse. What is to be done with them? The minister has not indicated in the slightest that he has any plan for dealing with them.
What is to be done with the two or three thousand young people who are unemployed but who for the last few months have received special training in the technical schools of my own city? When the schools are closed these young people will be out on the streets. What is to be done with them? What is true of Winnipeg is true of Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, and in fact any of our larger cities. What are we to do about this? I do not wish to delay the passing of the estimates; I do not wish to talk simply to be heard or for the sake of talking, not in the slightest. But I would say that the government, having assumed office, must accept responsibility for doing very much more than is indicated in any of the three measures under which they have given to the country their unemployment relief policy.


Mr. HAMILTON:: A few remarks of the
hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. McCann) with regard to the trans-Canada highway leads me to think that I should make some observations. His point was that he felt expenditures of large sums of money on the trans-Canada highway were probably in-

Supply-Labour-Reliej Works
advisable at this time, and that it would be better to deal with the feeders and sideroads running into that highway.
Coming from Sault Ste. Marie I am very much interested in the trans-Canada highway, and so that the minister and the government may have no misunderstanding I rise at this time to speak. The highway westerly from North Bay to the north shore of lake Superior until recently had not been finally designated as the trans-Canada highway. As a result of that situation, during the past several years when fairly large sums of money have been expended on construction of the trans-Canada highway no trans-Canada highway money, with the possible exception of a few dollars spent last winter, was spent on that portion of the road west of North Bay up to the White river terminus coming east from Port Arthur. May I point out that that portion of the road now known as the trans-Canada highway running from North Bay to Sault Ste. Marie, a distance of three hundred miles, runs through a fairly well settled territory and through the three cities of North Bay, Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie.


Frederick George Sanderson: I must draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that item 330 was carried this afternoon. Of course I am in the hands of the committee. The vote of $3,527,125 for the trans-Canada highway was passed, and in my opinion the remarks of the hon. member are out of order.


Henry Sidney Hamilton: May I point out that at that time the hon. member for South Renfrew was dealing with money already allocated and under agreement. I believe the minister suggested that with reference to new expenditures, with which I am now dealing, discussion might more properly be had on a vote having to do with other projects such as we are now discussing.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is right.


Henry Sidney Hamilton: I shall be brief. I wish only to point out some facts so that the minister and government may not be under a misapprehension. In substance I agree with what the hon. member for South Renfrew said as to the inadvisability of spending large sums of money along the north shore of lake Superior at the present time. May I point out, however, that there are older portions of the highway on which that money could be expended, portions which pass through several constituencies where relief work is needed as urgently as in other sections of the dominion. I hope the government will not be steered off its course by the use of the term "trans-Canada highway." May I in passing observe

that that section of the road from North Bay to Sault Ste. Marie will be a wonderful asset to the older part of not only Ontario but Quebec. Three first-class highways of the United States come to Sault Ste. Marie, tapping a large population to the south, and act as feeders for an extensive tourist traffic into Ontario and easterly into Quebec.
We know that to-day thousands of people will not enter Ontario and travel east into that province and also into Quebec because of the condition of the trunk road between North Bay and Sault Ste. Marie, a road which to-day is part of the trans-Canada highway. There are people in that section who need work as badly as any other people, and I merely urge the government not to be scared away simply because the road is named the trans-Canada highway. It also runs north of Sault Ste. Marie some sixty or seventy miles to an important mining area.


Grote Stirling: If I understand the minister correctly, this sum of nearly $10,000,000 is more or less an estimate, and is apparently-


Norman McLeod Rogers: We are restricted definitely to it.


Grote Stirling: -but an estimate with
regard to the method in which it will be expended. It will have to be divided up under arrangements yet to be arrived at with the provinces, and expenditures will be so governed. I do not consider that explanation is satisfactory, in view of the fact that for nearly four weeks we have been waiting for these supplementary estimates. Speaking at. the time the employment commission bill was under consideration, the Prime Minister said that a special bill which would give itemized explanations of expenditures to be made would be brought down. It seems to me that the estimate upon which the minister is basing bis views is an expenditure which has been made by the late administration under a policy which was strongly condemned, namely that of the blank cheque. Because of expenditures made by the previous government in the last four or five years the minister is now of opinion that under the arrangement which will be arrived at with the provinces probably about $10,000,000 will be required to carry out undertakings with them. It seems to me reasonable to ask the minister to explain in what way the money will be expended and in what way he anticipates meeting the provincial governments for the purpose of discussing expenditures under this vote.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is a reasonable request, and when it was put to me before I recognized it as reasonable. I sought to give

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
an answer which would satisfy hon. members. It will be noticed that this amount of money is to be expended in conjunction with another spending authority. In other words, it is impossible for us precisely to indicate the projects upon which it will be spent in any province, until we have reached an agreement with that province respecting joint relief expenditures, to which there would be attached a schedule of works to be constructed. Obviously until this estimate has been passed by the committee we cannot enter into agreements with the provinces. We do not know what amount of money will be available for the purpose.
I might point out, further, that during the past few weeks most of the provincial legislatures have been in session and it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for all the provincial governments to send their ministers of highways or public works to Ottawa in order to arrange such a schedule of works as is contemplated under this item.
Where the expenditures are to be made by the dominion government there is, I think, a careful and scrupulous regard for the established practice with respect to appropriations, but I think it is only fair to point out to the committee that under this vote we are dealing with joint expenditures, and it is impossible to give the details until we have arranged the agreements with the provinces. As a matter of fact, it will be within the memory of the committee that when the relief bill was introduced it contained a clause under which the government proposed to bring these agreements before the house, and we suggested that they should not become binding upon the dominion until they were approved by the house. In other words, we sought so far as it was within our power to bring the entire transaction into the full light of day, which, I think, is a desirable principle of public policy, but it was the view of hon. members not only on the opposite side but in all parts of the house that such a course would impose a grave handicap upon the government in dealing with this situation, and at the instance of members from various quarters of the house that particular clause was deleted.
My hon. friend has also asked as to the method of allocation among the various provinces. That question was put to me before and I sought to answer it as best I could. Looking back over the expenditures of the past five years I do not find any unvarying principle of distribution of the amount available for unemployment purposes. It is a matter of extreme difficulty to make any distribution upon the basis of need. One might say, for example, that fiscal need
brings into your problem the necessity of examining the income of particular provinces and their taxable capacity, which in itself is a most complicated factor to determine. I know that from my own experience in trying to find some sort of composite index which would measure fiscal need in the various provinces. Therefore we are faced with the necessity of trying to bring about as fair and equitable a distribution of this amount as possible, being responsible at all times for any mistakes we may make in such a distribution.
May I direct attention to this further consideration? There are here, for example, items for agricultural settlement and resettlement. If one province, for instance, whose need with respect to relief is similar to that of another province, wished to adopt some method of land settlement as one way of meeting the situation, obviously that would have to be taken into account when we were apportioning some of this expenditure for works among the provinces, and yet in advance of our meeting with the provinces we are not in a position to know how far they will wish to deal with the situation upon a basis of land settlement, and how far they will wish to deal with it upon a basis of relief works so far as that might be facilitated by dominion contributions.
I hope I have made clear to hon. members that we have not put the item under this heading with any intention of concealing details from the committee. On the contrary we originally contemplated that the agreements with schedules attached would be submitted to the house. We are dealing here with a situation, let me remind the committee, which to my knowledge has not occurred before outside of special legislation, in constructing public works in conjunction with the province. It has been a simple matter to do this during the last few years under blank cheque legislation because you were concerned only with agreements and you were not obliged to make any estimate to the house of the amount to be expended. To the best of my knowledge this is the first case in which the dominion government proposes to enter into agreements of this kind with provinces for public works, outside the special legislation of 1919 by which the dominion contributed for highways and so forth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman is in error as to that. Under the provisions of the various relief acts that have been passed by this parliament, if he will be good enough to look at the reports of the commissioner of unemployment relief, he will find set out in detail the number of the agree-
Supply*-Labour-Relief Works

ments, the sums paid by the provinces, by the municipalities, and by the dominion, and the sum total paid.


Norman McLeod Rogers: After the expenditure was made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But this is different.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Norman McLeod Rogers: Applying always to the preceding year?	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is entirely right; the report is a report of actual achievements and accomplishments, not a prospectus indicating what might be done. To use the language of a well known mercantile agency, it is a record and not a prospectus. That is quite true and I agree with the minister. What I am indicating is that in former years the minister was able to outline the general undertakings to which it was felt that the federal government might usefully give its assistance. For instance, the hon. member for Algoma West (Mr. Hamilton) raised the question to-night of the trans-Canada highway. As the chairman has said, this item has been passed, but still it arises incidentally and inferentially through the payment in aid given by the federal power to the provinces. This item was discussed in detail this afternoon and I shall not waste the time of the committee in discussing it further It will be recalled that we assisted in the construction of bridges, in the construction of main highways that were part of the trans-Canada and also in the construction of highways across the provinces, but I shall not weary the committee by referring to these in detail. *
As the matter stands now, the minister has submitted to the committee an item amounting to nearly $10,000,000 and he has asked us to give 'him authority to fill in the names of the payees without indicating to parliament who the beneficiaries are to be and how the money is to be spent, except that it is to be spent in aid of undertakings agreed upon by arrangement between the provinces and the dominion. That opens dangerous avenues of escape and approach. The government may say: This is what the provinces want and we have agreed to give them some money. We meet with two difficulties. One arises out of the fact that the matter becomes political. Men in one province who are of one political faith have been denied the right to go to work. Furthermore, they have been told that the work would be apportioned in the ratio of the known voting proclivities of the men in the community. That is a matter of written record.
There is a second difficulty, one of which the minister is so fully aware that I shall not do more than merely mention it-the matter
of accounting. It will be recalled that the government of the day being seized of the seriousness of the situation through representations made by interested parties, passed an order in council directing the auditor general to take complete control of the whole question. I have pointed out in this house time after time-and I do it again to-night -that when the matter was dealt with by the government in 1934, in consequence of what we had learned in 1933, we insisted that before a single dollar of federal money would be paid there should be a certificate by the municipality or the otherwise organized authority that the expenditure was correct; second, that the province should place its certificate upon the expenditure indicating its correctness, and, third, that a pre-audit certificate of at least one, and in some instances two of the officials in the auditor general's department should be upon the document before it went to the comptroller of the treasury. When the comptroller of the treasury issued his cheque he had behind him the certificates of, first, the auditor general's department; second, the province, and, third, the municipality or other organization responsible for the detailed expenditures.
I notice in the report made by the commissioner that we now have succeeded in making certain adjustments. Arrangements have been made to get back substantial sums of money; there is one case, amounting to some 8700,000, which has not been disposed of. In connection with some expenditures the dominion has declined absolutely to pay them because the [DOT] certificates were not forthcoming. We have deducted from one grant overpayments made in another so that the matter could be adjusted. The hon. gentleman will remember that in the report he tabled the other day there appears a reference to what is being done to adjust this difficulty. I do not point out these difficulties in any captious sense of criticism as the minister has adopted in connection with the provinces the course that we adopted, but he has not surrounded it as yet with the safeguards which, in my judgment in the light of our experience, are essential to prevent a recurrence of the conditions to which I have directed attention. The minister may very properly contend that this could not appear in the estimates; he may say that it is proposed to safeguard the position of the government in the agreements to be made, but a substantial sum of money is still claimed by those who are entitled to grants in aid. As the minister knows, we dealt only
Supply-Labour-Relief Works

with the provinces, but there are provincially created municipalities and organized entities by which the general investigation has shown that repayments should be made. In this regard I think the minister should explain to us just what has been done and is being done to overcome the difficulties to which I refer.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps at the outset I
ought to refer to the charge which has been repeated several times this evening that we are having to resort to blank cheque legislation. I suppose one is justified in using that phrase "blank cheque legislation'' in a qualified sense. I think, however, that my memory of the Hansard debates of other sessions is correct, and that on several occasions, when relief bills were before the house, speakers then on the opposition side asked the government to insert a sum, any sum, but a definite sum in order to avoid the blank cheque.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but that was the
bill generally, the aggregate.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Quite so, and I am sure
my right hon. friend will recall the statement of de Tocqueville that unlimited power is a bad and dangerous thing, and from the standpoint of the then opposition it was that lack of any limit whatever upon the spending power of the government which was the chief ground for criticism of the blank oheque legislation. Obviously it is at least doing violence to precision of language to suggest that these are blank cheques. They are definite appropriations for specified objects. My right hon. friend is entitled to complain that the object is not sufficiently specified, but he is not entitled to say that it is a blank cheque.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that it is blank as far as the payees are concerned.


Norman McLeod Rogers: So far as the payees are
concerned? Well, certainly in some of these items it is quite beyond our power to indicate who the payees shall be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So it was with us.


Norman McLeod Rogers: For instance, under relief
settlement, or under any farm placement plan. My right hon. friend also referred to the fact that under the preceding legislation, in the report of the commissioner of unemployment relief there were set out the objects for which money had been expended. He was fair enough to recognize that this procedure was to some extent different from the course he is suggesting we should follow today. I well recall the debate upon the relief

bill. It will be remembered that we had inserted in that bill a clause which provided that we should bring before the house for its approval the agreements with the provinces touching these very expenditures, with a schedule of works attached, and it was my right hon. friend and other hon. members who pointed out the extreme difficulty of that procedure and asked us to delete that clause. I remember that my right hon. friend in times past has quoted a principle of equity that one cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time, and it does seem that if, in the debate on the relief bill, he said it would be better from the standpoint of administration for us to drop this clause, he ought not to raise it to-night as an objection to this particular item. I think he will acknowledge the reasonableness of this contention, that never before has there been a situation in which we have been obliged to set out estimates providing for joint expenditures with the provinces. This is, I think I might acknowledge very frankly, one of the difficulties attached to a transition from blank cheque legislation to parliamentary control of expenditure.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am pleased to hear
the applause with which hon. gentlemen greet my rising, because it seems to me-


John Campbell Elliott: A coincidence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -reasonably apparent that the minister has forgotten that the plea for the deletion of the provision in the statute came from his own side. He seems to forget that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) presented so strong a case that there was no answer, and the Prime Minister said, turning to his, shall I say, discontented supporters at the moment, that the provision should be dropped. I pointed out on the second reading of the bill how impossible it would be in practice to give effect to such a provision. I did so at some length, and I also referred to the matter later, but the speeches made by an opposition no more numerous than this have never been taken as having any effect upon a government that is so contemptuous of such an opposition.


Norman McLeod Rogers: They are very helpful sometimes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it must be that when those within their own ranks cry aloud, the government must give some little attention to their contentions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the difference between us.

Supply-Labour-Relief Works


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Mr. HANSON:: The blank cheque would not be of use this time, either.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for S-keena (Mr. Hanson) suggests that a blank cheque would not be useful at this time. There are at least a hundred members I could name, on the other side, who would find it exceedingly useful at this time in their own constituencies and who would not be unwilling that it be used in those same constituencies.
Those who are behind me do not desire that the blank cheque should be used in their constituencies at all; they have ample appropriations without it.


Olof Hanson: That never was used in my constituency in the last five years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So high was the regard of the late government for the exalted moral principles of the hon. gentleman against the use of a blank cheque that they would not think of its being so utilized. It would be such an offence to his sense of decency and morality in public life that no one would think of issuing a blank cheque for any expenditures in that particular section of the country. I am sure he thanks the late government for having thus respected his strong views on the matter. I am glad he realizes the humour of the situation. I am only pointing out that I agree that the minister could not, any more than we could, set out details of contemplated expenditures. But he could, as we did through the minister in the house, as the records will show, indicate in a general way what was intended. For instance, it has been asked whether it is proposed to utilize these moneys for what are called secondary roads or feeders. That question came up and was discussed in the house, and certain answers were given. I do not know whether it is the intention of the government to use any part of the money for the purpose of surfacing the roads with asphalt or concrete, but at any rate those questions were asked. I do not say that at that time the minister was able to do more than answer yes or no, but he did indicate that that would be so. When questions are asked, as they have been here, as to what might be done, possibly the minister might give a little further information as to what he contemplates, because he cannot be without some knowledge of what the provinces are endeavouring to secure from him. I can assure him that the demands will increase with the length of time which elapses before the agreements are made, and the sooner that $9,200,000 is exhausted in agreements the happier will be the face of the minister, because as long as there is a single dollar unappropriated by agreement, so long will there be an effort made to secure it. It may well be that by a limitation being thus placed upon the amount available it will be made easier for those charged with the responsibility for administration, but the sooner the names of the payees are filled in, with the limitation that the minister has suggested as to the amount that may be available, the sooner his troubles in that regard will cease and the happier will be his administration. I am only pointing ouL-and I return to it-that the minister admits that

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
his estimate of what he will require is based upon the average expenditure which has been made without limitation, thereby vindicating the soundness of the discretion exercised by his predecessor and the government of that day. The excellence of that discretion is indicated by the willingness of the minister to take it as the standard of his own expenditure.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: At the outset I wish to express disappointment that the minister should have brought forward those labour figures for Great Britain. It was a specious argument, and if the minister recalls his economic history he will realize that the labour figures had nothing whatever to do with the Labour government but that they reflected the deflationary conditions accepted by Great Britain as a result of the recommendations of the federal reserve bank of the United States.
In the constituency of Nanaimo there are at- least two major problems, and I propose to refer to both of them. We have several ghost towns in that constituency, small places that grew up around operating coal mines. Not forty miles away, in Vancouver, we have an infinite number of relief recipients. Would it not be possible for this government to make arrangements with the provincial government to reopen some of those mines, give employment to the one hundred per cent relief recipients in the ghost towns, and turn over the coal to relief recipients in Vancouver? If that is done, and done without encouraging profits to those who insert themselves into all the business of the government, it may be possible to establish the fact that relief recipients can be assisted to help themselves in some sort of cooperative fashion. The coal miners will dig the coal and the householders in another part of the country will receive that coal at the lowest possible figure for which it can be produced.
The other problem is the condition of the water supply of the city of Nanaimo. I want to direct attention to that, because Nanaimo is in a precarious situation at the present time. The water supply is brought to the city through wooden pipes, and that system is now out of date. The pipes have outlived their usefulness and may buret at any time. If they do burst a major catastrophe will strike the whole of Nanaimo. That city is asking for dominion and provincial assistance in rebuilding that water system, and the sum of $200,000, if set aside for the purpose, would provide work for a large number of relief recipients. I respectfully draw this suggestion to the attention of the minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not see why there should be all this anxiety on the part of my Liberal friends to shout "carried" in connection with this item. Are they afraid to have the question of unemployment discussed on the floor of the house? I remember a time not so many years ago when they discussed unemployment for days and days. Then they never tired of discussing it, but all of a sudden there is this great anxiety to hush up discussion under this item and not to allow hon. members to say a word about the question of unemployment. After all, we must bear in mind that the present government have been in complete control now for a period of six months. They have had complete charge of the destinies of this nation; they have had an overwhelming majority in this house, amounting to almost three-quarters of the entire representation. The government can do almost as they wish, so it is up to them to devise ways and means of doing something about this perplexing problem of unemployment. For my Liberal friends to shout "carried" does nothing to help solve this problem. I do not think there is a Liberal member who did not discuss unemployment and the economic situation during the election campaign; I do not think there is a Liberal member who did not say that if his party came into office they would do something to deal with the crisis facing the country, but that is all changed now.
The minister was good enough to remind my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre about the situation in Great Britain between 1929 and 1931, pointing out that in 1929 unemployment amounted to approximately nine per cent, and that by 1931, when the Labour party went out of office, the situation had been aggravated to the extent that unemployment amounted to twenty-two per cent. Do I take that from the minister as an indication of his condemnation of the Labour party in Great Britain during those years?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend has asked me a question. First of all, may I say that the figures I gave were percentages of unemployment among the insured work people in Great Britain by months from January 1929, to January, 1936.


Abraham Albert Heaps: January, 1931.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Those were the specific figures I gave, but my statement covered the whole period. Now, as to the question asked by my hon. friend. I gave those figures simply because I wished to bring home to hon. members sitting behind my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre the fact that

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
this problem of unemployment, in the experience of countries with Labour governments, has not been susceptible of immediate and successful solution. In the very nature of things it defies that type of solution; yet my hon. friends are continually asking us for action, never telling us what they mean by action apart from the spending of public money. If I may continue-


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Why not? the slogan was, "Vote King and get action."


Norman McLeod Rogers: We will take action, but it will be ordered action. I have no objection whatever to marching forward but I want to know where I am going. I want to know whether my next step is to be on firm ground or in quicksand, and I am not so sure that some hon. members are so anxious as to the direction in which they are going. I think there are two things of vital importance-


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Would the minister
care to name the members to whom he refers, who are not anxious?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I said that they apparently are not anxious to find the direction before they move. We all know there are people who are willing to move swiftly without having a clear idea of their objective.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The United States trade agreement is an instance.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It seems to me that there are cases in which in the very nature of things we must see our way carefully before we proceed. In respect to this whole unemployment question may I remind hon. members opposite that we came into office during a fiscal year for which provision had already been made to March 31 as far as public works were concerned. The preceding administration made arrangements with respect to works designed to cover the entire period to March 31. Not only that, but some agreements were made with the provinces in July and September of last summer supplementary to the agreements originally made, and the arrangements with respect to direct relief were designed to continue during the entire year. We held a dominion-provincial conference and as a result we increased the direct grants in aid to the provinces by seventy-five per cent during the winter months. We went into the entire situation as carefully as we could with the provinces, and from that time to this I can assure hon, members that the whole problem has received
our anxious consideration, as it would receive the anxious consideration of members in any part of the house were they in our place to-day.


James Samuel Taylor: Exactly.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And I do not feel that
my hon. friends should suggest that because we have not done something spectacular we are not making progress. For my part I have much more faith in orderly progress than in swift and spasmodic action, particularly in regard to a matter fraught with serious danger in terms of human values, and I use that term in the same sense in which my hon. friends use it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is quite evident that
what the Minister of Labour has just said meets with the approbation of his supporters, that is, that he stands for progress, orderly progress, moving in a certain direction. 1 am reminded of a little story of a wag who once went through a graveyard and saw on a tombstone, "Here lies Matilda-Follow me." And the wag wrote underneath:
To follow you I'm quite content,
But damned if I know which way you went.
That idea of following the minister may be all right, but some of us would like to know in what direction the government are going.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Going forward.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister says, "Going
forward." The minister brought into the discussion the Labour party in Great Britain, and perhaps I might for a moment deal with what he said in that connection. The figures certainly did show an increase, from nine to twenty-two per cent I think he said, in about two years. But suppose I took the Liberal party in Canada between 1926 and 1930 as a criterion; the percentage of unemployed in 1926 and an 1930 would show a much greater increase.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I wish some of the Liberal members would be patient. It is true that in 1930 the Liberal party could not see any unemployment in this country. Nevertheless it was there. By 1930 he had a serious unemployment situation, and it was on account of that serious situation that we had a change of government.


Malcolm McLean: How much was there?

Supply-Labour-Reliej Works


Abraham Albert Heaps: Sufficient to cause a change of government.


Malcolm McLean: No.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Again in 1935 we still had sufficient unemployment in this country to cause another change of government.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And there will be another change next election.


Abraham Albert Heaps: As the minister talks in terms of politics, perhaps I might remind him and other members of the Liberal party of what we saw throughout this country during the last election: "Vote for King and action."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And they got action.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And "King or chaos." Such were the slogans. I have before me a little card, of which hundreds of thousands were distributed, which says, "Vote Liberal for work with wages, security and progress."
Some 'hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If that is the amount of enthusiasm which the Liberal party can engender when $9,200,000 is provided to take care of about half a million unemployed in this country-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, no; let me correct my hon. friend. He must be aware that this statement is not correct. There is in these supplementary estimates, roughly $80,000,000 -I think I am understating it-wholly for construction works or for relief purposes. That is not $9,200,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, that is one item in the total amount. But this is for relief work, and parts of these appropriations are unspent parts of last year's estimates.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not of this.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is this all new?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, $9,200,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But I mean all the $80,000,000. Part of that was voted by parliament last year, I think?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Some small part of it, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A large portion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think it is recognized by the government and even by the Minister of Labour that no amount of public works which the government may undertake is in itself a solution of the problem of unemployment. But he accuses some of us of wanting to go along too rapidly and not seeing where we are going.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, wanting us to go too rapidly.


Abraham Albert Heaps: They could not do such a thing. I would like them to go a little more rapidly than they are going. We have had this vote of $9,000,000 before the committee for about one hour, and some Liberal members think there has been too much talk on the item. I think my hon. friends of the Liberal party might show a little more patience, for those of the group to which I belong do not indulge in these interruptions very often. But, after all, if we differ from the Minister of Labour in our attitude towards this problem it is because we have a different understanding of the situation. I do not for a moment claim that the minister and other members of the Liberal party are individually not sympathetic towards the unemployed, as I am. It is not a question of sympathy; we are sent here because we have these different viewpoints, and this evening I am expressing the viewpoint of those who sent me here. Those whom I represent think the government are not moving quickly enough in dealing with this problem. During the past six months there has been no diminution worth talking about in the number of unemployed in this country, and I venture to assert that when the House of Commons meets again a year hence we shall still be faced with just as great an unemployment problem as exists at the present time, for the simple reason that no amount of money spent in temporary public works is anything more than a mere palliative. We are asking the government to give something more than a palliative for unemployment.


Mr. VIEN:: What, in particular?


Abraham Albert Heaps: We have made all kinds of
suggestions, and they have fallen on barren ground. I moved a motion to pension people who had reached sixty years of age, and to take them out of industry. The Liberal party was told by its Minister of Finance to vote the motion down. Of course he said, "Where is the money to come from?" I am asking the same question: Where will this $80,000,000 come from?


Malcolm McLean: That is less than $500,000,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: My hon. friend knows better than that. He knows he is misleading the committee and misleading his own constituents, as I happen to know.


Malcolm McLean: Order. I would ask that the hon. member be asked to take

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
that back. He knows he is not within the rules of the house when he states that I know I am misleading the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say you knew.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not wish to say anything that might hurt the feelings of the hon. member.


Malcolm McLean: It is not a question of feelings, at all.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I wonder that some of these hon. members so unruly to-night would not be patient.


Malcolm McLean: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am just-


Malcolm McLean: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North had better withdraw his remarks. I know he wishes to conduct this debate on a high plane, and I think he will do so.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Of course I do not wish to
do anything that transgresses the rules of the house.


Malcolm McLean: Withdraw.


An hon. MEMBER:: Withdraw.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Oh, can you be quiet a
minute! If I have said anything that transgresses the rules of the house, I certainly withdraw it. At the same time if the hon. member does not know better, he ought to know better than to make the statement he did.


Malcolm McLean: I do not think
that is a proper withdrawal, under the rules of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course it is.


Malcolm McLean: The withdrawal
should be made unreservedly by the hon. member, who knows better than to say the things he has just said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the point of order
may I say that the hon. member for Melfort has just charged the hon. meimlber for Winnipeg North with knowing better.


Malcolm McLean: Knowing what
the leader of the opposition has neglected to point out, namely that I am charging the hon. member with not being within the rules of the house, and with knowing that he is not within the rules of the house when he does not withdraw the charge unreservedly.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would not like to hurt the feelings of the hon. member for Melfort.


Malcolm McLean: It is not a case of feelings.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I withdraw the remark unreservedly and unqualifiedly. As regards the $500,000,000 which the hon. member mentioned, may I say that the figure is entirely erroneous, and if at some time the hon. member for Melfort will take a moment's time to go over the figure he will find how absolutely wrong he really is.


Malcolm McLean: $522,000,000 is the correct figure.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will not argue the matter. The hon. member is beyond me.
I wish to point out the viewpoints held by some hon. members, which differ from those held by hon. members in this corner of the house. May I point out also that when asked for concrete proposals some of us have suggested the pensioning of people at sixty years of age, and a much shorter working day. I know that to some hon. members the proposal for a six hour work day may seem peculiar, and I can see some who hold up their hands in holy horror when they think of people working for only six hours each day. I observe, however, that in the United States people as respectable as the president are advocating a six hour day for men engaged in industry, so that in some way the country would be in a position to absorb the unemployed into useful occupations. Whether or not this government likes it, or whether or not future governments like it, the shorter work day, increased purchasing power and pensioning at sixty years of age will come about, in spite of governments. There is in the ranks of the Liberal party and in the ranks of other parties in this chamber a growing conviction that the pensionable age of seventy will have to be reduced before long. More than one Liberal member has come to me and told me that he would like to support a proposal of that kind. A shorter work day is something which will have to be made effective before very long.
It is true that the government attempted to put on the statute books legislation dealing with the eight hour day, believing that that shorter day would absorb a great many people into industry. Even the eight hour day is obsolete, although many people engaged in certain occupations are compelled to work much longer hours. When hon. members point their fingers at our group and ask us what we are going to do under the circumstances, I say to them that I have enumerated just two or three items in our policy. May I say, further, that although there may be

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
difficulties in bringing about the changes I have suggested, it is also extremely difficult to continue in the same way as we are going at the present time. Because when we have, as at present, approximately one half million people in the ranks of the unemployed, and when we have no hope of their being absorbed into industry, what is the future of the country going to be? What are the youth of Canada going to do, hundreds of thousands of whom have never done a day's work in their lives, many of whom are unable to find useful employment and to become useful citizens? Is there in the program offered by the government up to the present time anything which will bring about more or less of a permanent solution of the unemployment problem? I do not think so.
The government has enunciated three items or three policies in its program for the relief of unemployment. One is the employment commission; the second is the expansion of trade and the third is a relief program. I do not think the first solution, namely the employment commission, will solve the problem of unemployment. In discussing the work of the commission I believe the minister has said that it would be temporary and that it would attempt to liquidate the problem in so far as it affected the provinces. Then, public works are only a temporary remedy; they bring about only a measure of temporary relief. As has been pointed out by the leader of the opposition, the money provided for public works in the present year is no more than was provided in years gone by, yet in those cities or districts where the money was spent only a very small proportion of the men out of work were absorbed.
So far as the next item, namely expansion of trade, is concerned, I am afraid that it is one thing to be in favour of a policy and another thing to cany it out. So, while I would do all within my power to assist a government in providing or finding markets abroad, I must contend that the first people who ought to be supplied with the necessities of life are not those who live in other parts of the world but those living right here in Canada. There is no greater potential market for the goods we produce than the one here at home. Why talk about sending our wheat or other surplus commodities to the people of other nations, when there is such a great demand among our own unemployed for the things we have in Canada which should be made available to them. One of the first actions of the government should be to attempt to bridge the gap between consumption and production, and until a government

attacks the problem of bringing about a reasonable equality between consumption and production, meanwhile maintaining production at a high level, I claim there can be no solution for the problem of unemployment. For until such time as we have reasonable equality, maintaining a high level of production and a high level of consumption, I say that the government is travelling in the wrong direction in its efforts to meet the unemployment problem.
The problem as we have it to-day is by no means a temporary one, and we should not as a parliament attempt to deal with it as such, for it is a problem which has persisted in maintaining itself for a period now of approximately six years, after the methods of relief and public works have been applied and it has not yielded to any form of treatment. The government, I say, should therefore learn from past experience and turn their efforts in a completely different direction. But they are not doing that. If the government were opening new avenues of dealing with the unemployment problem we might look on the measures which they are now adopting with a good deal more sympathy than we do now, even though I do say that it is essential in the circumstances to have these appropriations passed in order to meet the unemployment situation which to-day exists. But the unemployment problem instead of being temporary in nature is, I believe, now a permanent feature of the economic situation as it has now developed in this and other countries. In the United States they have spent billions upon billions of dollars in attempting to deal with the unemployment problem, and it is quite true that the billions and billions of dollars they have pumped into their economic life might have had the effect of giving renewed life to the industries of that country, but in spite of that fact the moment they stopped pumping money into the economic life of the country there was a recession in trade. Even in Canada the increase in the volume of trade that has manifested itself has been due to the amount of public expenditures which the previous government had undertaken.
As I said a moment ago, if the government are anxious to deal with the unemployment problem in a way that is fundamental they have to depart from the old ways of dealing with it and to try something different and apart from public works and apart from relief. They have to get away from the idea that markets are open for the expansion of trade. I am quite sure that the previous govern-

Supply-Labour-Relief Works
ment were just as anxious as the present one, even though they may have adopted an entirely different policy, for an expansion of our trade. Their intention was just as honest and just as sincere as that of the present government. I had hoped that the minister would have adopted something new or at least departed from the old line policy and, as was promised so frequently during the past election, given the people of this country some hope of future economic security. But in all that the government have attempted in the past six months since they have been in office there is nothing very much different from what the previous government attempted.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does not my hon. friend think in dealing with this question either here or elsewhere it is of some value to profit from experience? He has suggested a departure into some new way. I have no objection to some new way provided I can see where it leads.


Abraham Albert Heaps: One is bound sometimes to undertake experiments and blaze a new trail. If we had always followed the policy which the minister now commends no progress whatever would have been made. It is only by people taking chances, by scientists taking chances, by medical science and every other form of science taking chances, that any progress is made, and the same principle holds in economics. If we are going to make progress we shall be compelled to blaze a new trail and travel in a new direction even in the sphere of economics because the old order has completely failed. It has not found a way out; it has not offered a solution, and what is more it has not given and does not give to-day a ray of hope to the hundreds of thousands of people in this dominion who are out of work.
I know the minister is just as anxious as I am or as any other hon. member is to do something for the unemployed in this country. No one for a moment doubts his motives. I never have doubted for a moment the motives and good intentions of the minister, but I feel that his methods and the methods of the government are entirely inadequate to cope with the serious situation which has developed and which faces us in Canada to-day. Possibly my plea to the minister may not fall at this time on fertile ground. I know that his friends in his own city have a high regard for the Minister of Labour and even they are expecting a great deal of him. I also have a high personal regard for the Minister of Labour, as I think the members of the house in general have,
and I have a great deal of sympathy for him because he has been put into a position in the government where he has the most difficult problem to deal with of any minister bar none. We all realize that, and if to-day we offer criticism it is not criticism of the minister personally; it is criticism of the action of the government for not attempting to blaze a new trail, because in my opinion only by blazing new trails shall we arrive at some measure of solution of this unemployment problem.
The minister dealt with the position of Great Britain from 1929 to 1931. I assume he must be cognizant of what the government of New Zealand is doing at the present time. They have an unemployment situation to face, but have they said: We are going to maintain and follow the trails of the old parties? No, they have decided to blaze a new trail, to travel in an entirely new direction. Do they know where they are going? I assume they do, and even if they do make mistakes I would far rather the government make mistakes in attempting to do something than do very little and make no mistakes at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister in the course of his observations made a statement that impels me to rise for the purpose of directing the attention of some of the new members of the house to the fact that for five years we sat on the treasury benches and we listened to attacks, not for hours but for days, against measures just such as those which are now being recommended to this committee. The minister suggested that there were some who did not desire to see ordered progress. He was not in the house in those days, but he must recall the dark days of 1932 and 1933, when we were confronted with conditions which this country had to face, and did we have a word of sympathy, a word of appreciation, a word of understanding? Not one word of helpful criticism or constructive assistance. We were attacked not only for hours but for days and days and days, just because we were doing what the minister is doing now, introducing identical measures.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as the measures are concerned, yes, but as to limitation on the amount to be spent, no. I will name the measures one after another. Farm placement has been in force since 1932, and before. It was introduced by the former government and carried into effect. Take the question of grants in aid to provinces; take the question

23ti0	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Relief Works
of public works; take the 1930 appropriation of $20,000,000; take assistance for direct relief-all this we were carrying out.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But under a blank cheque.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly, because conditions in the country were such that we did not desire to place a limitation upon what we might be able to do. We will not go into that ground, but the fact is that the measures were the same as those to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North has just referred. When I recall the bitterness of the attacks and the personal abuse that took place of members of the government; when I recall what my colleagues had to meet, I think the minister is ill-advised when he states that there are members of this house who do not desire to see progress made in an ordered way. We will yield neither to him nor to anyone else in our desire to see this country get out of the difficulties it is now in. None of us will yield for a single moment to him in that desire, and when he suggests that there are members of this house who, because of political or other reasons, are not anxious to see his efforts succeed;-


Norman McLeod Rogers: When was that statement made, and where, if I may ask?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just a few moments ago.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am quite willing to leave it to my right hon. friend to read Hansard to-morrow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was made this evening.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think he will find that no statement of that kind came from me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statement was that he was not so sure there were not those in the house who did not share that view.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is not the statement just made by my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly do not want to misrepresent the hon. gentleman. I listened with great interest to what he was saying, as I always do, and I understood him to say that we were going forward in an ordered way; that if we did not go forward we could not make the progress we desired. As he said before, activity is not progress. He said he was not quite sure that there were not members of this house who did not share his view and who did not desire to see his efforts towards ordered progress succeed.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sure that is not the suggestion made by my right hon. friend a moment ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I was endeavouring to say. I do not desire in any sense

to misrepresent the hon. gentleman, far from it. I heard the burst of applause which followed what was said by the minister because in the discussion of this item he was assuming an attitude of to some extent resenting criticism. I could not help thinking that these were
the same men.

not all of them, but the same
party-who sat here hour after hour and day after day, condemning the putting into effect, except as to the blank cheque, of the very same policies this committee is now asked to adopt. The minister suggests that there should be a sympathetic attitude

that is really the sense of his remarks-on the part of all members of this committee to men who are confronted for the first time with a new problem. Permit me to remind him that in August, 1930, the government was confronted with a new problem. Men who were inexperienced, who had not been prime minister of the country for eight or nine years, were faced with this problem. The statement is made as to cooperation not existing in this chamber, but I can remember a statement made just prior to the time the last Liberal budget was delivered; I can remember how the budget itself was framed and based upon the assumption that this country was going forward with continuous surpluses. The minister now suggests that we should take a reasonable and proper attitude towards the matter, and he is quite right. It was for that we pleaded; that was what we did not receive.
There was a change of government, and that change of government was predicated upon immediate action being taken to remedy what was represented as being an improper attitude of the then government towards this problem. Some of us have pointed out that you are following the same course as that of your predecessors, except that you have placed a limitation upon your bounty and upon your expenditures. It does not come with good grace when you complain that those who sit opposite point out that there has been no change except as to the extent to which you have limited your measures of relief. In other words, you have said to parliament, restrict and restrain, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has given the reason why. I am not going to discuss this. There were moments of great peril and great emergency in 1932 and we did not place a limitation upon anything except direct relief.
This government in its wisdom has placed a limitation upon the amounts that may be expended. Is that going to be a solution of the relief problem? Is that a measure of relief? Is that a new policy in connection with relief? Will that provide employment? Will that assist even one man to supply his

Speaker's Ruling
family with food and clothing? Will that give any of these men decent jobs? Will any of these things be done by placing a limitation upon it? I think not. I rose to-night merely to point out these matters and to direct attention to the continued criticism and almost merciless attacks which were made upon those charged with responsibility. We cannot be blamed for asking questions, for trying to obtain information as to the government's new policy. I agree with the minister when he says that he should not be blamed for profiting by the experience of the past. It is a matter of great gratification to us to realize that he has placed the imprimatur of his high approval upon our experience.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would not for one moment seek to deprive the right hon. gentleman of any solace of vindication which he is able to discover in the policies we have adopted However I think it should be brought to the attention of the committee that when the previous opposition took exception to the policies followed by the right hon. gentleman and his followers, it was because of the unlimited powers which were not only given, but exercised in a large measure under the relief acts of that period. I hold in my hand a statement consisting of three pages outlining the various undertakings which were entered into under the blank cheque provisions of the relief legislation. I think my right hon. friend will recognize that in my whole handling of this unemployment question,, I have sought to avoid recriminations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree with that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I still intend to do so because it seems to me that the problem is too grave for partisan controversy. I should like also to correct any idea that I resent criticism. I do not resent criticism. As a matter of fact I think anyone entering the Department of Labour at the present time should expect criticism. He should be grateful for it when it is constructive. Even when it is not, he should realize that his reasoning is by no means infallible, and I can assure hon. members that the various suggestions which have been brought forward in these discussions will receive such consideration as we are able to give them. This problem is one which deserves the earnest attention, not only of this government but of this parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And of the people of Canada.
12739-151}


Norman McLeod Rogers: And of the people of Canada, and I hope that we may continue to treat it in that way.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 1, 1936