[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) presented the first report of the special committee appointed to investigate and report upon the marketing of wheat
and other grains, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. G. McGEER (Yancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I should like to ask what is the status of the application for leave to construct a bridge over the first narrows near Vancouver, and if the government is aware that if the delay continues a fund of some 812,000,000 of British capital now available for development in and around Vancouver may be withdrawn.
London Naval Treaty


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I say to my hon. friend that the approval of plans for the construction of the first narrows bridge project is one to which the government has been giving very careful consideration indeed, with a view to seeing that all technical and engineering requirements are adequately met and also fully to protect the public interest in every respect. When the present administration came into office we ascertained that the previous government had had under consideration an application for the approval of the plans but had not seen fit to approve them. Since we came into office there have come to our attention circumstances which seemed to require investigation, and very full investigation, before any approval of the plans should be given.


Mr. BENNETT:: More so now than then.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) says "more so now than then." May I say to my right hon. friend that I should welcome very much an opportunity of discussing the whole situation with him. I do not think the government would be justified in withholding approval of plans of a project which may be very much in the interests of the city of Vancouver and in the interests of the country unless there were substantial reasons for so doing. I believe it will be possible to satisfy the house that every precaution has been taken in respect to the engineering and technical features. With respect to other phases which have required consideration, I shall be glad to discuss them with my right hon. friend, if he is agreeable. Unless the government is fully satisfied that the public interest in all particulars is being adequately protected, approval will not be given. I hope, however, matters have arrived at a stage where it will soon be clear that such protection has been achieved.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I would like to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) if he can give any information as to the progress in regard to obtaining a certain order in council-I understand that is all that is needed-to allow the heads of departments to grant sick leave to people employed under them. At present those who are not regular civil service employees, although they may have been ten or twenty years in the service, if they are off two hours

or half a day are docked the time, and that is held not to be desirable. The minister promised some consideration.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: This is a question of long standing. Employees in the government service not employed on a permanent basis do not come under the civil service commission. As my hon. friend has properly stated, some of them who for a period of years have been employed on a so-called temporary basis do not enjoy the privileges of the permanent civil servants who are under the civil service commission. Under the previous government one of the ministers introduced an order in council to deal with the matter in relation to employees in his department. The order was returned expressing the desire that a fuller order should be made extending its terms to all departments. I have not been able to trace any further action in the matter at the time. I have had some correspondence on the subject with the hon. member who has just spoken, and after giving it some study have made a recommendation to the government. The matter is now being given consideration, and I hope that in a short time I shall be able to report favourably.



LONDON NAVAL TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yesterday the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) referred to the naval treaty to be signed at London to-morrow. With the permission of the house I should like to reply to my hon. friend in the form of a statement which has been prepared, and which sets forth the essential features of the matter.
As a result of the naval conference which has been sitting in London since the beginning of December last, it is now proposed to sign a new naval treaty to-morrow, Wednesday, March 25.
The present conference was convened, and the government designated a representative, the high commissioner in London, to attend, because article 23 of the London naval treaty, 1930, which was signed for Canada by Colonel J. L. Ralston and Mr. Philippe Roy, April 22, 1930, required such a conference to 'meet in 1935 to frame a new treaty to replace and carry out the purposes of that industry. A further reason was that, Japan -having in 1934 given notice of termination of the Washington naval treaty of 1922, article 23 of that treaty required the contracting powers to meet in conference within one year.

Unemployment
Ja,pan having withdrawn from the present conference, and Italy having indicated that she is not yet ready to sign, the new treaty is to be signed this week only on behalf of His Majesty the King, the President of the United States, and the President of France, The hope is entertained that all other naval powers will accede later with or without amendments.
The 1922 and 1930 treaties expire on Decern-ber 31, 1936, and the object of the present conference is to preserve as much of them as possible.
An outstanding feature of those treaties was that they achieved an important measure of quantitative limitation, that is to say, a limitation of the total tonnage of the capital ships and certain ships of other categories in each of the navies concerned. Unfortunately as statements given out by the conference have already made clear, it became impossible to maintain this feature. There are two main features upon which the conference has made progress and which are expected to be embodied in the new treaty. The first concerns qualitative limitation, that is to say, a limitation of the tonnage and gun calibres of individual ships of certain categories. The second provides for advance notification of annual building programs and exchange of information as among the signatory powers. These it may be hoped will afford a safeguard against surprises in respect of new or revolutionary types of ships or of unusual building programs. It is expected that the treaty will be signed by the high commissioner on behalf of Canada, and as soon as the text arrives a copy will be laid on the table.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Primp Minister what obligations are placed upon Canada by the signing of that treaty?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The obligations are all in the nature of helping to place a qualitative limitation upon the tonnage and gun calibres of ships, and to give to and also to receive from the signatory powers information with respect to what may be intended in the way of future programs. It is an obligation which is intended to relieve the countries concerned of what otherwise might be in the nature of a surprise or a burden.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is then no
obligation, direct or indirect, that Canada participate in Great Britain's naval program?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it has
nothing to do at all with participation in any building program, or with participation in other respects than those I have mentioned.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 23, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution-Mr. Rogers-Mr. Bothwell in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting relief for unemployment and assistance for agricultural settlement and rehabilitation and development of natural and other resources, and to provide for such payments out of the consolidated revenue fund as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of the proposed legislation.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour):	When the house was in committee on this resolution yesterday the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) objected to the propriety of our discussion on two grounds. His first ground of objection was that no intimation had been given that this resolution would be taken up yesterday. We recognized the soundness of that objection and did not proceed with the discussion. His other ground of objection was that the resolution itself was not sufficiently descriptive of the legislation which it foreshadows. Following his suggestion I referred the resolution to the law officers of the House of Commons, and was informed that the resolution was adequate for the purpose intended. I gathered at the same time that the practice with respect to the subject matter and comprehensive nature of resolutions has varied somewhat from time to time. However, I took occasion to look up the resolution of last year which preceded the relief act, 1935. It is in the following terms:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting relief, and to provide for such payments out of the consolidated revenue fund as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of the proposed legislation.
I take it that the resolution which is in my name on the order paper is really more descriptive of the legislation which it foreshadows than the resolution which preceded the relief act, 1935. May I also add that our desire in advancing this resolution was to secure distribution of the bill which will follow, and to bring it to second reading. We felt that there would be a decided advantage in our discussion on the national employment commission bill if members of the house also had before them copies of the unemployment and relief assistance bill.
Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the first point to which the minister has referred, may I say that I believe the action taken by the committee is a sufficient answer. With
Unemployment

respect to the second question, I have looked into the matter slightly and I find that the relief legislation of 1935 was, with certain variations, a reenactment of the act of 1934, and that the 1934 legislation was, with slight changes, a reenactment of the legislation of 1933. As they may not be taken as guides in the matter, I would add that the rule has been laid down by competent authorities in the following terms:	The resolution must be
sufficiently specific in its terms to support any legislation which may be founded upon it. In other words, if it involves an expenditure of public moneys it must, of course, originate with the government and be preceded by a message. The bill must be within the terms of the resolution so as to warrant its being acted upon by the house when the committee has made its report. I recall that on one occasion I found myself in difficulty on account of not having made my resolution sufficiently broad and specific to enable me to cover all the phases of the proposed legislation contemplated by the bill founded upon it. The committee is perhaps entitled to some explanation respecting the matters to which references are made in the resolution, and this would seem to be the proper place to have the explanation. Once the resolution has been passed by the committee and the bill '.s introduced founded upon it, the time for explanations has passed.
The resolutions respecting relief for unemployment one may pass by, because it may be in any general terms that the government may deem desirable. But the assistance for agricultural settlement and rehabilitation was dealt with in a separate bill last year. It will be recalled that the matter of rehabilitation was reported upon by a committee, but that in the end the legislation was entirely separate from that dealing with relief. Agricultural settlement was dealt with separately. Whether the provision in the resolution involves a comprehensive settlement scheme or is merely to provide homes on agricultural lands for the unemployed is not made clear, and I suggest there might be some explanation given with respect to it.
Then before we proceed to report the resolution I suggest the committee should have a reasonable explanation with respect to the provision for the development of natural and other resources. As it reads, of course the provision for payment is merely in the terms of a blank cheque, if I may use the euphemous term so often called into question in this chamber. I take it from what the minister has said, however, that it is intended to impose a limitation upon the amount, and that it is further proposed that any expendi-

tures to be made under the act shall be authorized by an estimate submitted to the committee. That is what I gathered from what was said yesterday. That being so it seems to me that the language is exactly that which would be used to express the opposite idea. It says "and to provide for such payments out of the consolidated revenue fund as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of the proposed legislation." In no sense does it indicate that the provision is to be made by parliament in committee of ways and means, or when estimates have been submitted, dealing with the matter either by way of supplementary estimates or in the form of a bill fixing the amount to be expended, subject to the conditions mentioned yesterday by the hon. member.
In view of the statement made by the hon. member with reference to the law officers I have no desire to press the matter beyond saying that if the bill departs from the terms of the resolution, then certainly the bill founded upon the resolution would be in a most precarious position. It will be recalled that on one occasion that did happen in this chamber; when in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden attention was directed to what had happened, debate was suspended and the committee proceeded to pass a resolution so that the bill might be properly before the chamber.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was going to ask my right hon. friend if the reply made by the minister answered the point of order he raised; apparently it does. If it does not, then I suggest it has been answered by what he himself has said. I would add that I do not believe it would be possible for His Honour the Speaker to decide the point of order without seeing the bill based on the resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not raising the
point of order now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend did speak about a blank cheque. I believe he will find when the bill is introduced that there is a difference between legislation on the one hand which sanctions the use of a blank cheque for purposes of expenditures together with blanket authority to pass orders in council and on the other hand legislation which makes provision for specific appropriations by parliament and which requires the approval of parliament for agreements which may be entered into.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems to me there must be some object in having a bill introduced by resolution; surely there must be some purpose in our having resolutions placed

Unemployment
*before us. We are getting into the habit of permitting the minister to give only a sketchy and inadequate idea as to what a resolution may mean. If we are not to have some explanation, why do we spend any time on this stage of the proceedings? May I ask the minister to give hon. members some idea as to the relationship which would exist between the national employment commission and this unemployment scheme? A few days a.go when the measure to establish an employment commission was under consideration I asked whether its duties wefe to be administrative or merely supervisory, but I received a vague answer. I suggest the minister give some indication as to the relationship between the administration under this resolution and the bill founded upon it setting forth the details, and the commission which is to be set up.
I have one other observation to make which is somewhat along the lines of the comments of the leader of the opposition. I do think we ought to have some idea as to what is meant by the development of natural and other resources. Does it mean that we are going into mining? What are the limitations? Are all these enterprises to be administered by one department? These are questions which naturally arise in connection with a resolution such as the one before the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I direct
my observations to the first question the hon. member has raised, namely that respecting the significance of a resolution preceding a bill. I believe the question is answered by the implication which may be drawn, from the hon. member's last two questions. When my right hon. friend was at the head of the government I believe he spoke on many occasions about the habit which had developed in the House of Commons, namely that of debating a bill on the resolution rather than awaiting the introduction of the bill itself. The resolution is essential as a preliminary notice to the house that public expenditure is involved; it so to speak, gives double notice of what is of significance in that respect. The rules of the house never contemplated that, on the resolution preceding a bill, all particulars of the bill itself should be discussed or should be the subject matter of a general debate. The present administration feels that it will not only facilitate the business of the House of Commons but will effect a greater dispatch of public business if when presenting resolutions the explanation is limited to essentials. We do not wish to seek to limit the amount of information which may be necessary at
that stage of the proceedings, but we certainly believe that a bill should be before the house when we attempt to answer questions which can be explained satisfactorily only when the proposed legislation itself is before us.


Mr. HEAPS:: It has been interesting to hear the Prime Minister's remarks, but they are not in keeping with his actions when he was leader of the opposition. Naturally the group to which I have the honour to belong are anxious to know what is intended by the resolution. We would like to have it stripped of all its technicalities, and would like to know the position of unemployment at this time. Has there been any diminution in the numbers of unemployed in the last six months, and is there any diminution of the numbers on relief? We would like to know whether there are more or less people on relief than there were some months ago. When the measure for the establishment of an employment commission was before the house we were prepared to allow the resolution to pass and the bill to be introduced in order to have an idea of what the bill contained. But this resolution is in a different position from the one of last week to establish an employment commission; for it is more or less a continuation of similar resolutions we have had before the house in years gone by. It is quite true that this one is stripped of certain features such as the blank cheque and the peace, order and good government provisions; nevertheless it does contain within it the making of provision for people who are now on relief in the cities and rural communities. It is only right and proper, therefore, that the members of the committee and the country as a whole should, be given some idea, at the time this resolution is being introduced, of what the government intends to do in regard to the general question of unemployment. I am not at all interested in the technicalities of the question, but I am deeply interested in knowing what is going to be done for the vast number of people who are to-day on relief. My latest information-and if I am wrong I hope the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) will correct me-is that over one million men, women and children are on relief in this country at the present time, recipients of public relief apart altogether from those who happen to be recipients of private relief. That being so, now is the proper and logical time for the minister to state what the government intends to do in regard to the general unemployment situation.
I know we may be told that the government is going to set up a commission, according to the bill on the order paper, but looking over
Unemployment

that bill I am sure no member of the house will say that it gives any idea what the government is going to do in regard to the unemployment situation beyond appointing a commission. We want something more definite than that from the government. It is quite true that minister's have stated during the last few weeks that they will reveal from time to time the government's policy with regard to unemployment in Canada. But in all earnestness and sincerity, I would urge uipon the Minister of Labour that now is the time to take the committee into his confidence and tell us, first, the exact situation in regard to unemployment in Canada to-day, and second, what the intentions of the government are in dealing with that great problem which the government have many times, in public utterances and in the preamble to the speech from the throne, admitted to be one of the greatest with which this parliament is faced.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word on this resolution on behalf of some of the larger municipalities. This government was in office from 1921 to 1030, and during the eleven years I have been a member of the house, I have been continually brings ing to its attention this question of unemployment. But what did the government of the day do about unemployment? Absolutely nothing. I have here the questions I put in the house,, the answers given by the ministry, and the debates on unemployment from 1922 to 1930. I took every opportunity of pointing out to the government what was being done in England and the United States to tackle this problem of unemployment, which had been made more acute by the discoveries of science and the application of modern machinery to industry. I urged the government to come to the support of the municipalities, which through no fault of their own were compelled to provide relief and hospitalization and many other services for those who had been thrown out of work, with the result that the municipalities got into a precarious financial position. It is not their function to look after the people in time of a great war, nor is it their function to look after the people in this great war of the depression. When the invader is at your doors, you are united and organize against the foreign foe. This resolution before us is just an expedient. It is a political expedient. This government did nothing to solve the unemployment situation from 1921 to 1930. As I have said, I have here the questions and answers that were given in the house on the subject of unemployment, and the gist of all the questions was: What is the government going to do to provide useful employment for the great body of unemployed in this country to-day? Mr. Heenan, at that time Minister 
of Labour, replied that it was a matter for the municipalities and the provinces. To-day the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) says the same thing primarily on introducing this resolution. But, Mr. Chairman, the municipalities are not going to be fooled by any such resolution as this. The party in power to-day criticized the former administration for its policy on unemployment, but what did the Liberal government do about it from 1921 to 1930? Nothing. They made a political football of the question, and when the depression came we had hundreds of thousands of unemployed. To-day a meeting of mayors of municipalities is being held in this city. Some of the municipalities are facing bankruptcy.
Personal estates cannot stand any extra municipal taxation, and any extra taxation will have to be put on real estate. The owners of real estate cannot pay any more taxes, and confiscation is going to take place all over the country. It is not a municipal function to look after this unemployment situation. The federal parliament is charged with the administration of matters relating to trade and commerce, banking, immigration, the tariff, bills of exchange, and so forth, but its first duty is to look after the health and welfare of the people.
The government tell us to wait for the bill. Yes, wait for the bill. Wait till seven politicians have been appointed to take care of unemployment, seven figureheads, like the other commissioners who have been appointed. Wait for the bill? The country will get the bill soon enough, in increased income tax for 1937, due to the useless commissions appointed by this government. We shall find our income tax rate going up ten or fifteen or twenty per cent.
The Minister of Labour referred the other evening to the late government as doing nothing for unemployment. Now he himself proposes some amateur interference with business in this country. How any business man can conduct his business with all the present federal interference I do not know, and these artificial barriers, burdens, and restraints and restrictions applied to industry have been one of the main causes of unemployment. What has become of the minister's promise the other night, in reply to the resolution of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), to study the question of youth and unemployment and the position of the industrial worker? It has been said that much study is a weariness to the flesh, and it must be so in the case of the minister. As Oliver Goldsmith, in his Deserted Village, said:
And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew
That one small head could carry all he knew.

Unemployment
It is a great thing to learn about unemployment and labour problems, but professors are not the practical-men who can solve this country's problems. I represent an industrial centre, Mr. Chairman, and I do not propose that this resolution shall pass without knowing more about the intentions of the government. It is all right for the government to tell us to wait until we get the bill, but after we have passed the resolution we can do nothing about it.
Here we are already in the spring of the year. Industrial workers were led to believe by the discussions that took place in this house that as soon as spring opened there would be some relief for the unemployed. Here we are housed in an eighteen million dollar building, and we can look out of the windows across the river Ottawa and see the hovels in which the poor industrial workers in a municipality in a sister province are housed; such a contrast and comparison. What is the government going to do for these industrial workers who are now out of employment?
Hon. gentlemen now on the government benches criticized the former government for its employment policy, but I say we might just as well have a commission form of government in Canada now, with a Hitler or a Mussolini at the head, if nothing is to be done to relieve the unemployment situation. We talked about a trade treaty here for two or three weeks that was supposed to benefit our industrial workers, and we were told we could not change a line of that treaty. If we can go that far in dictating along the line of Mussolini or Hitler, let us go the whole length. The man on the street is disgusted at the inability of the present government to grapple with this problem. It is true that our party did try to do something in its new deal legislation. We passed legislation to give the industrial worker a fair show, but the present government was in office for nine years and did nothing about unemployment, although I continually brought the question to the attention of parliament at every session. I have here the questions that I put to the government of the day and the answers that were made, and the speeches from the throne for every session. Every minister of labour refused to do anything. What did Liberalism do to help the municipalities with their unemployed? They would not give them a nickel. I brought up this matter in the dark days of 1927, 1928 and 1929, and I had the assistance of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I asked the government of the day to give some relief to the municipalities, but they replied that there was no unemployment and if there was 12739-89
it was a provincial matter. The industrial worker and the agricultural worker are sick and tired of these commissions. With the exception of the hydro electric commission in the province of Ontario, I never knew of a commission that did any good. The other night we heard a debate on the industrial worker which I do not intend to repeat, but I think it would be more expedient if the government would appoint one man to look after this problem, as they did in the United States. If that were done, we might get somewhere. It is quite true that on the other side, they have not accomplished all that they hoped to accomplish, but they have made an effort. This resolution is directly opposed to the report brought in last year by the housing committee.
We should have a committee of the house on unemployment. Instead of debating this resolution we should appoint a committee which might get somewhere. What lias this government done for the unemployed? First, they offered the ambassadorial cure; from 1921 to 1930 the Liberal government created a great ambassadorial industry in the city of Ottawa to cure unemployment. Men were to be sent out all over the world to pacify the people on the seven seas. Second, they have offered an undersecretarial cure for unemployment. Now they are suggesting a commission cure for unemployment. There is one word that explains the whole thing, a word used on one occasion by the Right Hon. Mr. Thomas-it is all humbug. The people want to know what the government of the day proposes to do about unemployment. The onus is on the government of the day to solve this problem. The onus is on the Minister of Labour. Except when it was under the Hon. Mr. Gordon, the Department of Labour has been the most useless department in the government. This department has not protected labour, it has not protected the industrial or agricultural worker. The new deal has been sent to the supreme court and in the meantime the conditions of sweat shops and child labour, of the oil and other rings and all the rest of it are as they were before. Some married men are receiving only 87 a week. When these conditions are brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour, what does he do? He appoints a commission.
In 1927 I brought this matter to the attention of this house. At that time I quoted from a report of Senator Couzens who had been appointed by the senate of the United States to investigate unemployment in that couutry. A real inquiry was held and some of the brightest men in the United States came to Washington to give evidence. In 1927 I



Unemployment
asked the government of the day to appoint a royal commission or a committee of both houses to investigate the matter. The government replied that there was no unemployment, that the matter would have to be left to the provincial legislatures and the municipalities. On the other side they did not go as far as they could have gone, but they did make some effort to cope with the problem.
I do not know what the people are going to do. I see the hon. member for West York (Mr. Streight) in his place; I believe he will agree w'ith me when I say that many industrial workers will lose their homes on the first of May. We have asked the mortgage companies, loan insurance companies 'and banks to give assistance in this connection by lower rates but they will not do anything. Is this the proper answer to give the unemployed of this country? The provinces of Ontario and Quebec pay eighty per cent of the taxes collected by the dominion, and most of this money comes out of the industries of those provinces. Sooner or later these industries will ham to close up if they are forced to continue to pay these tremendous taxes. They are hampered still further by reduced tariffs and this amateurish interference with business. All these things are doing more to create unemployment in this country than anything I know of. The business man does not know where his position is. I know an industry in my own riding which was going to take on forty-five additional workmen, but when they saw what this parliament was doing they wrote to me and told me that they could not take on these men because of this interference with business. They have since released several of their permanent staff.
The resolution states that something is to be done to protect the natural and other resources of the country. The government that started the Beauharnois deal is about ten years too late in protecting the natural resources of Canada. This government is much too late to do anything for unemployment and for the industrial workers. The consolidated revenue fund is not going to be able to stand much longer the raids that are being made upon it. A commission of seven men is to be appointed with a retinue of secretaries, undersecretaries, engineers, and so forth. Direct contributions should be made to the larger municipalities where the great body of unemployed is to be found. Instead of handing out large subsidies and these cash votes to the provinces under the British North America Act, contributions should be made to the larger municipalities. The provinces come to the dominion government and make a deal, and instead of the municipalities getting

seventy-five or fifty per cent of the cost of relief, it is marked down from fifteen to twenty per cent.	*
I have sat in this house for nine years and during all that time this problem has been simply a political football. When the party opposite was returned with such a large majority I had hoped the government would offer some practical scheme to solve this problem, but instead they ask the house to adopt this expediency of a commission. It will not cure unemployment; it will not get one man a job. The proposal of the minister in connection with industry is nothing less than state socialism of the worst kind. Artificial burdens are to be placed on industry.
I have no doubt that the bill to be based upon this resolution will give this commission power over the law courts of the country. If a business man is ordered to do something by this commission he will have no redress in the courts. There will be no appeal from the commission -to the law courts, thus taking away the liberty of the subject. Down in Washington they have done something about unemployment. They appointed a committee in 1027 and were ready to meet the depression as we should have done years ago. I deeply regret that this motion which has been brought down in the second month of this parliament contains no practical solution for the cure of this disease. It will create more unemployment than ever. I regret to see that the municipalities are not going to be given some sort of direct help and protection. They cannot continue to do what they have to do under present conditions. This matter is a federal responsibility and should be treated as such. With the condition of affairs such as it is, with tens of thousands of men out of work, facing starvation and untold privations, suffering and even death, instead of the federal government assuming responsibility, getting things organized, and coming -to the support of the municipalities, they do nothing but write letters for relief lists. They have even written to the municipalities requesting them to count up and make lists of the number of unemployed, and that has cost the municipalities money. I am sure I do not know what good will result from the writing of such letters and the copying out of lists of unemployed for the information of the dominion government. I contend that this resolution should provide for some of the money to go direct to the larger municipalities, instead of giving it to the provinces. This is not a practical parliament if it cannot do something along that line, in face of the situation that

Unemployment
now exists-spring coming along and no prospect of work this year for the unemployed.
Last year the housing committee found that no less than $100,000,000 had been spent yearly by the federal, provincial and municipal authorities for the purpose of giving the people relief. The committee had before them witnesses including officers of the Department of Finance and the bureau of statistics, the gist of whose opinion was that about sixty or sixty-five per cent of that enormous sum could have been saved by giving it in work if a proper amount had been spent for the purpose of putting to work carpenters, bricklayers and skilled and unskilled labourers and so getting them off the dole.
The resolution and the bill which will follow it do not plead the cause of the suburban worker. Where does he come in? My hon. friends representing North York, South York and West York know what conditions prevail in those districts. There are men out of work or who will be thrown out of work on the first of May. The evening papers in the last three months have been carrying pictures depicting the state of affairs that exists there at the present time. Will these men have to wait another year for a commission to present a report? Why cannot this government follow the example of other countries, Italy, the United States and England, for instance, and come to the aid of the municipalities? Why can they not do something practical in the way of creating work for the unemployed by means of a reconstruction and building program, building municipal institutions which are badly needed, court houses, school houses, hospitals and other public buildings? Such a program could be carried out to advantage and it would relieve the unemployment situation by taking men off the dole. In the countries I have mentioned the governments have come to the help of the larger municipalities, bearing a third and in some instances half of the cost, while in other cases they have paid the labour, the municipality supplying the material.
I do not like to raise objections, but I see the industrial workers suffering, and when they come to parliament and ask for relief they receive nothing. On the bill boards in the last election all over Toronto you will find such legends as this, "Vote King and end unemployment?" Also, "Beat Bennett and bad times?" The late government did something material for the relief of industrial workers by legislation something practical for the first time since confederation.
J2739-89i
But this government is doing nothing to' relieve the unemployed. I suggest that this legislation be also sent to the Supreme Court of Canada or to that other court of appeal of this government provincial attorneys general. The minister speaks of studying various suggestions that have been submitted to him. I do not know whether he has completed his study of this question because we have not yet had a report from him. He promised to study the resolution in regard to industrial workers. Well, by the time his studies are over the unemployed will be sending for the undertaker and that will be the last of the unemployed, their sisters, their cousins and their aunts. No wonder the average man on the street is becoming disgusted with the system of government in this country-a system of the ins and the outs. That is all this motion amounts to; it is politics. We have been here a month and a half and this question has not yet been approached from any other than a political angle. I submit that we should appoint a committee of the House of Commons just as they did in England, and as I proposed ten years ago. There should be a parliamentary committee yearly to go into the whole question. The Ontario legislature appointed such a committee the other day and they have had a series of meetings with manufacturers and labourers and have urged a policy of reconstruction and housing for the purpose of getting people off the dole. I am also of the opinion that a portion of the $100,000,000 spent for relief should be utilized along these lines. "Wait for the bill" is the minister's advice. "Don't delay the resolution." Wait and see.
What are we here for? What is the purpose of the other chamber? In the time we have been sitting here, we have not yet had) a committee considering Canada's greatest problem, the problem of unemployment. The unemployed were disappointed in the first answer given by the Minister of Lkbour and they will be ten times more disappointed now. No business man will undertake to spend money in the coming season to put people to work with all this interference with business; he had better look out or he will lose his money.
This particular measure of so-called reform is one of the cheapest and worst amateur interferences with business ever proposed in a British legislature; there is nothing like it in the annals of quackery. No business man will be able to conduct business when this proposed commission gets to work. A commission of people who
Unemployment

have been party leaders throughout the country will be appointed just as was done in connection with the Canadian National, when they undertook to build branch lines to the sun, the moon and the stars. If that is the sort of commission that is proposed, then the sooner we end the farce the better for the industrial workers and the farmers of Canada, and especially for the heads of industry who are becoming sick and tired of amateur interference with business and of the artificial burdens which are being placed upon them.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Is the government proposing under this resolution to appoint another commission?


Mr. ROGERS:: No. I am quite sure the
hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) had in mind the other bill providing for the establishment of a national employment commission. He is labouring under a complete misapprehension of the facts if he suggests that in this resolution we are seeking to set up another commission.
My hon. friend from Broadview has covered considerable ground in the last few moments and has not confined himself in any respect to the terms of the resolution. Indeed, I think I may fairly say that his remarks afford an excellent illustration of the reason why It is not possible to have a very satisfactory debate until the resolution has been followed by the legislation proposed.
It might assist the committee if I answered a number of questions that have been put to me by others who have taken part in the discussion. May I refer in the first place to the question asked by the leader of the opposition respecting agricultural settlement and rehabilitation. Under previous relief acts provision has been made for relief settlement and also for farm placement, and it is proposed in the legislation which will follow this resolution to make similar provision for this means of dealing with one aspect of the unemployment problem. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) suggested, very properly I think, that the house would wish to know the relationship between the bill which will follow this resolution and the bill which was introduced a few days ago to set up a national employment commission.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to understand why the minister connects the two. Why does he connect the resolution passed a few days ago, and the bill founded upon that resolution, with the resolution and proposed bill now under consideration?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I was trying to answer
the question asked by the hon. member for

Winnipeg North Centre. He suggested that the house would like to know the relationship between the two bills.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What I had in mind was whether what is proposed in this resolution has anything to do with the other commission.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No; this resolution has
nothing at all to do directly with that. This resolution precedes legislation which will supersede the relief act of 1935. At the beginning of each year it has been found necessary to enact legislation which will enable the government to enter into agreements for the construction of relief works and for other cooperative action with the provinces or with industry as a means of dealing with the relief situation or as a means of providing additional employment. This legislation, as proposed by the resolution before the house, is simply designed to give us that means of carrying out such agreements with the provinces or with industrial corporations, as the case may be.
As I explained yesterday when the resolution was before the house, certain changes are contemplated when we compare the legislation now proposed and the relief act which expires on March 31 of this year. That is to say, we are omitting the provision in the previous relief act with respect to peace, order and good government and we are providing that all expenditures of money with respect to unemployment shall be based upon appropriations made by parliament. We are further providing that agreements entered into with the provinces or with industrial corporations, as the case may be, shall be approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
I should like to point out to the house that this resolution is simply designed for the single purpose of authorizing the governor in council to enter into agreements with the provinces to deal with relief and unemployment. Obviously there is a connection between this and the bill setting up a national employment commission, inasmuch as we propose that the national employment commission shall give specific study to certain methods of expanding employment, and we would hope that as a result of such study we would be able to enter into agreements with the provinces upon much more constructive lines than has been possible hitherto.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not proposed that any portion of the funds which this resolution has in view should be administered by the new employment commission?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think our discussion now is really going to the terms of the national

Unemployment
employment commission bill, of which no doubt my hon. friend has a copy. It is provided in that bill that the national employment commission may, under the direction of the minister, supervise the expenditure of funds for unemployment relief and may also exercise administrative functions if instructed so to do by the governor in council, but it is not the intention that the national employment commission shall of itself administer funds voted by this parliament for unemployment relief. Obviously we have to make some preparation for eventualities, and it is quite conceivable that even as a result of the investigation pursued by the commission itself it may be thought desirable at some future time to invest that commission with some administrative functions, but I think I can reassure my hon. friend with regard to the direct question he has put to me, namely that it is not the intention to have the national employment commission directly administer funds voted for unemployment relief.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it the new commission that will really be charged very largely with the determination of policy? It would seem to me that the government must have in mind some definite (policy before asking us to pass a resolution of this kind. Is the policy to be determined by the department? Is the policy to be divulged to this house, or is the permanent policy to be devised largely by this national commission?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I may say to my hon. friend at once that the bill which will follow this resolution will reveal precisely the way in which we shall work in cooperation with the provinces or with industrial undertakings in order to deal with relief or unemployment. As far as the functions of the national employment commission are concerned I think the hon. member will find in the bill itself that certain advisory functions are assigned to that commission. In the nature of things the government will hope to be advised by the national employment commission with respect to future policy. But as far as the immediate situation is concerned it has been stated already that it is the intention of the government to bring down special supplementary estimates which will provide funds to be expended in relation to unemployment and relief during the ensuing fiscal year.


Mr. PELLETIER:: The minister has answered one of the questions I was going to ask but there are two or three points upon which I am not very clear. The Prime Minister stated that the introduction of this resolution would lead to a bill being brought down in the house which we would be expected to debate and know something about.
This resolution says in part that it is to provide for certain payments out of the consolidated revenue fund. From that we must assume that some payments will be made to somebody. It also states that assistance is to be provided for agricultural settlement. Exactly how are we to determine what that means? Does it mean that the government is contemplating a back to the land scheme? If so I think we have a right to know about it so that we may be able to debate the question properly when it comes up in the house. The resolution also mentions the development of natural and other resources, and this is coupled with proposed payments out of the consolidated revenue fund. Does that mean, for example, that the government is going to make loans to prospectors and send them out to dig up our natural resources or prospect for new wealth? We have no definite idea of what is going to happen. I believe the government wishes to encourage proper debate on any bill placed before the house; therefore I think we are entitled to have some idea of what is going to happen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member has been kind enough to refer to me. Since he has spoken of the proper method of procedure, perhaps I might say that there is a proper time for everything. The time to debate a bill is when the house has the bill before it. The purpose of the resolution, as I explained a moment ago, is not to afford an opportunity to hon. members to ascertain in detail legislation that is being brought down; it is more in the nature of a warning that the measure about to be introduced will require the expenditure of public money. In the bill itself my hon. friend will find the details concerning what is proposed with respect to the expenditures. I do not think his debating ability will suffer if he waits until that moment. The opportunity for debate will be more ample then than it is now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I regret that I disagree with tlie right hon. the Prime Minister as to the purpose of a resolution such as this. The resolution is much more important than the right hon. gentleman would indicate. I felt that my memory might be at fault, so I sent to the library for the purpose of ascertaining what had been done in this house with respect to resolutions upon which bills were founded. I find that on the 5th day of December, 1912, the then Prime Minister, Mr. R. L. Borden, introduced into this house bill No. 21 to provide for the construction of three dreadnoughts and the payment of the construction costs out of the consolidated revenue of Canada to the extent of $35,000,000.
Unemployment

After he had spoken and the leader of the opposition of that day had made some observations the Speaker directed attention to the fact that this was a bill that should have been preceded by a resolution. Mr. Borden, now Sir Robert Borden, asked that the bill stand, and he gave notice at once that he would proceed with his resolution. The notice of the resolution that he gave was a notice in detail, setting out the whole of the provisions of the bill. It will be found that the resolution was in great detail, for the reason that I mentioned a while ago.
I do not propose to say more than that, in view of the fact that the hon. gentleman has said that the law officers of the crown have decided that this is ample for his purposes, because we will decide that when we see what the bill says, as to whether or not it goes beyond the terms of the resolution. But in his resolution Mr. Borden gave the entire details of the proposed bill, set them out, (a), (b), (c), (d), in order that there might be no misapprehension on the part of the committee in studying the resolution itself. He did not move the first reading of his resolution until the twelfth. He then moved first reading of the resolution, moved second reading, and when the motion was put for concurrence in the resolution Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved his amendment that all the words after the word "that'' in the resolution be struck out; the debate then proceeded for the rest of December and into the month of January. Now, what was the purpose? The purpose was first to elicit from the government particulars of the proposed measure, although they had been already indicated in the speech of Sir Robert Borden. The purpose in this instance is that this committee by questions to and answers from the government shall be in a position, when the bill comes before the house, to understand whp,t the bill means. Why? Because when the bill is before the house for second reading there can be no question and answer. No questions can be asked of the minister until it goes into committee, but before it goes into committee the principle of the bill must be made clear by the explanations made in the discussion on the resolution, not on the bill, in order that we may understand fully what we are to deal with. No one in this house who has a memory of what took place during the five years from 1930 to 1935 can fail to recall what took place as far as the then opposition was concerned. It will be recalled that on more than one occasion an amendment was moved to a resolution. A resolution is an .amendable proceeding. The great debate

that took place in the House of Commons on the occasion to which I have referred, from December 12 into January, took place upon the resolution and the amendment moved thereto by Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
I asked certain questions of the minister in charge of this resolution. I desire to have answers to those questions in order that I may be able, on the second reading of the bill, to have some appreciation of the principle which the bill is supposed to represent, because on second reading I am bound to confine my observations to the principle of the measure, not to the sections one by one. It has been held over and over again that any effort to discuss in detail the provisions of a bill on second reading is highly improper, for the reason that the details of the measure are considered when the house is in committee after second reading. The debate-mark you, I use the word debate as used in the rules of this house, not question and answer-the debate upon the principles of the measure must take place upon its second reading. How are hon. members to discuss this bill on second reading and the principles it is supposed to embody without being informed just what is meant by the words appearing in this resolution? I shall not take up the time of the committee by traversing the long detailed discussion that took place and the exact terms in which Mr. Borden gave notice of his resolution, even although he had then moved the first reading of his bill, and the observations of Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he moved his amendment to the resolution.
Now let us see what we want. I say that with respect to a measure for the relief of unemployment, we should have information as to the broad general disposition of the government on this question. They should make a clear statement of their policy, in order that we may understand the principles of the measure. How often have I sat where the right hon. gentleman now sits and listened to him fulminate against the government of the day for not having declared their policy with respect to these matters when just such a resolution was under consideration. Was it right then that there should be a declaration of policy? Is it right now? If it was right then it is right now. We have a right to ask the minister in charge of this measure just what he means when he says he proposes "to bring in a measure respecting relief for unemployment." He has no right to expect us to wait until his bill comes to the house-


Norman McLeod Rogers: May I answer the right
hon. gentleman's question now?

Unemployment


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is preferable to wait
until I finish, but if the hon. gentleman desires-


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think it is more appropriate now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman
puts it that way I will not yield; he will have to wait until I conclude. If the hon. gentleman says he desires to answer now, well and good; but when he says he considers it more appropriate that he should interrupt my speech, I have the say; let there be no doubt about that.
Let us proceed a step further. It is proposed t,o bring in a measure "respecting relief for unemployment." I hear some hon. gentlemen ask about the hon. member for Temis-couata. I noticed last year their cheers were loud and long; they do not seem to be so loud this session. The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting relief for unemployment and' assistance for agricultural settlement ...
We have a right to a declaration of policy. We have waited for it, and this house has been in session now for over six weeks. Here is a measure for consideration in the form of a resolution; we have a right to a declaration of the government's policy upon this matter. I use almost the exact words used by the Prime Minister when he was referring to similar legislation on a previous occasion.
Then we go further. " Assistance for agricultural settlement." The hon. gentleman has made some observations in respect to that but what is meant by rehabilitation? What is the policy of the government in respect to relief with regard to rehabilitation? I have asked that question civilly, but I have had no answer. Then next, "and development of natural and other resources." The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) has asked a statement of that, and it has not yet been given. We have a right to know what principle is involved in the development of natural and other resources in connection with a relief measure. I think most students of parliamentary procedure would say that when we ask for that we are making a very reasonable request. And I think it is a reasonable thing that we should expect some answer other than "carried" or " agreed to." These resolutions have sometimes been debated for days and weeks; I think the naval defence resolution dragged on for over a month, because the Christmas vacation intervened. I see one hon. gentleman before me who will recall it, although he was not then in the house.
Then we come to the next point, "and to provide for such payments out of the consolidated revenue fund as may be necessary. . . " That is a very simple matter, and the hon. gentleman has made an adequate explanation; he says it is to be charged against the consolidated revenue fund! But the charging against the consolidated revenue fund must be preceded by an estimate which will be subject to the control of this parliament when it votes supply, as when it votes supply in any other instance. So it narrows itself down simply to an expression of the policy of the government with respect to relief, what is meant by rehabilitation and these other matters to which reference has been made, and, further, what is meant by these very important words, "development of natural and other resources."
Further the hon. gentleman said last evening that it is proposed to ask the approval of the governor in council with respect to this. But more, he says it is proposed that the House of Commons shall express its approval or disapproval in regard to the various measures to be taken. The House of Commons obviously cannot do that unless all the plans are submitted to it before prorogation, or unless we do it after everything else has been done; but subsequent approval is not approval at all, it is merely ratification of what has been done by the government majority. We are entitled to a clear cut explanation with respect to what is meant by that as well as the other matters that the minister has mentioned.
I said to the minister that I did not yield to his desire to make his speech in the middle of mine. I should have been glad to do it but for the terms in which he demanded as a right that which he could have only as a privilege, with the consent of the member who was speaking, whoever he might be.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett.), in support of his view that there should be a wide discussion at this stage, has quoted from proceedings which occurred many years ago. I have a more recent precedent, which I quoted the other day and which I think ought to commend itself to the right hon. gentleman. It occurred last year during the debate on the resolution preceding the introduction of the unemployment and social insurance act. I have the exact words of my right hon. friend; they were as follows:
This resolution contemplates a hill being submitted to the chamber dealing with the matters that are mentioned in the resolution itself. Sometimes the custom has been followed of discussing upon the resolution the details of a measure founded thereupon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.

Unemployment


Norman McLeod Rogers: The right hon. gentleman continues:
Such I believe is unsound practice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am familiar with that, and I will deal with it. You need not have any trouble about that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I was quite sure my right hon. friend would not mind my directing his attention to these observations, because it did seem to me that they were most relevant. He suggested a moment ago that this was a proper time for detailed discussion and that obviously it was not on the second reading of the bill. In the observations I- have just read he said that discussion should not be on the resolution. Is not the proper occasion for discussion when the bill itself is in committee, and when every clause of it is before the house for consideration? My right hon. friend is a veteran parliamentarian. I am not. It would be presumptuous of me to take exception to an opinion expressed by him on a matter of order or procedure, but at the same time it is my responsibility to deal with this proposed legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Before doing so I took particular care to ascertain the practice followed by my right hon. friend. I have not in any way sought to avoid answering questions put to me. As a matter of fact I was seeking to do so just before the right hon. gentleman opposite stood in his place and addressed the chamber. It is quite true that I did omit to make specific reference to one matter to which he referred and to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred, namely the development of natural and other resources. May I say that the right hon. gentleman must be perfectly aware that in the past there has been no specific definition of relief works in the statutes which have enabled the dominion government to enter into agreements with the provinces. In the nature of things the dominion government must be allowed considerable latitude in determining what are relief works. I shall state definitely that when we speak of the development of natural resources we have in mind, as one profitable means of developing natural resources, the construction of roads, operating in conjunction with the provinces, which road construction will assist in the development of the great mining areas of Canada.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin):: Page Mr. Heenan.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I feel sure that when we sit down with representatives of the provinces

and seek to work out a satisfactory program of relief work we shall have no difficulty.
As my right hon. friend knows, this measure is designed for the sole purpose of giving the dominion government power to enter into agreements of this kind, and power to expend moneys voted by parliament for relief purposes. Various questions have been asked respecting the unemployment question. I should be the last person to seek to stifle a debate on unemployment. I suppose in my position I have as accurate knowledge of the situation as any hon. member, and I assure the committee that I propose on second reading of the national employment commission bill to take the opportunity to give as accurate a survey of the entire situation as is within my power. That has been my intention from the first, and there will be no restrictions upon a full discussion of the unemployment question when we reach the second reading of the national employment commission bill. There will be a further opportunity when the bill founded upon this resolution is before the chamber for second reading.
I am willing to answer any questions which at this stage may reasonably be asked, but I suggest once more that our desire in advancing the resolution is to secure distribution of the bill after its introduction, so that hon. members may have it before them and may consider it in conjunction with the national employment commission bill which has already been distributed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say a word respecting my right hon. friend's attitude towards the resolution. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) has cited one instance where my right hon. friend when leading the government directed the attention of the opposition to the fact that a resolution was simply a preliminary step in the introduction of a bill, and that the debate on the subject matter should take place only after the bill was introduced. I could cite a dozen instances where my right hon. friend pointed out exactly what has been cited in this instance.
I wish to speak more particularly with regard to his reference to the debate which took place in this chamber many years ago on the proposed contribution of dreadnoughts, at a time when the naval bill was under discussion. No example could better illustrate what I believe the committee will see as the true significance of the resolution. If it is the intention of an opposition to oppose in its entirety a measure which may be introduced, the opposition will naturally begin to oppose at the earliest possible

Unemployment
stage and exert all its powers to frustrate the introduction of the measure. That was so in the example to which my right hon. friend has referred. The Conservative gr v-ernment of the day was proposing to make a contribution of dreadnoughts to the British navy. The Liberal opposition thought that whatever was to be done by way of cooperation in the naval service should be done in a different manner, and should not be in the nature of a direct contribution. When the resolution was introduced the opposition of the day naturally began to oppose it at that stage. My right hon. friend has stated that the resolution was afterwards redrafted and details were set forth, but before making that statement he also intimated that the bill itself had been introduced, consequently all provisions therein were then familiar to the house.
My right hon. friend took exception to the Liberal opposition of the last parliament debating at great length a certain resolution which was before the house. The opposition was proceeding at that time with respect to the legislation of the government of my right hon. friend on the very lines followed by the opposition of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's day with respect to the naval bill. The bill to be based on the resolution made provision for a blank cheque. We were opposed altogether to the idea of a blank cheque, opposed from start to finish. When my right hon. friend indicated in the resolution that he intended to ask the House of Commons to give him a blank cheque, the opposition of the day put up as strong a fight as possible in the debate on the resolution itself. That was done because we were opposed to the purpose behind the resolution. Had it been an ordinary measure or one which did not involve a departure from parliamentary practice and procedure, we would in all probability have accepted it.
The right hon. gentleman waxed eloquent when asking the question as to how possibly the house is to find out the principle of a bill unless the principle is indicated on the resolution. I ask him this:	How does the
house find out the principle of all bills which are not introduced by way of resolution? Resolutions precede only a certain type of bills. He knows better than anyone else that the principle of a bill is discoverable on the reading of the bill itself.
In respect to the bill founded on this resolution, may I say that it will not be found to contain what might be termed money sections. I am not at all sure that
the bill might not have been appropriately introduced without a resolution. My right hon. friend turns to the past for support of what he has said. I have in my hand the report of a decision given by Mr. Speaker on January 16, 1912, which is as follows:
A bill which does not involve a direct expenditure of money and confers upon the government a power for the exercise of which public moneys will have to be voted by parliament is not a money bill, and no resolution is necessary as a condition precedent to its introduction.
Had the government wished to stand on the niceties and exactitudes of the situation it might have introduced the bill without first presenting a resolution. As the minister has already explained, hon. members will see when the bill itself is before them, that one of its sections makes provision that the expenses incurred thereunder are to be met out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose, and that expenditures, which grow out of agreements made under the measure, can be incurred only after the agreements themselves have been approved by parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not appear in the resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the minister gave my right hon. friend and the house that information the other day, and my right hon. friend had it before him when this afternoon he became so excited over nothing at all.
Let me read to my right hon. friend the resolution that his own government introduced when he was dealing with relief matters. Mr. Gordon, the Minister of Labour, introduced the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting relief and to provide for such payments out of the consolidated revenue fund as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of the proposed resolution.
That resolution, in my right hon. friend's day, was adequate and sufficient for the purpose of introducing a bill dealing with relief matters that went into all important particulars a thousand times further than this bill. Some of the provisions of that bill gave the government of the day the opportunity of drawing on the public treasury for any sums without any appropriation by parliament. Let me read one or two sections of the bill founded upon the resolution I have quoted:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon,-enter into agreements with any of the provinces respecting relief measures
Unemployment

therein; grant financial assistance to any province and to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited by way of loan, advance, guarantee or otherwise; and in respect of such loans, advances and guarantees, may accept such security, enter into such agreements and generally do all such acts and things as the governor in council may deem necessary and expedient in the public interest.
And also this section:
In addition to the powers conferred under the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may, when parliament is not in session, take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to maintain, within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada; and at all times take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect and maintain the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof.
Powers the like of which had never been asked of or granted by any parliament in any part of the British empire at any time! Yet a resolution much less adequate than the one that is now presented was presented by my right hon. friend's government when he was in office as sufficient and ample for the purpose which the bill was intended to serve.
I think the procedure which the government has adopted at the present time has been in every respect in keeping with parliamentary practice and procedure. May I repeat, because I think in this my right hon. friend was right at the time-the unfortunate thing about him, as those who are not familiar with him will soon find out, is that he changes his attitude from time to time and from circumstance to circumstance; he does not stay in the same place with regard to any one thing-he was right when he said that the proper method of procedure in legislating, where a bill was preceded by a resolution, was to have the real discussion on the bill itself. But then he was speaking as Prime Minister, with the responsibility of government. He was taking the line which was the right and proper one. In that particular I am prepared to follow him at this time, although not in many others.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, point
number one. The right hon. gentleman says we were always right in the past when our views in the past agree with his in the present, but we were always wrong when our views in the past did not coincide with his then views, or his views present.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where does
my right hon. friend get that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the position
which the right hon. gentleman put to the house this afternoon. I am not one of those whose opinions always remain constant. I am 
always open to reason. I am not one of those who declares that something that is right to-day may not be changed by reason of conditions to-morrow. The essence of all progress is that; the basis of all progress is that; there can be no progress without it. The static mind never progresses.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Nor the
ecstatic.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nor the ecstatic. The
right hon. gentleman is an authority on that. I know of no one who can work himself up so rapidly as the right hon. gentleman to a point that becomes an ecstasy, about any matter that appeals to him at the moment.
Point number two. He says it was not necessary for him to introduce this resolution at all, that the government might have gone forward without introducing a resolution. Answer: But you did. Therefore the resolution is before us. What is the good of saying what you might not have done when you have done it? We are considering what you did, not what you might have done. That is that.
Point number three. The resolution that was introduced in the House of Commons last year by Mr. Gordon, then Minister of Labour, and which preceded the bill based upon it, was a very vague resolution, broad and general in its terms. Why? Because it was proposed to reenact the relief aet of the preceding year, with certain changes. But when the resolution upon which these relief measures were predicated was before the house, it was very fully discussed, and that will continue, I take it, to be the practice in all parliaments when the legislation involves a departure from presently established plans or principles.
Point number four. The right hon. gentleman suggests that the debate that took place in connection with the resolution about the dreadnoughts was of the character it was because it was proposed to oppose the legislation from its inception. But the amazing feature is that when the bill was introduced by Mr. Borden, it was not Sir Wilfrid Laurier, it was the Speaker who intervened to declare, without anybody raising the point, that the bill should have been preceded by a resolution, and when the opportunity thus presented itself the then leader of the opposition, as you will find from the records, let the resolution go through practically without discussion. There was some slight discussion on the first and second readings of the resolution, but when the motion was made that the resolution be concurred in he declared then his

Unemployment
policy with respect to it, because it had been pointed out by Mr. Borden that the resolution of which he was giving notice was a resolution that was in terms the bill that he proposed to introduce as Bill No. 21.
It will be found that opposition to resolutions is not always predicated upon the assumption that the opposition proposes to controvert from its inception the position taken by the government. It rather depends upon the subject matter itself. That will be found, I think, to have been the course of debate during all the years. Resolutions sometimes are vague and general in their terms. Sometimes they are very specific. I myself encountered great difficulty on one occasion when I introduced a resolution that was thought to be not sufficiently ample when I took it to the clerk at the table, and I had to redraft it in order to meet the situation in its entirety. Where it is new legislation involving the expression of a new policy on the part of the government it has been the practice to detail in the resolution the legislation which it is proposed to enact.
The next point is the point made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) as to what was said by myself as leader of the government in connection with the practice that had grown up of having a general debate on resolutions. What I said on that occasion I still say is correct, namely, that the debate should not wander over the whole field of discussion. I pointed out, as the house will see if it will be kind enough to look up what was said in connection with this matter and on a previous occasion, that the tendency had been to discuss everything on a resolution dealing with relief matters. I will give you an illustration. The then member for Kenora-Rainy River, Mr. Heenan, was in the habit, when any resolution dealing with relief matters came before the house, to embark on a general discussion. That is not the purpose of a resolution. The purpose of a resolution, once it gets before the committee of the whole, is to enable members to ask questions and receive answers. Important legislation involving public expenditures is preceded by a resolution and being preceded by a resolution, an opportunity is afforded when the house is in committee on the resolution to ask questions and receive answers before the bill itself is before the house. There is no experienced member of parliament who does not remember that I said then that the practice which had grown up of having general debates on resolutions was unsound. I was then dealing with a resolution covering a measure to establish an employment and social insurance commission. The resolution was not vague and general in its terms; it read:
That it is expedient to introduce a hill to establish an employment and' social insurance commission-
That is one statement, that a commission is to be established. The next statement is:
-to provide for a national employment service-
No explanation could be given of that; it meant just what it said. The next statement is:
-for insurance against unemployment-
That is a clear statement. Next:
-for aid to unemployed persons-
That is another statement. And:
-and for other forms of social insurance and security, and for purposes related thereto; and to provide for such contributions as may be necessary to carry into effect the proposed legislation.
I said then, as I say now to this committee, that that statement contained a clear indication of what the measure proposed to do and that I could give no clearer exposition of the principles of the measure than were contained in the resolution itself. But I was always available, for answering questions that might be asked. The habit, however, has grown up of discussing matters outside the terms of resolutions, of going into the whole field. This was the practice of Mr. Heenan and some others who are still in the house I claimed that that was not within the general practice of the House of Commons in dealing with resolutions. From that stand1 I have not in any sense receded nor do I propose to do so. I am gratified to think that the right hon. gentleman now accepts the views which I then held. It would have been so much nicer if he had expressed his approval in those days when under the stress and strain of office a little approval would have been useful, but he now accepts that as being a sound exposition of the law and practice and procedure of parliament.
I have not receded from that position in the least. If hon. members will compare the resolution now before the committee with the one being dealt with at that time, I think they will agree that it is not unfair to ask that there should be some statement of the principle which the government proposes to adopt with respect to the relief of unemployment. That is what we ask. Is that unfair? The hon. gentleman says that he proposes to make his speech on the second reading of another bill. He knows better than I that questions cannot be asked on the second reading of a
Unemployment



193P

[Stage Direction]
Unemployment
anoe for agricultural settlement and rehabilitation anu development of natural and other resources? What are the principles governing the proposals of the government with respect to relief for unemployment and assistance for agricultural settlement and rehabilitation? 1 do not think that is unfair; it comes wholly within the proposals which 1 made to the house in days gone by; and if hon. gentlemen, now in office, are as astute and careful in following the rules of procedure as they endeavoured to compel the government then in office to be, they will see what the complaints were that they made. Let them look at those complaints; let them see what they did complain of and what information they received. They endeavoured every hour of every day to embarrass the government, and now because a simple question is asked respecting this matter we are told that we shall get the information some other time and that the sound principle is to discuss the question not now but on some other occasion.
Let me repeat to the hon. gentleman: The only occasion on which, before the bill is introduced, we can obtain general knowledge of what is involved, because it is now a money measure-whether it should have been [DOT]or not is entirely beside the question-is when the house is in committee on the resolution, and the questions we have asked are reasonable ones for the purpose of securing a declaration of policy. Just as the questions which were asked us, or rather imposed upon us in the form of long speeches in days gone by, were in my judgment an unsound and improper use of the procedure of parliament, so I say on the contrary that a simple question calling for a clear answer as a declaration of policy on the part of the government on this important matter is exactly the purpose for which we have gone into committee on the resolution. That is the reason we are in committee, and I think I have a right to ask for an answer to the question.
Norman McLeod Rogers: I am in the judgment of the committee when I say that I have not tried in any way to avoid giving any information respecting the legislation to be founded upon this resolution. The right hon. gentleman did ask me to elaborate upon the phrase "agricultural settlement and rehabilitation," and when I rose in my place to deal with questions that had been put by half a dozen members of the house, that was the first question to which I directed attention. It may be that my answer was not sufficient. If I remember correctly I told
the right hon. gentleman that under existing agreements with a number of provinces there was provision for relief settlement. I am sure he is familiar with that relief settlement scheme, and we propose to continue provision for that scheme.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Rehabilitation was the point I was emphasizing.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. Well, the word
"rehabilitation" I take it really means reestablishment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have a measure dealing with it passed in the previous parliament.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Quite so, dealing with a particular area in the western provinces. That is quite true, and I am free to admit that the use of the -word "rehabilitation" in this resolution may perhaps suggest a redundancy; it may not have been necessary. But there were two specific schemes for dealing with the unemployed: One, a relief settlement scheme, and the other, farm placement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Both now in force.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Ye$. The best schemes
of dealing with unemployment are surely those tested by experience, and I am free to say that so far as I have been able to observe the situation these two schemes at least should be continued and possibly extended. Now as to relief generally, I am quite sure my right hon. friend will agree that broadly speaking there are only three directions in which we may proceed: 1, by direct relief contributions to the provinces;
2,	by provision for relief works to be carried out in conjunction with the provinces;
3,	by some system of agricultural re-establishment, if you will, which may be carried on by this government alone or in conjunction with the provinces. I think he will agree that these are the three directions-


Richard Bedford Bennett: We thought so for five years.


Norman McLeod Rogers: "Relief works" is a term which admits of expansion or contraction as circumstances and careful study may warrant. If I may refer for a moment to a subject that has engaged the attention of the committee for some part of the time this afternoon, the formation of a national employment commission will, I believe, enable us to determine much more satisfactorily than before the type of relief works which should be undertaken, and will also enable us to develop a program which may be proceeded with or discontinued as circumstances may warrant. We are deal-
Unemployment

ing, after all, not with a static situation but with one that is constantly changing. We must as far as possible provide ourselves with the means of meeting eventualities. At the same time we are anxious to preserve parliamentary control of expenditures. I realize quite well that the leader of the opposition has taken the ground in the past that the situation was such as to call for a blank cheque, a power in the government to draw at will upon the funds of the dominion treasury to meet this situation. We propose rather to place definite sums in the special supplementary estimates under items which I think will reveal quite clearly the direction in which we propose to proceed now with relief work. The bill which will follow this resolution is, as my right hon. friend knows, designed simply to give us the power to make these expenditures for these several purposes.
I am free to say to the committee that this government has no formula by which we may quite suddenly bring about a liquidation of unemployment. I wish such a formula were discoverable; every hon. member wishes it were discoverable. We must proceed on the basis first of accurate knowledge of the unemployment situation in Canada, and I think I am entitled to say-and I refer to the point made by my hon. friend from Broadview (Mr. Church)-that in the past few years, whatever may have existed in the way of accurate statistics with regard to the unemployment situation in the municipalities, this dominion government has not felt itself under any obligation to understand the unemployment problem in terms of human values.
Mr. BE'NNETT:	What does the hon.
gentleman mean by that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I mean just this, and I ought to be very fair in making this explanation: Heretofore we have had, for example, such figures as 1,000,000 people on relief, or
1,200,000	people on relief, so many heads of families on relief, so many individuals on relief, and so forth. But the late administration did not seek as a government to obtain any information respecting, for example, the age groups of those on relief. The late administration did not endeavour to obtain information respecting the number of years spent on relief by those who were in these various categories, nor did they attempt to secure any information with regard to the occupational classification of persons on relief. When I came into the Department of Labour I naturally realized that I had a great deal to learn about unemployment and other questions, as the hon. member for Broadview

suggested a little while ago; no one could face this problem without feeling under compulsion to learn as much as possible about it. But I found that the department did not have this information and that the late government had made no attempt whatever to secure it-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not quite accurate, as I shall point out.
Mr. ROGERS 

in the terms to which I have referred. Last January a census was made of employables as against unemployables, but I am sure I am correct when I say that no attempt was made to get a break-down of the relief recipients into the various classes I have mentioned, and to my mind that is of first importance if we are to understand the problem in terms of human values and if we are to try to attack it in a scientific way. It is of great importance to know, for example, how many of those on relief have had some agricultural training. It may be that we shall be obliged to carry out far-reaching schemes of agricultural resettlement. Only yesterday in the debate on the reciprocity agreement-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not reciprocity.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Only the other day-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The trade agreement; there is nothing reciprocal in it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my right hon. friend will permit me to use my own phrase, during that debate he referred to a lack of balance between urban and agricultural population in Canada. I have it on good authority that the situation as between urban and agricultural population in certain sections of this country has been completely reversed in the last thirty years, and I also believe that if anything has stimulated that unnatural development, that disequilibrium between those engaged in primary and secondary industries in this country, it has been the trade policies that have been carried out in this dominion over a long period of years.
I am not going into that at any great length at this time; I simply say that this question of agricultural resettlement is one that obviously will have to be given serious consideration in relation to the unemployment problem. I" have no desire to take up any more of the time of the committee at this stage, but I do wish to make it clear that I have not sought in any way to avoid giving information with respect to the bill to be founded upon this resolution. Nevertheless,

Unemployment
I felt that I was within my rights in saying that the best way to secure the information which many hon. gentlemen desire was to facilitate the introduction of the bill itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say a word in regard to the resolution to which my right hon. friend referred a moment ago. He pointed out that at the beginning of the last session of the last parliament, on going into supply, I had moved an amendment to the effect that it was desirable that the government should make known its policy with respect to unemployment at as early a date as possible. The reason for moving the amendment was that in the five preceding sessions of parliament the House of Commons had been obliged to wait until practically the closing days of the session, or the days immediately preceding the Easter recess, before any opportunity was afforded to discuss the question of unemployment.
At the general election of 1930 my right hon. friend took the view that unemployment was the great problem; that it was the most important of all the problems, yet notwithstanding the fact that he was returned to power on the ground that he was going to end unemployment and to see that all persons were put back to work speedily, in the years during which my right hon. friend was in power we never had in this house any full discussion of the question of unemployment. The amendment was moved, because the government had in previous years delayed and delayed, as I have said, until the Easter recess or until the end of the session before giving us a chance to discuss the question. My amendment was intended to direct attention to that fact and to point out the necessity of the house being advised at as early a date as possible as to what was the government's policy with respect to dealing with the problem of unemployment.
May I contrast that with the attitude of the present administration. We have taken the position throughout the country and in this parliament that in the long run the cure for unemployment, and the only sure cure, is an increase in trade and what we should seek above all else is to develop trade between Canada and other countries. Holding that view, we lost no time whatever in consummating the agreement with the United States, as a first step, and in removing obstacles to trade with Japan as another step. These steps were taken immediately after we came into office. We put the trade agreement as the first item of major importance on our program, because we felt and believed, that
the sooner that agreement was enacted the better. Now we have come to the second major item on the program; which is the legislation we are introducing at this moment. This is the first opportunity we have had of so doing since the trade agreement was put through. As a matter of fact, before the bill respecting the trade agreement was given second reading in this house the Minister of Labour put through the resolution upon which was founded the bill respecting the national employment commission. The present resolution is being introduced in order that the house may have before it, at the earliest date, as complete a picture as can be given of the proposals of the government with respect to relief and unemployment. We are doing the very thing we sought in vain to have my right hon. friend do when he was in office; we are trying to get all these proposals with respect to unemployment before parliament at as early a stage in the session as may be possible.
The whole purpose in desiring to have this resolution speedily passed is that hon. members may have this bill before them when the minister proceeds with bill No. 14, which is the bill respecting the establishment of a national employment commission. In the latter bill there are clauses which can be rightly and fully understood only in the light of what will appear in the bill to be founded upon the present resolution. That is why we wish to have this resolution put through as quickly as possible.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the Prime Minister a question? In view of what he has just stated am I to understand that the commission contemplated under Bill No. 14 is going to have to do with the bill to be founded upon the resolution now before the house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Labour, speaking a moment ago, indicated to the committee that the commission would have advisory powers with respect to some of the very matters which are referred to in the resolution before the committee at the moment. It will not have advisory powers merely. It will be a body so constituted that it will be able to coordinate all activities of the classes named in this resolution from one end of the country to the other, activities as carried on not only by the dominion government but by provincial governments and municipalities. One of the weaknesses of the way in which the relief problem has been dealt with in the last five years is that in the main there have been three large spending entities, the dominion government, the provincial governments
Unemployment

and the municipalities, and there has existed between them no coordinating and supervising agency. As a result there has been no proper audit, and no end of waste. Through the measures now before the house, the government hopes to obtain complete supervision not merely over expenditures made by the federal government with respect to relief but over expenditures made by all bodies and, as well, effective coordination of all effort, in order to bring about the largest degree possible of economy and efficiency.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I do not wish to say very much at this stage of the discussion, but I should like to point out that to anyone not accustomed to the way in which we do things here who was listening to any of this debate to-day it would appear that the important problem facing this country was not unemployment but rather the question of whether there should be a discussion on the resolution preceding the bill. As I sat here it occurred to me that possibly it was a good thing for Canada that those on relief had not been listening to all this debate. I do think that what the country wants to know and what hon. members of this house would like to know is this: What is the government's policy for relief? What are they going to do about unemployment? Are they going to consider unemployment as it has been considered for the last five or six years, as an emergency for which they are going to give relief on a very niggardly scale? Is that the government's policy? I am afraid the Canadian people will not get much comfort out of the policy outlined by the Prime Minister a moment ago, hoping to overcome the incidence of unemployment by increasing trade. If that is their only policy it will be no more successful than the policy of the last government. They cannot succeed in that way. There comes to my mind the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) on February 25, last year. He pointed out at that time that the number on relief-I presume it would be at the end of December, or perhaps January-was 1,207,345. The figures for December, 1935, are 1,206,429. So there is, one may say, no difference, no diminution in the number receiving relief from the government in one way or another. The Minister of National Defence made this statement in connection with an amendment he moved, as recorded on page 1182 of Hansard of 1935:
That makes a total of 1,107,325 persons receiving direct relief under the Department of Labour, and if we add the number receiving

other than direct relief the total is swelled to the appalling and astounding figure of 1,207,345. I think, sir, this reply to the question I asked is ample justification for bringing the matter to the attention of the ministry at the present time.
Then the amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply on that date was:
This house regrets that, notwithstanding the specific promises made prior to the election of 1930, and many times since reiterated, and despite the fact that extraordinary powers to deal with unemployment have been repeatedly secured from parliament, the present administration, after nearly five years of office, has not yet submitted to parliament any defining or effective policy to deal with widespread actual unemployment or distress which continues to be Canada's most urgent national problem.	.
The opposition of last year, who are now the government, have had five years to formulate a policy in connection with unemployment, yet to-day we find the Minister of Labour saying that the government has no formula for unemployment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No formula to end unemployment, not "no formula for unemployment."


Angus MacInnis: I accept the minister's correction, but it is a correction without a difference.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Bring in your formula; you must have one.


Angus MacInnis: A formula for unemployment would be a formula to end unemployment.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Deal with the resolution.


Angus MacInnis: We are dealing with it.
The only formula the government have, if they have any, is for dealing with an emergency situation, but when a situation has existed for six years it ceases to be an emergency situation; it becomes a normal situation, and for it the government evidently have no policy whatsoever except the hope of increasing trade. But instead of trade increasing, trade is likely to decrease. I am not going into that at the present moment, but it can easily be shown that through the development of industry itself, making it possible for every country to become almost self-sustaining, trade will decrease and is decreasing.


Mr. HOWARD:: There is nothing to show
that.

Unemployment


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member for
Sherbrooke smiles, but he will not be smiling five years from now when under this policy we are in the same position as to-day, unless a war should take place, which is not unlikely.


Charles Benjamin Howard: We have heard these
statements for two hundred years.


Angus MacInnis: Present conditions did
not prevail two hundred years ago; we have entirely new conditions. As I said at the beginning, what this country is looking for is some policy to bring relief to those who have been on this dole for four or five years, to give them an opportunity to take part in the social life of the country, to give them hope and inspiration and ambition to do something worth while. There is no policy outlined in the resolution. I have read the bill for the creation of an employment commission, and I find no policy there. Possibly it is an effort to lay the groundwork, to obtain the information upon which a policy can be founded, but as far as anything we have before us at the present time is concerned, it shows that the government have no policy whatsoever in regard to unemployment except that of continuing in more or less the same fashion what has been done for the last four or five years.


Malcolm McLean: I hope this
resolution will not be long in passing, but before it passes I want to say a word in support of the policy of the government as therein outlined.


Angus MacInnis: Tell us what the policy
is.


Malcolm McLean: Yes; in a minute I will give the hon. gentleman the policy as outlined in the resolution. If my hon. friends cannot read it I will try to read it for them and explain what it means.


Angus MacInnis: Put some content into
it.


Malcolm McLean: The resolution
reads:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting relief for unemployment and assistance for agricultural settlement and rehabilitation and' development of natural and other resources-
The hon. member says "Put some content into it"; I submit that the content is right there and anyone who knows anything about the situation can realize it. For many years we have been in difficulties partly because we have not produced as much wealth as the 12739-90
country is capable of producing. My hon. friend says that the government have no policy; if the group to which my hon. friend belongs have any policy it is to put everyone into the civil service, but the Canadian people do not want that solution, which is as old as the hills. I commend this resolution to those who believe that Canada has natural resources from which to produce enough wealth to take care of all who are willing and able to take their part in the development of those resources. I do not see why anyone should have any great difficulty in understanding this.
Then, as to "assistance for agricultural settlement," surely the meaning of that is plain: it means to help people to develop wealth from the land by making it fit for production, getting it cleared and in some cases drained and bringing it into a state of cultivation so that it will produce crops suitable for man and beast. In addition to this, the resolution speaks of "rehabilitation." In both these expressions there is promise of help for those who have been the victims of what the leader of the opposition called at one time a great national calamity.


Mr. JAQUES:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is there any shortage of foodstuffs to-day?


Malcolm McLean: Ask the man who sowed his seed for six years running and reaped no harvest. Ask the man who during this current winter saw his stock of feed going down and his animals without feed.


Norman Jaques: Is there any shortage of food in the world?


Malcolm McLean: That is a question which is unanswerable. I do not think my hon. friend has been around the world taking a census. He can learn by reading the daily prints that people all over the world are dying for lack of food. Why? Because they did not produce it and were not in a position to exchange something else for it. The meaning of the words "for rehabilitation" I think is clear to all who have followed the history of this country in the last few years. The victims of that great national calamity which fell upon the people over a great area of Canada were compelled to move into areas in which they were not able to rehabilitate themselves, in which conditions were difficult and their going not always wise. The government is under at least moral and economic obligations to assist in rehabilitating these people and to give them a chance once again to earn their own living from resources under their own control. I know that to-day many

Unemployment

scores of thousands of men who were once well established, before nature interfered with their prospects, are waiting for legislation such as this. Placing this measure on the order paper has given new hope to many people who will look forward to a time when they may be rehabilitated, and when they will not suffer from a calamity brought about by weather conditions.
I find no difficulty in understanding the meaning of the expression "natural and other resources." I could not specify definitely what the other resources would be, but one does not need to be a wizard to see that at least in part the words mean the development of the great natural resources found in the land of Canada. Mines, forests, fisheries, water power and scenic resources follow. However, we recognize that land is the greatest of our resources. If the land is placed under cultivation and is allowed to produce wealth many people will find themselves in better conditions. I have no difficulty in understanding the meaning of the expression "to provide for such payments out of the consolidated revenue fund as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of the proposed legislation."
I confess I would like to see the bill, but I do suggest that the resolution is clear. It is not voluminous nor is it difficult to understand. It seeks to provide for rehabilitation, and to assist in rehabilitating many people whose fortunes in many cases have been ruined by climatic conditions. It seeks further to provide for the development of the natural resources of our lands, waters and forests, a procedure which commends itself to the good sense of the great majority of hon. members in the chamber, and citizens outside it who will be called upon to pay the bills and who will share in the benefits derived from the legislation forecast in the resolution.


Mr. MacNEIL:: Do I understand from the minister that we may expect no more generous provision for the unemployed? I would infer that this legislation contemplates merely economy in the administration of relief, rather than more effective provision than we have known in the past. I understand that in the present resolution the minister contemplates legislation which will have the effect of maintaining measures which have been in force during recent years, I refer to farm placements, the payment of direct relief, and assistance in directions already indicated. Is it not the intention of the government to break new ground almost immediately and to attempt to improve the living conditions under which the unemployed on relief now suffer?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member has
opened up a wide question and I am not at all sure that this is a proper time to enter into a discussion of it. Some time ago it was stated that special supplementary estimates will be brought down disclosing the directions in which the government proposes to expend public moneys in regard to relief and unemployment. When these estimates are presented I believe there will be no question as to the good faith of the government with respect to this entire problem. I would ask the hon. member, however, not to press me for a specific answer in advance of bringing down the estimates. I understand his great concern in this problem. I assure him we share that concern, and that we shall make every effort to deal with it on a basis not of narrow economy but rather of what is in the best interests of Canada, not only to-day but to-morrow. There is a serious danger that in connection with some of our arrangements respecting unemployment relief we may forget to-morrow because of the insistent demands of to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank the Minister of Labour for answering the questions I asked, and I congratulate the government upon having adopted the principles which governed the administration by the late government. The hon. minister has been good enough to say that under the provisions of the bill to be founded upon the resolution he proposes to adopt measures which were adopted during the last five years, and which he named, to deal with the problems of unemployment and relief. He states that he may adopt other measures to deal with unemployment, but with respect to relief he proposes to deal with the provinces as has been done heretofore, (a) by direct relief and (b) by agreement contemplating employment in public works and otherwise, which will enable the payment of money to people employed, which will thereby relieve them from the necessity of remaining on relief.
In the second place he proposes to provide for land settlement on the one hand, and farm placements on the other, as was done by the former administration, and he regards this as an important part of the program. He proposes to make direct grants to the provinces under such terms and conditions as may be found desirable. I thank him for the answers he has given, and must observe that at least they abundantly justify the action taken in previous days by the government of those days.

Unemployment
He is now beginning to realize that the problem is a little different from what it seemed to be at the time he was fighting an election, and may I further point out to him that when he states that the late government had taken no steps to ascertain what conditions were prior to the time he took office he has forgotten two things. With respect to those who might be qualified to go upon the land not only was an effort made, but it must be added that a successful effort was made to secure the numbers of those who were on relief in cities and towns, and the qualifications which would enable them to take up and successfully cultivate land. Further than that, the unemployment insurance measure was put into force. Three commissioners were appointed and were instructed to take a census, and if their efforts had not been retarded we would now have a census of the very important matters to which the hon. member now refers. The committee would have that information when considering the resolution.
I was amazed at some observations which the hon. minister, a student of history, made. He suggested that the trade policies followed in this country during the past thirty years had brought the rural population into the urban centres. He must be familiar with Morley's Life of Cobden, and with the statements made by every historical writer during the last half of the nineteenth century as to the industrial life of England bringing to the larger centres the rural population at a time when free trade was at its height, and a time when there was nothing but free trade as the fiscal policy of Great Britain. He must have read about the abandonment of the farms by the hardy yeomen of England, a condition which has been so well described so many times by historians that I shall not do more than remind the hon. member that if the policy followed in Canada in the last thirty years is in his opinion responsible for that change in industrial activity, it is also true that the country districts of England under a free trade policy were deprived of many of their population, with the result that vast areas were left uncultivated; and it has been the effort of the government in England during the last five years to remedy the condition even to the extent of paying bonuses for wheat production, and for the production of meat,-eggs, milk and other products. I mention that because it does not seem to me that it does the hon. gentleman justice to suggest that the trade policy to which he refers, followed by this country for the past fifty years by Conservative and Liberal governments alike, has had the effects which he 12739-90}
indicates, when he knows that the most striking example of all is what happened in Great Britain during the great free trade years of the nineteenth century.
There was one statement made which I cannot permit to go without joining issue and showing that it is incorrect. The leader of the government said that the legislation dealing with relief was introduced in the closing days of sessions or just before Easter, and that opportunities were not given for consideration and discussion. Just how' he could have made that statement without looking at the reoord seems to me to be somewhat difficult to understand. I sent out for the Journals of 1934, and this is the story. The resolution was put upon the order paper on Thursday, March 15, 1934. Mr. Gordon moved as is shown at page 182 of the Journals for that year:
That the house do go into committee of the whole at the next sitting of the house, to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting relief measures generally similar in terms to the Relief Act, 1933, but which also makes provision for payment of federal proportion of delayed relief accounts, if any, which may be received subsequent to the date of the expiration of said act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What date did the house open that year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will give the date it opened and the date it closed. The resolution was adopted, as shown at page 205 of the Journals of that year, on March 22, 1934, and a bill founded upon the resolution was introduced and given its first reading on the same day, March 22. The second reading of the bill was moved, as recorded on page 215 of the Journals, on March 26, 1934, and the bill was under consideration for a long time. Progress was reported on six occasions, and finally, after very long discussions had taken place, as will be remembered, about very many matters, the bill was reported as amended on April 13, 1934, as indicated on page 245 of the Journals.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What date did the house rise for Easter?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that, and to the day the bill received royal assent. The third reading was given on April 16, 1934, as shown at page 250 of the Journals, but before that was done an amendment was moved by the right hon. gentleman which, after a long discussion had taken place, was negatived by a vote of eighty-three to thirty-six, and the bill was then given its third reading on April 16. It received the royal assent,
Unemployment

as recorded on page 263 of the Journals for that year, on April 20, 1934. The house met on January 25, 1934. The bill received royal assent on April 20, 1934, and the house prorogued on July 3, 1934.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was the date of the Easter recess?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was very brief that year, it will be recalled.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was the date?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not the exact date at the moment, but I will turn it up because I want to show that the bill was law in April and the house did not rise until the third day of July. Very early in the session the resolution preceding the bill was introduced, and a long discussion took place that dealt with every phase of unemployment and everything else that might be connected with it, remotely or near. I will find out the date of the Easter recess, but my memory is that it was a short one that year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my right hon. friend will give us what happened in other years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The motion for the Easter adjournment will be found at page 203 of the Journals, March 22:
That when this house adjourns on Wednesday the 28th of March instant, it shall stand adjourned until Monday the 9th of April, 1934.
So royal assent was given on April 20, and in between there was that Easter recess.
I have also before me the Journals for 1932-33. The house met in the fall to deal with the imperial trade agreements. As a matter of fact, the unemployment resolution was introduced again that year, relatively, early in the session, and although the house met in the fall it did not prorogue until the 27th day of May, 1933. The legislation received royal assent-there was some delay in the senate in connection with the senate not being in session-on March 30, 1933, as appears at page 358 of the Journals of that year. The house considered the matter first on a motion to go into committee, as shown at page 243 of the Journals. Mr. Gordon moved:
That the house do go into committee of the whole at the next sitting of the house, to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to continue in force the provisions of the Relief Act, 1932, until the 31st of March, 1934.
That was on February 21, 1933. So the resolution was introduced early in the session, and the bill was assented to on March 30, 1932, and the house did not rise until two

months after. Therefore, I think the right hon. gentleman was mistaken with respect to the two years for which 1 v as able to get the Journals.
May I also remind the right hon. gentleman that it is a mistake to say that there was no effort made to coordinate the efforts of the various departments dealing with relief matters?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say departments; I said the work of the dominion and of the provinces and municipalities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The municipalities are the creatures of the provinces and not of the dominion, and I took the view, which I have never changed despite what the right hon. gentleman has said, that the municipalities have no direct contact with the dominion except through the province. They owe their origin and being to legislation passed by the province, and their representations to the federal government should, in my judgment, be made through the provincial power. If that be an error, I shall have to be responsible for it. But that is the view I have always taken. Therefore the provinces made their representation from time to time to the dominion with respect to the conditions of the municipalities, for their primary obligation was to deal with the creatures they had themselves created.
It will be recalled that on more than one occasion the matter was put in this form: The first organization that the individual in distress appeals to is the community in which he lives and its organization, because he relies upon his neighbour. And who is his neighbour? It is the organization, village, township or whatever it may be, that has been created with powers to deal with matters of that kind. If they find themselves unable to deal with it, they appeal to the organization, the institution, the legislature that created them, namely, the provincial legislature. They in turn make their representations to the dominion if the situation be such as to involve action by the federal authorities. That has been my view of the matter, and I still maintain that that view is consistent with the maintenance of confederation and the principles that govern and underlie federal union. Otherwise we would have a situation develop that would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to deal with.
Very early efforts were made to coordinate the activities of the provinces with the dominion so that there might be no overlapping and so that there might be economy in the expenditure of public moneys. If any hon. member will look at the figures I think he will see that costs of administration and

Unemployment
distribution in connection with relief during those five years were the minimum, a smaller percentage of cost for administration than was the case with the disbursement and distribution of any such sum of money that I know of in Canada. The late Senator Robertson, who really gave his life for this country, went west and east and saw all the provincial authorities for the purpose of endeavouring to coordinate the activities of the provincial and dominion authorities. There were great difficulties because some one or two provinces did not feel that they needed anything other than assistance or grants in aid to enable them to carry on if work were provided by public undertakings, and this provided in connection with railway work and matters of that kind.
There then came a later period when we asked the provinces to set up commissions because any effort to set up a dominion commission, in view of what was said to us and with which I shall deal when the measure is before the house, involved a sacrifice of what the provinces conceived to be their sovereignty. We dealt with the matter by asking them to set up commissions with which we could deal. Some did and some did not. Some commissions were highly effective while some were not very effective. With respect to the expenditure of public moneys I desire to say that we insisted upon three checks. I know of no other case in which the same effort has been made to ensure that the dominion should not be made the victim of exploitation. First, the account was certified by the municipality. Second, it was certified by the provinces. Third, before a single dollar was paid a preaudit certificate was signed with the initials of two auditors in the auditor general's department. If there were any case in which there had been either overpayment or a deliberate effort to take money that was not properly due, the dominion was in the position of being able to look to the provinces to reimburse any such loss that might occur. I do' not know of any case in which there were greater safeguards. I felt that we had safeguarded the public interests as completely as it was possible to safeguard them.
As I say, there was a pre-audit in the auditor general's department bearing the initials of two of his staff before a cheque was issued. That in turn was done only if the province had given its certificate over a responsible signature. That in turn was given only if the municipality or body concerned had given its certificate. If these certificates certified to what might be inaccurate or what might be an overcharge, the dominion was then in a position to recover by any steps
that it might think desirable any money thus overpaid. In one case where we discovered that such an attempt had been made we did recover an amount and the treasury was reimbursed to that extent. Other cases were brought to the attention of the federal authorities by the provinces where recourse had been had to improper methods by some of those on relief. It will be recalled that the provinces, through their attorneys general, took appropriate criminal proceedings to endeavour to prevent a recurrence of such incidents.
I think that is a record which we need not blush to name and the highest vindication that could be given was given this afternoon by the Minister of Labour. When the resolution was introduced in the days that are past; when it was in committee, not once, not twice, not thrice, but I think half a dozen times before it was finally reported, we yielded to the opinions expressed by the right hon. gentleman and placed in the resolution itself a maximum amount that could be utilized for certain relief purposes during the fiscal year. We also provided other safeguards that the right hon. gentleman suggested. We did that in the hope that it would carry the unanimous judgment of the house, but unfortunately it did not. The previsions with respect to peace, order and good government were limited so that they could be applied only when the house was not in session. I have but little doubt that at least one resolution now upon the order paper could have been dealt with under the relief act had it not been delayed until after the house was in session. But that is an entirely different matter which will be discussed at another time.
I think in his declaration as to what the policy of the government will be, the right hon. gentleman has cleared up many misapprehensions that might have arisen. I was certainly thinking that rehabilitation had something to do with the legislation of last session. However, he has made that abundantly clear and has given an explanation of the proposals he has in mind. I think he has made abundantly clear what the policies of the government will be. I compare, the demands that were made upon the government of the day during the last terrible days through which we have passed with the moderation with which we have pursued our inquiries, and I am amazed at the difficulties then present in the minds of those whose function it was then to criticize but whose function is now to govern.
Unemployment


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want to delay matters, but when the right hon. gentleman congratulates the government upon following his policies I must point out to him that in two very important particulars we are doing nothing of the kind. In the first place, in the bill to be founded upon this resolution, there is nothing which asks the house to give a blank cheque to the government. In the second place there is nothing in the legislation which asks for blanket authority to enable the government to legislate when parliament is not in session with respect to peace, order and good government. In these respects our legislation is as different from that of hon. gentlemen opposite as day is from night.


Abraham Albert Heaps: As the Prime Minister has just remarked, it may be true that in these essentials this legislation is not similar to what we had in this nouse in previous years, but in effect it will have to do what is done by the legislation dealing with unemployment relief passed in previous years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point out to my hon. friend that if he will look up the record he will find that at no time during the last five years did we object to measures of the class that are enumerated. We never opposed the granting of relief; we never opposed any settlement scheme and we never opposed rehabilitation or other matters of that kind. What we did oppose was giving the then government a blank cheque and blanket authority to legislate under peace, order and good government.


Mr. McIYOR:: I am not very much concerned with great orations or long speeches, neither am I concerned with what the government did last year, but I am concerned with the fact that we have before us a resolution which I think it is our duty to pass. I believe it is a step in the right direction. If the Minister of Labour had waited any considerable time to present the bill, I would have criticized the government, at least in caucus. I think this resolution should be passed and the bill brought down and carried through so that men may be put to work on the great natural resources which are beckoning them on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This bill does not come into force until the first of April, the end of the present fiscal year. Let me say a word with regard to the terrible relief act with its blank cheque feature, which has been the sheet anchor of the present government since the 23rd day of October. That legislation 
which would destroy this country if it were enacted and followed is the legislation upon which this government has acted almost every day since October 23, 1935.


Mr. DUNNING:: That is the only existing authority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Parliament has been in session for the last seven or eight weeks. Did the government pass legislation to replace that act? Did they pass such legislation as an emergency measure, as they could have done within the first ten days? No; they used the peace, order and good government provisions-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes; it was the only support they had for some of their sanctions.


Charles Avery Dunning: Sanctions? What does he mean?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Finance
says, "What does he mean?"


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman had better revise that question; he is expected to know. Appointments have been made, and important charges upon the public revenue have been made; one was made yesterday. It appears in the votes and proceedings and is wholly inadequate, because it does not show that Captain Talbot's appointment is to be made retroactive at $350 a month. It is under that section that this has been done.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As from the time he commenced work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; it appears now that he is to be given a job to help clean up the camps, but it turns out that he has been working since February and his salary is to be retroactive from that date. And so with the others. This legislation was threatening the foundations of the British constitution, but it has not been considered important enough to repeal it during the first three weeks of the session, indeed during the first fortnight if the government had wished to repeal it and to substitute something else for it. They could have stricken out the words "peace, order and good government," but they did not do so; they accepted the legislation and have used it and will use it until the 31st of March. And now they condemn the blank cheque. What is the difference between the blank cheque and making the fund against which you draw so large that you cannot exhaust it? The difference is precisely that which in-

Unemployment
fluenced the late government in this regard; it is this, that with the blank cheque you do not hold up the lollipop for everyone to have a turn at it. Hon. gentlemen will find what it means. We had our experience with the 820,000,000 and we knew what it meant. With the so-called blank cheque, surrounded by all the safeguards which we could devise, there was no opportunity of holding up a prize for everyone to make a grab at. It may be of course that the provinces axe better trained through Liberal instrumentalities; it may be that the method to be pursued will be that pursued by the favourite premier, namely, to repudiate and then make a new bargain on the ground that you can always make a better bargain with someone whose contract you have repudiated. It may be that that will lead to some more peaceful arrangement with respect to the lollipop.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When I made a reference to previous resolutions I was quite aware that the present Prime Minister and the Liberal party were very much opposed to blank cheque legislation as well as to the peace, order and good government sections which were incorporated in resolutions similar to this. I was also opposed to that blank cheque legislation just as I was opposed to the peace, order and good government clause in it. But, after all, the main consideration in a resolution of this kind is what it will accomplish for the unemployed in Canada. The average unemployed person in this country is not much concerned about the blank cheque; he is not concerned with technical questions as to whether it is in order or out of order; he is concerned with what is going to be done to improve his condition. So far we have not had anything concrete from the government to indicate their real intentions. If I remember rightly, when the present opposition was in office a few years ago and brought in a resolution of this kind we discussed it a long time, for days-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Abraham Albert Heaps: -in the resolution stage, and we tried to obtain from the government at that time all the information we could possibly secure as to what their intentions were in dealing with the problem of unemployment. With all due respect to the present government, I submit that this resolution is rather different from the one which we discussed prior to the introduction of the bill with respect to the employment commission. One was dealing with a commission to create employment and the other deals with something, either temporary or permanent, which is to be done for the unemployed
by way of relief or rehabilitation. So far we have not had any inkling from the government as to what their real intentions are. I am anxious to know what they intend to do for the unemployed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wait until the bill
is discussed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Someone says, "Wait until
the bill is discussed." We have already allowed the resolution stage of one bill to pass and the bill has had its first reading. When the bill is discussed in committee we shall be told that a commission will be set up to obtain data. A perusal of the bill will indicate that.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


The CHAIRMAN (Sir Eugene Fiset):: Shall the resolution carry?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I was on my feet at six o'clock, and I must apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, because I did not know to what resolution you had reference when you asked if the resolution was carried. I was trying to obtain from the government some definite idea as to what its policy really is in dealing with the unemployment situation. I had also referred to the fact that the Prime Minister was quite correct when he stated that this resolution was to some extent different from resolutions introduced in this house during the last few years.
There is an evident desire on the part of the government to hurry this resolution through the committee in order that we may have some idea as to what is contained in the bill. During the dinner recess I did not have much time to look up the records in order to see what the present government did when they were in opposition, but I did have time to look up the records for 1933. I found that in that session, when the then government had a similar resolution on the order paper, it took six successive days of debate by the then opposition before they allowed the resolution to pass. The opposition of that time insisted that the government declare its policy when the resolution was before the committee, and I do not think we should expect a change of front from the government just because they now happen to be sitting on the opposite side of the house. I should think what was good in
Unemployment

1933 would be equally good in 1936. A great many people in the Dominion of Canada are vitally interested in what the policy of the government really is in regard to unemployment. I am not speaking only of the unemployed, of whom there are vast numbers in this county, and in whose numbers there has been very little diminution in the past six months; I am referring also to the fact that at the present time there is in session in this city a conference of mayors representing nearly all the large urban centres of this dominion. They are vitally interested in this question; they are vitally interested in [DOT] this very resolution now before the committee, and they are interested from more than one point of view. They find that the burden of unemployment is getting beyond the capacity of municipal bodies to cope with.
I do not know whether the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) is prepared to-night to make any statement of policy as to the intention of the government in regard to the relationship of municipalities to this question of unemployment, but I know that would be interesting.
I am disappointed because the government has not disclosed its policy before this time.
I feel that a new government coming into power, with the majority the present administration have, practically capable of passing any legislation they wish in this house, should have come before parliament with a definite, settled policy, not merely in regard to the way in which they are going to provide employment but also in regard to the question of relief. During the course of this debate it has been claimed that the employment commission which is to be set up will attempt to provide employment. It has been claimed also that the government will attempt to expand the trade of this country and thereby absorb large numbers into the ranks of the employed. But even if our trade goes back to the level of the year 1929, which is probably expecting a little too much, we shall still have vast numbers of men and women out of work, who will have to be cared for by the state in some way or another. In other words we must have something in the nature of a permanent, relief policy or a permanent policy of providing employment.
I do wish the Minister of Labour could give this committee a little more information as to what the government has in mind than he has been able to give so far. We allowed the resolution that came up last week to pass without discussion because we wanted to see the bill. Now we have that bill before us,
'Mr. Heaps.]
and the government cannot entirely divorce the discussion of this resolution from that bill dealing with the employment commission. I want to ask the Minister of Labour if he is prepared to give this committee a little more information, first, with regard to the relief policy of the government and, second, in relation to the policy it may have in contemplation in regard to finding employment for those people who are out of work at the present time. I would also ask the minister, when replying to these questions, to give the committee the latest statistics as to the number of men, women and children on relief and also the estimated number of men and women who are out of work at the present time. Then, if I am not asking too much information from the minister, I should like to know whether he can tell us if the increased grant given by the federal government to the provincial authorities has been passed on in its entirety to the municipalities, in all cases.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sorry that I was not in the chamber during the first part of the address delivered by my hon. friend this evening in continuation of his remarks before six o'clock. As I have already indicated, it is my intention to go fully into the unemployment situation on the second reading of the bill to establish a national employment commission. My hon. friend, however, has asked a specific question with respect to the latest available figures of those now on relief. I have that information at hand and I shall be very glad indeed to give it to the hon. gentleman. I proposed to do so in more detail when the national employment commission bill was before the house. These are the figures for the month of February, 1936, as to those on direct relief:
Heads of families	 243,003
Dependents on heads of families.. 786,679 Individual cases		51,149
Total	 1,080,831
That is the number of those receiving direct unemployment relief. In our own statistics we make a distinction between those receiving relief through the provinces and municipalities arising out of industrial unemployment and those receiving relief in the dried-out areas. I come now, therefore, to those who are receiving relief in the dried-out areas. The figures for this category are as follows:
Heads of families	 31,185
Dependents on heads of families.. .. 124,089 Individual cases	 1,670
Total	 156,944

Unemployment
In addition there are a number of other classifications to which I shall now refer.
Homeless persons eared for in federally operated camps and by
western provinces	 31,911
Number eared for by farm placement plan	 14,169
Number given relief work on wage
basis not	including dependents. .	7,982
Those under the relief settlement
plan	 18,586
Grand total of all those receiving relief in the several categories mentioned	 1,310,423
For purposes of comparison I might say that for this month last year the grand total was 1,431,093.
My hon. friend also put another question with respect to contributions made by the dominion government to the provinces. Let me say at once, in case there should be any misunderstanding respecting our attitude towards this problem, that one of the first acts of this government on assuming office was to summon a dominion-provincial conference to deal, among other questions, with that of unemployment and relief. A special committee was set up to deal with that question, which held sessions during the entire period of the conference. As a result of the deliberations of that committee certain resolutions were passed, favouring, among other proposals, the setting up of a national employment commission.
It was also brought to the attention of the government that during the winter months there would be extraordinary pressure upon the municipalities of this country, which were obliged to care for relief. After very careful consideration of the entire problem the government reached the conclusion that it would be wise during the winter months to increase the existing grants in aid of the provinces by seventy-five per cent. That was done. As to the precise measure of relief afforded to the municipalities under this policy I may say to my hon. friend that in the case of most of the provinces the increase by seventy-five per cent of the grant in aid- went forward to the municipalities, but it was not possible for the dominion government to insist that any precise proportion of that increased grant in aid should be paid to the municipalities. My hon. friend doubtless is aware that in some provinces some municipalities which are already in default are receiving one hundred per cent relief from the province, including of course the amount paid to the province by the dominion. But it was not felt to be desirable that the dominion should insist that for instance fifty per cent, or the entire seventy-five per cent increase in the grant
in aid should be passed on to the municipalities. In the order in council we indicated that it was our desire that the provinces should give due consideration to the requirements of the municipalities, and in the case of most of the provinces as I have said we have reason to believe that every consideration was so given to the needs of the municipalities.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister gave a comparison of the figures for 1935 and 1936. Could he tell us how the figures for 1935 compare with 1936 in respect of the people on direct relief outside the dried-out areas?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I can give the comparative
figures for February,	1935, and	February,
1936:		
	February	
	1935	1936
Heads of families	on	
direct relief		. . 240.051	243,003
Dependents on heads	of	
families	. . 849,652	786,679Individual cases.. ..	.. 47,137	51,149Total of these categories. 1,136,840	1,080,831
I pass the next category dealing with those in the dried-out area, and come to the other classifications:
February
Homeless persons cared for in federally operated camps and
by western provinces	
Number cared for by farm
placement plan	
Number given relief work on wage basis, not including
dependents	_	
Those under the relief settlement plan	
34,748
12,009
51,055
18,229
31,911
14,169
7,982
18,586
I have already given the comparative figures of the grand total of relief recipients in February, 1935, and February, 1936.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rogers thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 19, to assist in the relief of unemployment, the promoting of agricultural settlement and rehabilitation, and in the development, conservation and improvement of certain natural and other resources.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Marine) moved the second reading of Bill No. 17, respecting the national harbours board.
1«2	COMMONS
National Harbours Board-Mr. Howe
Mr. SPEAKER:: Shall the motion carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. gentleman is going to say something about it.


Mr. HOWE:: Mr. Speaker, in an explanation given on the first reading of this bill I think I covered its subject matter thoroughly. Those hon. gentlemen who have been in parliament previously are, I think, fully aware of the conditions that have been encountered in the administration of our seven national harbours. The purpose of this bill is to bring control of expenditures on these harbours under the authority of parliament, and to make the accounting subject to the comptroller of the treasury and to audit by the auditor general. The purpose also is to make the management of the ports more efficient. It has been found in practice that administration by local boards has not worked out to the advantage either of the port or of the Dominion of Canada. The experience has been that whereas the intention was that these local boards should protect the interests of the dominion government, the administration has often had the opposite result; that is, on many occasions the boards have actually forced the government into unwise expenditures by promoting local sentiment in the direction of a drive on the treasury for uneconomic construction.
Another weak link in the system as found by experience is that between the local board and the Minister of Marine who was supposed to control the expenditure. The total staff at Ottawa which has had to act as contact with the harbour boards has been one officer known as the supervisor of harbour boards, and his entire staff has consisted of one clerk and two stenographers. The result has been that there has been a delay in obtaining approval of recommendations coming from ports. The delay has not been the fault of the minister, but is due to the difficulty he experienced in getting accurate information which would permit him to decide on questions submitted to him.
In the new bill we propose to strengthen that link by setting up a board of experts at Ottawa. At the present time we have three commissioners, the first of whom is an expert in finance; the second, an expert in engineering, and the third, who acts as chairman, a civil servant of long experience who knows the background of work at the harbours, and who is capable of dealing with the personnel and the business side of harbour operations. In addition to that, one or two business experts and two or three expert 
engineers versed in the service will be available to advise the board in matters affecting the various harbours.
It is not the intention to operate strictly as a board. The thought is more that each phase of harbour engineering will be referred to the member of the board expert in the matter, and that an individual will really be administering a certain phase of harbour work. This, I believe, is a desirable feature in that it avoids delay at Ottawa, or delays brought about by red tape in this city. Each port will be administered by a port superintendent, who will be a man of experience in the administration of harbour work and one who is highly respected in his community. It is hoped and believed that the port superintendent will have, with business men using the port, the same local contact as obtained with the local board,. By having a trained administrator many objectionable features of port administration under local boards consisting of men without previous experience in port work will be eliminated.
Another very important feature is in connection with the engineering -work at various ports. Works often running into millions of dollars have been carried out by small local staffs who had not a back-ground of experience which would enable them to handle work of that magnitude. By centralizing capital expenditures at Ottawa we shall be able to bring to bear upon these problems the best ability in our civil service, an ability which, I believe, is equal to that brought to bear upon any port problem anywhere. We can also build up a background of experience in -port problems. At the present time problems solved at Vancouver do not help in the solution of similar problems at Halifax or Saint John. By the centralization of the work those in charge of port engineering in Canada will have a background of experience from all parts of the dominion, which will result in a considerable improvement in port engineering.
Another difficulty has arisen through the various methods of accounting which apply. One thing we find in going over the accounts of the various harbours is that in many cases work which is purely of a maintenance variety has been charged up to capital account, and loans have been made against that class of work. In other cases we find that interest on the debt has been entirely disregarded. In every instance methods of accounting are totally different in one port from those in other ports. The books of various harbour boards indicate a capital debt of practically

National Harbours Board-
-Mr. Howe
$200,000,000, but on analysis we find that nearly $25,000,000 of this is capitalized deficits, and that actual expenditures to-day amount to about $176,000,000.
I have before me a brief statement which has been prepared by the accounting expert of the harbour board, and which I shall place on Hansard. It is as follows:
Property Assets and Debts of Harbour Commissioners as at December 31, 1935
Halifax	
Saint John	
Quebec	
Chicoutimi	
Three Rivers	
Montreal	
Montreal (Jacques Cartier Bridge).. .
Vancouver	
Vancouver (Second Narrows Bridge)..
Total	
Property assets	To government	Debt To public	To banks$ 12,171,923	(principal) $ 9,000,714	$ 2,664,338	$1,022,71220,305,687	13,814,795	3,301,346	22,12426,818,897	26,293,247	[DOT] 800,000	508,8283,805,599	3,538,600	257,000	34.0006,845,764	2,782,000	461,400	645,00063,316.164	58,593,000	18,649,078	2,503,675	19,000,000	500,00023,744,403	23,165,829	1,029,496	*976,712$176,687,011	$139,691,860	$26,484,084	$3,709,376
* In addition, there is due the commission for advances and interest, $73,214.
Then I have a further table showing revenues and expenditures for 1935, which is as
follows:
Harbour Commissions-Revenues and Expenditures, 1935
Revenue	Expenditure Operating and interest to public	Surplus after interest to public	Interest due government	Deficit after interest due government$ 500,936	$ 605,965	$ 105,029*	$ 444,440	$ 549,469
322,955	373,332	50,377*	661,032	711,409
566,422	824,010	257,588*	1,009.613	1,267,201Chicoutimi. .	
13,328	30,251	16,923*	172,796	189,719
99,847	86.216	13,631	135,000	121,369Montreal.. Montreal	(Jacques	
4,041,831 Cartier	2,400,587	1,641,244	2,523,954	882,710
348,472	1,145,614	797,142*	108,661	905,803Vancouver.. Vancouver	(Second	
1,565,297 Narrows	754,393	810,904	1,152,634	341,730Bridge) .	
113,169	127,213	14,044*	14,044Total..	$7,572,257	$6,347,581	$1,224,676	$6,208,130	$4,983,454
* Deficit.
N.B,-No provision for general depreciation is made in the expenditure figures shown.
It should be remembered that this is the result, without allowing for general depreciation, or setting up a reserve or sinking fund for the depletion of assets. It is clear that, after making reasonable provision for depreciation, there is nothing to apply on the government's investment of almost $140,000,-
000.	While the value of the port cannot be gauged solely on financial returns, these figures are sufficient to indicate that the present position is anything but satisfactory from the viewpoint of the taxpayers of Canada. I have placed on record tihe table showing the property assets and debts of harbour commissioners as at December 31, 1935.


Mr. WHITE:: In the several ports?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, in each of the several
ports. I may add that the financing of the
ports ha3 been by loans usually voted in blocks of from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000, which were to be expended for capital purposes, by authority of orders in council. I may say that parliament may have felt that in loaning a port $5,000,000 we would at least know that the total expenditure would not exceed $5,000,000. Unfortunately, however, ports found some years ago that they had credit at the banks, and all hon. members know that expenditures have been made from bank borrowings. The first notice Ottawa had in some cases was when the bank called up asking who would pay the interest on the loan. In other words I think it may be fairly said that the financing of these ports has got entirely out of hand.
Out of $176,687,011 of borrowings I believe an appraisal of the assets would show that a
1414	COMMONS
National Harbours Board-Mr. Cahan
good deal of the money has not found its way into useful public works. I believe the passage of the bill will do a great deal towards correcting the situation, and I suggest that the bill is a most necessary and important one.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, as to the general policy of this bill I do not think there will be found at the present time very grave differences of opinion. These seven harbours are to a large extent the expression of the local interest, energy, enterprise and civic pride of the cities in which they are established, and a great deal of the success in their operation in the past has been due to the efforts of the local merchants and shipping interests of these several ports.
That there should be some change in the accounting methods I do not think anyone can doubt, and the providing of a new system of accounting is certainly commendable. But in reading this bill it seems to me that those who drafted it have not taken into full consideration the vast extent and character of the interests with which they are dealing. We find that by this bill some forty-five statutes of this parliament are repealed, and a new board is established to take over the work of the seven existing boards. But if the minister-shall I call him the Minister of Transport?-who has charge of this bill (Mr. Howe) had very considerable dealings with a harbour such as that of the city of Montreal, he would, I think, in drafting the bill set out a clear definition of the area and extent of each of these harbours.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I say to my hon. friend that we attempted to do that, and we found there was no clear record of what the extent was. We hope to determine that later.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is where I think the hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken. There is in respect of Montreal a clear description recorded by statute of the area of that harbour, and that, whether it is adequate or not, should be inserted in this bill or in a schedule to the bill, so that from now and for the future the public and those who are interested will know the area, extent and boundaries of each of the harbours which are placed under the new board. There is no difficulty in that respect, for there are records which are available to the hon. gentleman, and a competent draftsman could provide in at least two or three days schedules showing the area and extent of each of these harbours.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will allow me to interrupt him-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We are not in committee. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me to state my case, and I am stating it now in order that he may have ample time to consider it even after the report appears in Hansard, because I do not think this bill in its present form can pass the committee without very serious amendments to its provisions.
The area and extent of each of these harbours having first, then, been ascertained and established by the bill as the basis of the operations of this new board in each of these seven harbours, there are two or three other problems that we should proceed to consider.
First, it is the intent of this bill undoubtely to vest in the crown in the right of the dominion government all the properties appertaining to each of these seven harbours, and I understand that the new board to be constituted under this bill is to have control and direction of the operation and management of each of these several harbours. Moreover, the bill states that this board shall to a certain extent be the agent of the government of Canada. If cases of tort, claims for damage and wrong, and actions for breach of contract arise against the board, how will they be brought against this new board? Does it assume all responsibility for contracts made by it as the board of the Canadian National Railways is compelled to do, or as the board of the steamship company controlling the Canadian National Steamships is bound to do? Or will such actions for damages or for an accounting or for the payment of indebtedness be brought against the crown under a petition of right? That certainly is a very important question which should be considered, and I wonder whether the legal advisers of the hon. gentleman have fully considered it.
I do not understand that this board is one similar to that of the Canadian National Steamships. I understand that all this property is not to be vested in the board; that all of it is to be vested in the crown in the right of the government of Canada, and I should like to know and I think it is time now that we should know who is to assume responsibility for the actions for indebtedness incurred from time to time by this board.
There is another provision that I will mention, and I am calling attention to it because there is no principle in this bill outside the general provisions which I will deal with generally. This bill provides that the members of this board shall be a law unto themselves. They make bylaws, bylaws affecting all the commercial interests of a great port

National Harbours Board-Mr. Cahan
such as Montreal. Those bylaws are to be enforced without being published in the Canada Gazette, without any publicity really being given to them, without the merchants and ship owners and dealers of a great city having due notice of them. They remain in force until such time as the governor in council may decide to nullify one or more of them. Now, that is not a proper procedure in a case such as this, and I suggest that on reflection the hon. gentleman and his associates will see the importance, if the bylaws are to be framed by this board subject to the approval of the minister, of having them reported to the governor in council, confirmed by the governor in council and published in the Canada Gazette so that all interested may have full notice of their purport and intent before liabilities are incurred under them. If that suggestion is to be carried into effect, it will imply very considerable amendments to a number of the provisions of this bill.
This board is not only a board of management; it is an operating board. In the city of Montreal, with which I am more or less familiar, it must deal with large shipping companies, with the two great railway corporations and with a large clientele of merchants outside these categories. Are there sufficient and adequate provisions in this bill to authorize such operations as will be necessary to an operating board, a board that is carrying on vast business enterprises in each of these seven cities from the Atlantic to the Pacific? I doubt this very much indeed.
This bill provides that the limits of the harbours shall be as at present constituted by some forty-five federal acts now in force. This Statute repeals every one of these forty-five acts on the day on which it is proclaimed. Every person who is interested or who has conflicting rights will have to go back and study eveiy one of these forty-five statutes, or as many of them as refer to a particular harbour. The rights and interests of private parties involved in a bill such as this are very extensive and of varied categories. If the hon. gentleman had practised law in the city of Halifax for twenty-five years he would have ascertained that by actual experience.
Starting out with the fact that there should be a clear definition of the areas of these ports, we find another provision whereby the extending of the limits of the harbours may be done by the board of its own action. That is contrary to every reasonable provision. Section 9 provides:
The board may, with the approval of the governor in council, establish at any time a limit in the waters of any harbour under its jurisdiction -
There is another provision somewhere that the limits of the harbour itself may be extended by a decree of the board. The limits of the harbours are defined by statute and their future extensions should be also defined by statute. Provision should be made in 'this bill for such extensions, either by statute or by expropriations of property. The extension of the limits by statute should precede the expropriation of property for that purpose.
With the possible exception of the bylaws dealing with the internal management of the board and the fixing of the duties of its employees, I think that every bylaw affecting public interests should be confirmed by order in council and published in the Canada Gazette before going into effect. In connection with rates and tolls, section 15 provides that the board may levy such rates and tolls as are fixed by its bylaws and may, with the approval of the minister, commute any rates or tolls so fixed. I think these rates and tolls should be recommended by the board, approved by the minister and put into force by order in council after being published in the Canada Gazette. Every member of the public who is interested should be able to go to some official document, which in itself is evidence of its contents, and therein ascertain exactly to what rates and tolls he is subject. No ship can obtain clearance from any of these ports until it has paid all the rates and tolls which have been prescribed by the board with the approval of the minister. I suggest that in a matter of such prime importance there should be no doubt at any time as to what are the rates and tolls in full force and effect.
I had not intended to refer to the several sections, bu't I do wish to direct attention to some of the provisions in this bill which I think should receive consideration before it is finally considered by a committee of the whole house. A matter so intricate and so important as this cannot be dealt with by a minister in committee without due time for reflection. Therefore I am suggesting that these matters should be considered and I trust the minister will find it possible to make some amendments to his own bill to meet these reasonable suggestions and criticisms.
Section 25 provides:
The board may allocate any portion of its revenues, after payment of the expenses of administration, management and control, to a reserve fund for the replacement o,f fixed assets or of plant or of equipment or for the retirement of debt or for any other purpose.
Should the board have such authority without the approval of the governor in council or the minister? Section 24 pro-
1416	COMMONS
National Harbours Board-Mr. Cahan
vides that once a trust account is set up the Minister of Finance may make disbursements from it on the requisition of the board or its authorized officers for certain purposes. As nearly as I can ascertain, the Minister of Finance may make these payments without approval of the government. He is not restricted to the conditions of The Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, nor is he restricted to any other condition; he acts on his own discretion and every other act dealing with the disbursement of public funds-these are public funds

may be disregarded as having no application.
When once money is voted for these several harbour boards I find that, according to section 27, the Minister of Finance may from time to time transfer to the credit of the trust account such moneys as are appropriated by parliament for the purposes of the act. Then, if I read this bill correctly, the control and disposition of the fund by the Minister of Finance is solely in his discretion, and every other act governing the payment of funds from consolidated revenue account is disregarded.
According to section 28 I find that the Minister of Finance-
-may make advances to the hoard out of any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund for working capital purposes of an aggregate amount at any time outstanding not exceeding one million dollars. Such advances shall be repaid within two months after the close of each fiscal year.
I suggest to the minister that he should make it clear whether the aggregate which may not be exceeded at any one time is one million dollars or whether, so long as the advance is confined to one million dollars, it may be made once each month in the year, or twelve million dollars in all. I think that clause needs clarification and redrafting.
The vesting clause, section 37, seems to be peculiarly drawn, if confusion is to be avoided. It reads:
The corporations and the board are hereby declared to be amalgamated and to form one corporation under the name of the "National Harbours Board" which shall possess and be vested with all the works and undertakings and all other the powers, rights, privileges, franchises, assets, effects and properties, real, personal and mixed, belonging to, possessed by, or vested in each of the corporations at or before the coming into force of this act, or to which they, or any of them, may be or become entitled-
And so forth. I should like the minister to consider, before this bill is finally put before the committee, how that section vesting all these undertakings and property in the national harbours board can be made consistent with the fact that by other sections all

this property is vested in the crown in the right of the government of Canada. I think there are inconsistencies which show that this bill has been drafted very hurriedly and without due regard to the magnitude of the undertaking of which a basis is now being laid and without due regard to the multifarious activities of this board in its dealings as an operating body with the commercial public, the railways, steamships and others.
I confess that I have perhaps gone beyond the rule in dealing with these particulars, but I do think, now that the government is establishing, probably for all time, the new bases for these operations in order to achieve legitimate and proper ends, the legislation providing these bases and providing for these complex and multifarious operations should be drafted in the clearest possible language, because the board will be coming into contact not only with our own domestic public and our own commercial corporations, but with every foreign steamship company that operates in these several harbours.


Mr. ERNEST BERTRAND (Laurier):: As one of the members from Montreal I feel it my duty to take part in this debate. The St. Lawrence route, with Montreal harbour as its complement, is the main artery of Canada's trade, for without the St. Lawrence route and the harbour of Montreal, Canada would be in complete dependence upon the United States. We would not be able to develop our commercial life and the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec would have no outlet to the sea, while the railways to the maritime ports would not be of great commercial value so far as the wheat trade is concerned. Any law that touches Montreal harbour or the St. Lawrence waterway is something that touches the heart of any member of parliament from Montreal, and if I did not take part in this debate I would have to answer some questions which would be put by the business men of that city.
The Montreal harbour commission has been in existence for seventy-six years. It has always been an independent commission and the people of Montreal are very proud of its achievements, whether it consisted of three members or nine members or more. According to Sir Alexander Gibb there is to-day in the port of Montreal an asset amounting to over $53,000,000, and more money has been spent. In my opinion any mistakes that may have been made in the past could have been corrected if we had left the seven different commissions as they stand to-day.
I do not want to place this question on a low plane; there is no question of jealousy as

National Harbours Board-Mr. Bertrand
far as Montreal is concerned. We in Montreal know that Vancouver must be developed and we know that the maritimes must also be developed, and we would be very glad if on the St. Lawrence route there were many other ports like Quebec, Three Rivers, Sorel and Chicoutimi. We also know, however, that Montreal is the key position in relation to Canada's trade; it is the head of the oceanic trade, and whether there is a deep waterway or not Montreal will always be the main port in Canada. Mistakes have been made in the past; there has been competition in wharfage dues which should not have existed; work has been done that was not yet needed, for instance, in connection with cold storage and the electrification of the harbour railway. There have also been developments which should have been made in the lower instead of in the upper harbour. But there are no mistakes that could not be corrected in the future if each port were allowed to remain under the administration of a commission of three men.
It might be hard for a new member to have to take exception to a law like this, but I live in Montreal; I practise as a barrister in that city and I have to do with a great many people there. I feel that this law is creating great anxiety among our people. According to this bill the administration is to be left to three men, one, I suppose, to be chosen from the maritimes, another from British Columbia and the third from Quebec. To me this is a question of good business more than a question of a new system, and I do not know whether the government could find three men in Canada who are absolutely conversant with the problems of the ports in all parts of the country. You might easily find one in British Columbia, one in Halifax or a few in Montreal, conversant with the problems of their own ports, but to find three men absolutely conversant with all the problems of all the ports would be a very difficult task.
This law gives wide authority to the manager of the port, so much so that in my opinion he replaces the commission of to-day. Well, if the manager is practically to replace the commission of to-day, why should we have another commission of three men which will form another barrier between the administration of the port and the minister? I quite understand that this bill is the result of the report of Sir Alexander Gibb, but in reading that report I find many contradictions. The conclusion is that we should have a central commission; yet Sir Alexander Gibb admits that in France, for example, they had centralization at one time and under a law passed in 1920 they went back to independent commissions for their principal harbours, especially for Havre and Bordeaux. They have given their commissions so much latitude that they have the right to pass bylaws; within eight days they must send copies of the bylaws to the government, and if the government does not object, the bylaws become the law of the land. At page 15 of the report Sir Alexander Gibb says:
There is strong evidence that the commissions of Montreal and Vancouver played an important part in this progress. They provided a type of administration at least the equal of any that was to be found elsewhere on the north American continent; and notwithstanding mistakes, which no system can prevent, the developments under the two harbour commissions have generally been sound and economically justified. I am not sure that quite the same can be said of all the other harbour commissions, although their establishment at Halifax and Saint John, I am informed, preceded a notable change in the previous despondent outlook in the two maritime ports.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if the port of Montreal has been generally well administered, why not leave that port outside the scope of this central commission, as I understand the port of New Westminster has been left out?
At page 29 of the report Sir Alexander Gibb states that the British Indian ports are a success; yet they are administered by independent commissions. This, he says, is due to the fortunate selection of chairmen and commissioners. If it is only a question of choosing the right men, why not choose such men both in Montreal and Vancouver?
Then at page 31, paragraph S3, Sir Alexander Gibb says:
Considerable latitude should be allowed to the port managers so long as their activities are directed to carrying out the policy laid down by the central authority. It is essential to avoid emasculating the local administration, since no centralized control can replace an efficient and active local administration, or the special knowledge and initiative of the local business community, both of which are vital to a port's prosperity.
It seems to me that after such assertions of fact it is difficult to come to the conclusion that we need a central commission, at least for the port of Montreal. At page 73 of the report I find that the trade at Montreal compares very favourably with that of harbours such as Singapore, Glasgow, Hamburg, Bristol, Sydney and Melbourne, all or most of which are managed by independent commissions.
The only question in Montreal is that of deepening the St. Lawrence route between
1418	COMMONS
National Harbours Board-Mr. Bertrand
Montreal and Quebec, and I Should have liked the minister to give the assurance that within a few years we would have a channel thirty-five feet deep by 600 feet in width and
1,000	feet on curves. It is known that in Montreal the members of the shipping federation have been paying very high insurance rates; I was told that last year we paid 83,000,000 more than would have been paid on boats of the same tonnage going to Boston. It would take about $30,000,000 to deepen the channel, and the work could be completed in three years if it were started at the opening of navigation and continued without a halt. It is common knowledge that the dredges belonging to the government do not work as late in the season as they should, and that therefore the capital cost is a great deal more than it should be. The Welland canal, which cost $150,000,000, was built in a period of ten years. Why not spend on the channel at least $30,000,000 within three or four years, and charge it to capital expenditure or issue bonds, if necessary, so that we shall not hear of shipping men having to portage some of their goods between Quebec and Montreal?
Briefly, I do not think anyone can take care of the interests of Montreal harbour as well as can the business men of Montreal, or that anyone can take care of the interests of Vancouver harbour as well as can the business men of Vancouver. Montreal harbour has always been a business proposition conducted by business men, and I do not see why to-day we should depart from that practice and adopt another system which, I feel sure, will meet with many difficulties in the coming year.


Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: Like the previous speaker (Mr. Bertrand, Laurier), I am very much interested in the port of Montreal. I recognize the importance of the subject under discussion and the value of the resolution introduced by the Minister of Marine (Mr. Howe). It was very gratifying to sit on this side of the house and hear a measure of this kind introduced without any reference by the minister to what the opposition had done while they were in office. That feature of the minister's statement commended itself to me and no doubt to other hon. members.
We have in Canada seven national ports, and in discussing a matter of this sort we should as far as possible forget the locality from which we come and discuss the question from a national point of view. I feel absolutely certain that in discussing this proposed measure from a national point of view we shall be working in the best interests of that part of the country which we represent,

be it an inland constituency or one vitally interested at any one of these ports. The previous speaker referred to mistakes made in the past by local harbour boards. We in Montreal have recognized those mistakes. We see the Montreal port authorities discarding electric locomotives and electric equipment which cost an enormous amount to instal, and going back to steam motive power as previously used. And greater mistakes than that have been made; to the tremendous financial loss of our country we have made national ports where local ports only should have existed. We have seven so-called national ports. To my mind we could get along very well with five. I shall not designate the two that could have remained as local ports to the probable advantage of the locality in which they are situated and the advantage of Canada as a whole.
The previous speaker suggested that it might be difficult to find three men capable of administering these national ports. Surely he did not make that suggestion seriously. Surely in Canada we have three men capable of handling that situation. I would pay this compliment to the minister who introduced this measure, that if he were not occupied as he is I would designate him as one man quite capable of taking a job of this kind and doing it well. No; we do not lack good men in Canada, and I hope that when this board is finally named we shall find that the government have selected three Canadians who are quite capable of looking after these national ports. In selecting these men for this important work I hope the government will not take into account any particular locality or any particular port, but will select them purely and simply for their outstanding ability for the job. I would not care if every one of those men came from Winnipeg, or from Toronto or from Halifax, as long as they are good capable men for the job.
One point that impressed me while the minister was speaking was in connection with the expense to be incurred. I notice in the bill this provision:
4.	(1) The board may employ such professional, technical and other officers, clerks and employees as it may deem necessary for the proper conduct of its business1 and' fix their remuneration.
That means of course a staff. A staff is necessary. I hope it does not mean increased expenditure as far as our national ports are concerned. I hope that the staff which is required will be drawn from those already in the employ of our local ports, and that none of those locally employed will be let out of employment by reason of the creation of this

National Harbours Board-Mr. Walsh
central board. I hope that this new board is not going to develop into another huge department of government to burden the people of this country with further taxation, but that it will mean a lessening of the amounts required.
The previous speaker referred to difficulty, under this measure, of maintaining or the inability to maintain the proper local contacts with the ports, with particular reference to Montreal. Of course there should be local contact; means must be developed to maintain that local contact, and I have confidence in the present minister and know that he will appoint to the various ports managers who will maintain it. I believe that the local manager will be quite sufficient to maintain that local contact which is so necessary if this measure is to be a success. I feel that his efforts will be supplemented and carefully watched by important public bodies in the communities so vitally interested. I am absolutely certain that Montreal's interests will be well looked after by the chambre de commerce and the board of trade and even the Montreal city council. The local manager will not be allowed to go far astray in taking care of the interests of Montreal without those bodies knowing something about the matter and advising the government of what they have in their minds. I know the minister will be kept fully advised by these bodies if the local manager is acting in any way detrimental to the best interests of the city of Montreal, and doubtless the same can be said of Halifax, Vancouver and the other cities concerned.
I should like to join with the hon. member for Laurier in urging that the minister bear in mind the importance of Montreal as a national port, the keystone of the commercial situation in the Dominion of Canada. As the port of Montreal prospers, so will the Dominion of Canada prosper. And the prosperity of the port of Montreal is not dependent so much upon the port commission in Montreal; it is absolutely dependent upon the depth and width of the channel leading to the port. I should like to ask the Minister of Marine to see that the channel is deepened and widened to the extent necessary to bring all ocean going vessels to the port of Montreal, and I would urge him not to do this by contract. I feel that contracts let by the Department of Marine in connection with the harbour of Montreal are of a nefarious character, and it is my view that the work of deepening the channel leading to the port should be done by the federal department. It should use its own dredges and men, and t'he work should begin as 12739-91
early as possible and continue as late as possible. In that way I feel we would get one hundred cents in value for every dollar spent on deepening the channel leading to the port of Montreal.
There is another feature of the bill about which I have not made up my mind, but for some reason or another I think I must say that I do not like it. I refer to the part which deals with calling for tenders for supplies. I notice that this matter is more or less in the hands of the government. I am always afraid of tenders that come to a government and are dealt with by the governor in council. I always feel that if they were left to an independent body, or that if these three men were put in absolute and complete charge and were given authority to say who should receive the awards for tenders we would have a square deal, provided we could keep these three men free from political contact.
When a government is calling for tenders I always feel that something is to be done for the benefit of the government in power, and anything which reflects benefit on the party in power is paid for by the people; we do not get full value for our money. I must say that I do not care for that particular feature in the bill and I hope the minister will find some remedy for it before the measure reaches the final stage.
May I commend the Minister of Marine for bringing in this legislation. I know it will meet with considerable criticism from certain quarters, and many people are going to look at it from a narrow and selfish point of view. I come from Montreal, a point from which a great part of the criticism will come, and I want to say to the minister that during my last visit to that city, no longer ago than the past week-end, among those with whom I had contact this measure appeared to be meeting with favour. They feel that if the measure is properly moulded into shape, and if many of the suggestions already advanced by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) are included, we shall have something of real and vital interest to the Dominion of Canada, and something which will place these national ports, in which we are all interested, in a better position. I do not care whether a man comes from Saskatchewan, Alberta or any other province, the fact is he is vitally interested in the ports and in their development from a national standpoint.
May I again commend the minister for the change which is about to take place. I want him to know that many citizens, even in the city of Montreal, are looking upon this

1420	COMMONS
National Harbours Board-Mr, Church
measure as one of salvation, provided it is worked out along tie business lines which they know the minister is capable of developing. I hope that he will not be unduly influenced by other influences or suggestions which might be brought to bear in connection with this important development.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words about the principle of the bill. May I say that the National Ports Survey by Sir Alexander Gibb is most interesting. It reveals a waste of money in connection with harbours. Hon. members will notice that none of the ports mentioned in the bill is in Ontario. Mistakes have been made in the Department of Marine, because after all is said and done it has been saturated since confederation with politics. These ports have not been built or operated from a commercial standpoint, because we know that many of them have been foolish political ventures.
I suggest that the late government deserves a great deal of credit for having brought to the attention of the country the report by Sir Alexander Gibb in which are outlined the mistakes made in connection with these so-called national ports. Then, the Drayton-Aeworth report made many years earlier on our railways problem indicated the great wastage in railway construction. It was pointed out that we had three transcontinental lines with a single track mileage of 40,000 miles, serving a population of about 10,000,000 people. Our mileage is equal to that of the United Kingdom or France, either of which has a much greater population.
Ontario does not benefit from the operation of the bill, although it is paying forty per cent of Canada's taxes. I do not object to the principle of the bill; in. fact, I believe if it had been introduced several years ago Canada would have been saved many millions of dollars in the construction of useless breakwaters and harbours. However, as I have said, since confederation this department has been saturated with politics. The first paragraph in the National Ports Survey by Sir Alexander Gibb is as follows:
The ports of Canada, although they have a capital value of about $370,000,000 only, are part of a transportation system which, including railways, canals and roads, is assessed at $4,500,000,000 and constitutes over a seventh of the country's estimated wealth. The principal ports are not, as in many countries, founded on the service of a great exporting or consuming area in their immediate neighbourhood; nor have they been created and developed by merchant or shipping interests. They exist primarily as the connection between land and sea in the long route that the exports of Canada must take to reach their market;

and for that reason, by the terms of confederation, and in distinction from the position in the United States where the ports have remained almost entirely in the control of individual states and cities, almost all ports in Canada have become federal property.
No doubt many mistakes have been made in the past. I do not object to the principle of the bill founded upon the report, although doubtless there are many errors in it. The fact is, however, that there is an investment of about $200,000,000 and there should be more direct control by parliament over expenditures. In the old days individual amounts were voted. There were votes for Halifax harbour, Saint John harbour, and the harbours at Chicoutimi, Quebec, Three Rivers, Montreal and Vancouver. In addition there was a vote for the ship channel between Montreal and Quebec, something which has cost the people of Canada many millions of dollars. As I have pointed out, while some are national ports, others are only political ports, but if we are to have a proper national harbour system we must have some control in the gulf of St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence river and the great lakes.
Ontario has had to develop its own ports as municipal institutions. Toronto, from which I come, spent about $30,000,000 on its own harbour. Work which was done in other parts of Canada by the federal government had to be done in that city at the expense of Toronto's taxpayers. You will be familiar with the situation in Montreal, Mr. Speaker, where work has been done in connection with beautifying the harbour. The same has been done at Halifax, Saint John and Vancouver. I may say that I believe many of the commissions have done good work. They have been local men, and of course politics has been mixed up with the administration of the harbours. I believe that it is possible to effect economies through this central board. In the United States, the states of New York and New Jersey have harbour boards, and not only do they have control of harbours and. the power to issue bylaws, but they have a system which is linked up with state and municipal institutions. After all is said and done, that is where waste has occurred. There has been no connecting link between our harbour boards and the Department of Marine at Ottawa, the Public Works department, and our municipalities.
If we are to have a proper transportation system, this new board should also have control over the canal system of this country and over shipping and navigation on the great lakes. Shipping, of course, is not under the control of the railway board. It is under no

National Harbours Board-Mr. Isnor
regulation except the law of supply and demand. In my opinion, Bill No. 17 does not go far enough. It should include some provision to afford relief to the citizens of Ontario from the present state of affairs, in which they are called upon to develop their own harbours very largely, without votes from this parliament at all. Take Toronto, for instance. Although the federal government has two commissioners on the Toronto harbour board, the government of Canada does not contribute a nickel to that board. All the money which is spent on Toronto harbour and on that twelve-mile waterfront is city money. I believe that the principle of this legislation should be applied to all the great ports on lake Ontario and the great lakes, and power should be given to the board to buy out all these waterfronts, so that waterborne traffic may be given a chance in this country. So far it has never had a chance in this dominion in connection with rail traffic, and it is a vitally important link in our transportation system.
This bill is not perfect by any means. It will do nothing for the ports I have mentioned on the great lakes, such places as Toronto, Trenton, Colborne, Belleville and other ports on lake Ontario, lake Erie, lake Huron and lake Superior in the province of Ontario, which pays nearly forty per cent of the taxes collected by the federal government. The minister himself comes from the head of the lakes, and I hope he will give this suggestion sympathetic consideration. The lake ports in Ontario ever since confederation have had to do all their own work of deepening and dredging harbours, which is purely a federal work, and yet it has been done at the cost of the taxpayers of Ontario. What about life-saving stations in all these harbours and on the great lakes? The municipalities of Ontario have had to pay for all that themselves. All that Toronto gets from the dominion government is a little money for dredging the entrances to the harbour and for building breakwaters.
I believe that the principle of this bill is all right. Undoubtedly a large amount of money has been wasted in the so-called national ports of this country, and the people have not been getting the value they should have got in facilities for the transport of grain to the seaboard, in developing the coal resources of Alberta and the maritime provinces, and in developing the grain growing industry in the prairie provinces. In none of these matters have we got the full value of our ports and canal system.
Of course we have to consider the principle of the bill on the second reading, and I hope the minister will take into consideration the 12739-914
suggestions I have made. I hope he will consider doing something for the ports on lake Ontario, which are entitled to some consideration; and so far as the ports mentioned in this bill are concerned, provision should be made for helping these municipalities in the matter of parks, boulevards and driveways along the magnificent ports, for example, of Montreal and Vancouver, on which so much of the taxpayers' money has been spent.
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, I must confess that like many other members I could not quite follow the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Church) as well as I should like to have done. I did follow the previous speaker (Mr. Walsh) with a great deal of interest, and I wish to compliment him upon the clear and concise manner in which he presented his views on the principle of this bill. I agree with many of the views he expressed, particularly what he said with reference to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Howe) who sponsors this bill. I feel that Canada would indeed be fortunate if we were to get a man of his type as head of this national harbours board.
If it were not the principle of the bill that we are now considering, I would take time to comment on one or two of the observations made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Bertrand), who referred to the port of Montreal, but as at this stage we are dealing solely with the principle of the bill, I shall simply say that we have in Halifax a harbour which it is not necessary to dredge, where it is not necessary to spend thirty million dollars in deepening a channel, and a harbour which extends sixteen miles inward from the sea, offering complete shelter for every vessel of any size. Halifax harbour is open the year round. The harbour is known as the eastern gateway to Canada, and because I represent the city of Halifax I desire to say just a few words on the principle of this bill.
The minister in the course of his remarks referred to the importance of the local view, and stated that it would be given effect to by selecting the port manager or the port superintendent from the locality in which the port was situated. I feel that that is an important factor, and particularly with regard to Halifax and Vancouver. The interests of the port of Montreal, which are centred to a large extent around that city, I feel will be very well looked after by a central board located at Ottawa, which is so close to Montreal, but I am just a little fearful as to the effect which this bill might have on the ports of Halifax and Vancouver. I sincerely trust that the minister and the government, when deciding upon the personnel of the new board,

National Harbours Board-Mr. Isnor
will take into consideration, along with other necessary qualifications, the selection of men who are vitally interested in the east and the west, because otherwise I feel that this new board will not bring about the results which we desire. I pass that on as a suggestion to the minister for his consideration when deciding on the personnel of the board.
In regard to more efficient methods of port administration, I have read the reports published by the two commissions which inquired into harbour development in Canada. The most recent one, prepared by Sir Alexander Gibb and presented to the government of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), contains many valuable suggestions and recommendations. I think the bill introduced by .the minister is to some extent along the lines of this report.
I would point out that the report made particular mention of the efficient management of the port at Halifax, situated in the constituency which I represent. I believe that local management will develop more efficiency in one particular than will a central board. I have in mind the developing of trade for a particular port. I believe that a local board is more apt to bring about better results and provide more efficient management than will be this so-called long-armed control. I am just a little fearful as to how the two ports of Vancouver and Halifax will be affected.
The minister referred to unwise expenditure, but let me say that that is not the fault of the managements of the various ports. That matter rested with the minister under whom the harbour commissions operated. As I understand the situation, it was necessary for the various harbour boards to obtain permission and approval before they could make any expenditure. If that is so, former administrations cannot be criticized for the system under which they operated; the criticism should be levelled at the minister under whom the boards operated. The minister referred to the fact that these different boards consisted only of three men. The harbour boards cannot be blamed for not having sufficient staff to see that matters were looked after properly. This is another instance where the criticism should have been directed against the government for not providing additional help.
What is going to happen after this new central board has been set up? I understand there are to be three commissioners, one having a particular knowledge of finance, one being particularly interested in marine affairs and the other being an engineer. To me it would appear that the outstanding qualification for a chairman or member of this board

should be business training. Such a member should have experience in dealing with big business, because these ports are big business. Instead of an engineer, I would suggest a legal man. I have the port of Halifax particularly in mind in making this suggestion. The central board at Ottawa or Quebec, wherever it may be located, will have at its command the best of engineering ability. The personnel of this board should be considered in a very careful manner.
The minister referred to local contacts, and mention was made of what had happened in Vancouver. I think that is another reason why there should be local control, particularly in connection with Vancouver and Halifax. I believe someone in local control could make contacts to much better advantage than a person unfamiliar with the requirements on the Atlantic or the Pacific. Reference was made also to the accounting system, but that could have been taken care of under the old regime. I do not think that is a sound reason for establishing a central board. I think a uniform accounting system could have been set up quite easily.
I am a little apprehensive as to the future of the ports of Vancouver and Halifax under this proposed central board. I should like to repeat what the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) said "that no centralized control could replace the efficiency of active local administration or the special knowledge and initiative of the local business community, both of which are vital to the prosperity of a port." I leave that thought with the minister. I am dealing only with the principle of this bill and I do not intend to take up the particular clauses, as did the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). I agree with him when he says that they will have to receive very careful consideration when we are in committee.
I feel I should congratulate the minister upon bringing this bill before the house. I want to go on record as not being opposed to the abolition of the so-called three-men commissions, for I believe that just as much good can be derived from one-man port management as from three-men management. I am in favour of the bill, but I reserve my right to criticize certain sections at some future time.


Mr. WILFRID GARIEPY (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion too much money has been spent these past years in investigations. In many cases outside talent was brought in when it was not needed and in many instances the great expense incurred could not be justified. I want to commend

National Harbours Board-Mr. Gariepy
the minister for drawing something useful and something really important from the Gibb report. I do not know that I would have taken part in this debate had not the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) made a remark about two ports which in his opinion should be left out of the seven. I rise to make sure that one of those two is not the important port of Three Rivers.
Three Rivers is the best natural port in Canada. It is easy of access, no tugs being necessary. It has no tides and it compares favourably with Quebec and Montreal and even with ports situated on the shores of the oceans. The figures given to the house tonight by the minister disclose that the port of Three Rivers has been almost able to carry itself. The interest on the millions spent has been paid year after year as well as allowance for depreciation. There does not seem to have been any abuse in this case. This is why I was very careful to investigate the provisions of this bill and endeavour to see whether local sentiment would be taken care of and whether this was a move in the right direction. The hon. member for Mount Royal has mentioned that local sentiment might be against this measure, but I want to say that the people in my riding are prepared to give the principle of this bill a fair trial. There are many business men in the community who felt that they should have been recommended as members of the local harbour board. I am satisfied that there were many people who had ambitions in connection with the harbours, but such ambitions must be set aside.
In my opinion this measure is entitled to favourable consideration, especially when we are facing a financial crisis and an effort is being made to improve trade. In a country like ours trade and navigation should go together. I would say to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Bertrand) that his argument appears to me to be not against but in favour of the measure. For how could the deepening of the St. Lawrence be done by the local harbour commission of Montreal? It would have to be done as a national undertaking. Our several ports can be developed only if they are nationally supported.
It is true that some local interests will have to be protected and it will be necessary to pay attention to the selection of the managers. For instance, I should regard it as bad business if the manager for Three Rivers were imported from Vancouver, though I like Vancouver. Vancouver is a large city, but the Vancouver mentality would not suit
Three Rivers, and Vancouver interests would object to a Three Rivers man being sent to direct the destinies of their harbour. I trust that the new board, with the help of the minister and the government, will see to it that great care is taken in making these appointments. The manager will have to be the link between the business interests and the board; he will not be independent; he will not rule as did the old commission. The managers will have vast powers, and I hope that in their selection the minister and the board will not lose sight of the remarks I make to-night.
I might mention in closing that the press of the country,, of both parties, has been supporting the principle of the measure. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George say that he did not object to the principle of the bill, but he made some remarks in connection with its details and I was surprised when he tried to give the impression that the preparation of the measure itself had not been up to the mark. For instance, he wants a detailed description of the properties. How can that be given? The new board simply takes over whatever assets the old boards possess. Property and civil rights do not come within the jurisdiction of the dominion; they are a matter of provincial legislation. There are questions of boundary, even in my own community; we are not quite sure where the boundary line runs. So that this bill could not define boundaries of the property that will be taken over. It is being accepted holus bolus as a going concern. The same applies to most of the criticism which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has offered.
The new board has capacity to sue and to be sued. It is a corporation which will pass bylaws and these have to be published in the Canada Gazette. They can be disallowed by the governor in council. As regards the financial provisions, there are several sections dealing with money matters, one following from another;, and they are all, it seems to me, in perfect accord. I say, therefore, that the minister deserves our support in the move he is making. He was not in public life before he came to this parliament, and he is bringing some trouble upon himself in this bold step. He has a vast department to administer, and I submit that it is up to us, no matter from what constituency or province we may come, to stand by him, because he is moving in the right direction. Boundary lines should not divide us. I have heard someone speak of east and west. I do not care; we are all Canadians and this

National Harbours Board-Mr. Bennett
bill is aimed at improving the position of our harbours. I think therefore it is my duty to support it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is in this bill no
principle that has not met with general approval. The bill does embody the general sense of the report made by Sir Alexander Gibb in 1932. From 1926 to 1930 I was an interested spectator in this house when estimates were from time to time made of the money necessary to be expended in the harbours of Canada. I saw the undertaking for the construction at Wolfe's cove commence. We all knew that this work should not be done, but it was. I saw the first appropriation made for Chicoutimi, which could not under any circumstances be justified; and I saw the harbour of Montreal saddled with the Montreal bridge, which involves a responsibility financially of $950,000 per annum that must now be paid by that harbour commission or by that harbour. All that we saw, and there are others to which I could refer, including obligations created in connection with the harbour of Halifax and obligations created in connection with the harbour of Saint John, which harbour for many years was of course administered by the people of that city, and which represented vast expenditures made by them of moneys obtained by them on their own credit. The construction of the Negro Point breakwater and the Courtenay bay undertakings referred to by Sir Alexander Gibb I remember from my childhood. The harbour of Montreal was, as I say, in the p'osition where certain works were being undertaken, and it was during those years saddled with the liability connected with the harbour bridge. The harbour of Vancouver came into being in its present condition in more recent years. Certain piers were constructed; others were in process of construction; a sinking fund had been accumulated and investments made, and as a matter of fact the sinking fund, instead of being expended for the purpose of acquiring securities issued by the harbour board itself, had been used for the purpose of buying various forms of securities, some of questionable value in the light of present conditions.
I made up my mind at the -time that this matter was of such importance to western Canada-and I was thinking then largely of western Canada-that it was necessary that there should be a complete investigation of the whole situation. I say western Canada because there is not a single bushel of wheat that is being shipped from western Canada that is not in some way affected by the ports through which it passes. It may be through

Churchill, and there we have expended vast sums of money upon which interest has been and must be paid. It may be through Vancouver, where vast sums amounting to millions of dollars have been expended, great properties purchased upon which docks have not yet been erected. Vast sums have been expended at Prince Rupert, which is not a port within the purview of this bill, and vast sums have also been expended in the eastern part of the country, all looking to one end. That end of course has been -the providing of facilities for the shipment out of Canada of goods produced in Canada and the entering into Canada of goods that are bought abroad.
We had hardly attained office after the first conference of 1930 when I began to look about for the purpose of determining where we could obtain a suitable engineer to make a report upon the whole harbour situation. Various names were suggested. We finally concluded that it was desirable to ask Sir Alexander Gibb, who had had great experience, to undertake the work. He said that he was willing to do so; he came to Canada, and those who are familiar with his report, to which some reference has been made to-night, will find that he refers to certain minutes of instruction which I gave to him on April 29, 1931, summarized in the following terms:
1.	To report upon the efficiency of existing facilities;
2.	To report upon the additional facilities required to take care of the increasing traffic of the -ports for a period of twenty-five to fifty years, keeping in mind the use to the maximum of existing facilities;
3.	To report on the best method of administration, whether through harbour commissioners or a department of government with a general manager, or otherwise, for the purpose of securing economy and efficiency, due regard being had to the fact that the moneys of the taxpayers of the whole of Canada will be used in -the development of the ports.
Under these three heads Sir Alexander Gibb's report deals with the situation as he found it. After having visited every port; after having examined at great length the documents and papers in various departments of the public service; after having talked over the matter very fully with the permanent officials and particularly with Mr. Alexander Johnston, to whose services he refers, [DOT]he made the report to which reference has been made this evening. In that report he dealt with the matter under two broad heads, first, that of administration, including for my purposes everything incidental to the administration of the port, and on the other hand he dealt with the condition of the several ports, analyzing the financial position and

National Harbours Board-Mr. Bennett
dealing with their future and the work that had to be done and was being done in those ports.
To deal for the moment with the question of administration, he arrived at certain definite conclusions. Those conclusions, in the main, are embodied in the legislation now before the house. There are one or two particulars in which it differs, and to those particulars I must direct attention either now or later, because some of them are of vital importance. In the second branch of his report, dealing with the facilities provided! by the several ports themselves, he had much to say that is of the greatest interest. I will not deal with that at length, but there are a few features of his report which I think could properly be placed upon Hansard, because it seems to me they are of considerable importance looking to the permanent value of this legislation and its importance in the economic and commercial life of this dominion. His very first words were these:
The ports of Canada, although they have a capital value of about $370,000,000 only, are part of a transportation system which, including railways, canals and roads, is assessed at $4,500,000,000 and constitutes over a seventh of the country's estimated wealth. The principal ports are not, as in many countries, founded on the service of a great exporting or consuming area in their immediate neighbourhood; nor have they been created and developed by merchant or shipping interests. They exist primarily as the connection between land and sea in the long route that the exports of Canada must take to reach their market; and for that reason, by the terms of confederation, and in distinction from the position in the United States where the ports have remained almost entirely in the control of individual states and cities, almost all ports in Canada have become federal property.
Then he deals with the average distance from Canadian ports to the points where imports and exports are dealt with, and speaks of it as five hundred miles, saying that in Great Britain it is only fifty miles. Leaving that for the moment, there are one or two important matters to which I think attention might be directed. He finds that political activities interfere greatly with the value of the ports. That is a matter with reference to which I am going to make some observations when this bill is in committee, but the danger of centralization lies in the fact that the local authorities may -be denuded of power and an effort madte to control and operate by the central power or authority. With distances so great the central power cannot possibly function. The other day there was a snowstorm in Montreal. The question of the removal of the snow was referred to Ottawa, as I am informed, and certain delays took place before the question was finally dealt with.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I only know that those who were charged with responsibility in that port so informed me. There is no reason why this should not be known, and there were certain delays. It is certain that in connection with the harbour of Vancouver the distance is too great to centralize here at Ottawa the administration of the port as such. Sir Alexander Gibb refers to that and makes his position extremely clear, pointing out what the difficulties are by reason of our great distances, and then goes on to indicate that there should be a more careful control over the financial side of these matters. I recall in this house, when the late Mr. Robb was Minister of Finance, having to deal with the question of the adequacy and sufficiency of the audits of harbour commission reports. It will be recalled that largely through the efforts which we made at that time Mr. Robb accepted the view that the auditor general should be charged with the responsibility and seized with full jurisdiction to investigate and audit the reports of the harbour commissioners of Canada, and it was the custom and habit to have that done under certain conditions to which I need not now refer. It was quite apparent that there was an inadequate accounting system, lacking in uniformity, in the various ports of this country. Sir Alexander Gibb refers to that with great particularity. He says:
I consider, therefore, that it is important there should be a close and continuous check by the central government. The form this control will take must depend on the administration system that is to be introduced. If the present arrangement continues, then the harbour supervisor's department should be strengthened and' the supervisor turned into something like a controller-general. if any other form of control be adopted, it must include its own controller, since I feel that even if the auditor general could carry out periodical inspections under the Audit Act, only a staff fully conversant with port operation is in a position to keep a complete check on the accounting in a port.
Then he proceeded further, dealing with questions at various ports, and as to how he conceived matters could be best dealt with. At page 22 I find this statement:
The ports should have no authority to raise funds independently, or to carry bank loans or overdrafts-other than an ordinary account or for ordinary operations.
Without traversing, as I might and) may hereafter have to do, the various paragraphs of the report, I want to deal at once with the question that I dare say suggests itself to the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches: Why, with this report before you, did you not proceed at once to give effect to it? You had this in 1932. During succeeding sessions ques-
1426	COMMONS
National Harbours Board-Mr. Bennett
tions were asked as to whether or not we were going to act upon the Gibb report, and in every instance the answer was that the matter was still under consideration. In this particular case that answer happened not only to be adequate but also to coincide with the exact fact. The reasons were two. The first was the condition that the government inherited with respect to work at the various ports. The second was that in the midst of that parliament I do not think I could have given effect to the report. I will put it in this way; I do not think the government could have carried this through in the midst of that parliament, I want to be perfectly frank about that, and the reason I congratulated the Prime Minister the other day upon dealing with this matter at that particular moment was because I believe that if he had not dealt with it at once on coming into office he could not have dealt with it at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gave these two reasons. Let us analyze them. First, go to Halifax. Does the house realize that the work in Halifax was not concluded on contracts that were given-I wish hon. gentlemen would take the trouble to look at the dates the contracts were awarded-for works that were not completed until December, 1934? I went down to the opening of pier B. We did, because of our financial position, endeavour to delay this work as much as possible; in fact one of the contractors did threaten litigation because he was not permitted to continue as rapidly as he would have liked. We had not the money. I desire the house to realize that most of the money that has gone into the ports of Canada has come from the consolidated revenue fund of this country, from collections that were made for superannuation purposes, for retirement purposes, from the Indian funds, from various funds that were not kept separate as trust accounts but paid into the consolidated revenue fund. That is another reason why this becomes so important. There was this work going on at Halifax. To take the harbour out of the control of the commission with the work partly done seemed an almost impossible task, and the engineers rather thought we should not do so. I think that probably is well known by everyone. I desire here to pay tribute to the two chairmen that I came into contact with in connection with the Halifax harbour, Mr. Phinney and Mr. Hether-ington. If ever two men were filled with a sense of civic pride and a desire to make a complete and finished job of the work in which they were engaged those two gentlemen

were. Mr. Phinney resigned in the middle of his term of office because his professional engagements prevented his continuing, and Mr. Hetherington took office as his successor. That work was not concluded until December, 1934. I give that reason why it was thought undesirable to change the control of the harbour at that time.
Then we come to Saint John. Saint John had two difficulties: First, the government of this country had assumed the obligation of the city of Saint John in connection with the construction of the harbour, and, second, there was great difficulty in connection with the construction of a cofferdam that had twice gone out with tremendous loss, so that the extras ultimately paid in respect of that work exceeded by something like one hundred per cent the amount of the original contract given to the Atlas Construction company. Anyone who has had to do with the construction of a cofferdam in tidal waters with a current of six to eight knots an hour will realize how difficult it is to construct a cofferdam and maintain it while the work is being carried on. But the works were finally completed, and I recall the opening of those docks. That was not until 1933, if I remember aright. It was thought-and I think properly so-and the opinion given us by those well able to judge was, that to interfere with the general scheme during the progress of the works was not desirable. But in addition to that, the harbour of Saint John suffered a great loss by reason of fire destroying three of its docks in the early part of that year. There were on the property certain sheds of doubtful value; there was wooden construction, and the fire completely devastated the docks in a very short time. At any rate the work at Saint John harbour was in such a state that to change the system of administration at that time seemed an almost impossible task. We directed our attention to two things, finishing the existing work, and trying to delay as long as possible the construction of the new docks, and when they were constructed to construct them of permanent material and to secure the best possible advice as to the character and type of construction that should be followed. I think the minister will agree that the idea of constructing concrete pillars upon which to erect the work was much to be preferred to some other suggestions that were made. At any rate the best engineers available reported in that sense.
Then let us consider the port of Quebec. Those interested in reading the details will take Sir Alexander Gibb's report. There you

National Harbours Board-Mr. Bennett
had a harbour built up from the very early years, and then a new dock system altogether at Wolfe's cove where the Canadian Pacific bored through the hill for the purpose of taking its trains through the tunnel. We constructed the new wharf and dock, wholly unnecessary and in no sense related to the old harbour works at the harbour of Quebec, as Sir Alexander Gibb pointed out. I am not going into the details of that, for I have no desire to engage in recriminations, but there was no justification for the work at Wolfe's cove. The very first thing that confronted us as a government was a partly completed work at Wolfe's cove which was being moved by lateral pressure straight into the St. Lawrence river. We had to deal with that and to expend money as it became necessary for the purpose of preserving that property and stopping that movement. I am happy to say that the means taken to effect the end desired proved successful and there has been no further movement into the river of that great dock by reason of the lateral pressure. It was a shed with two floors, as Sir Alexander Gibb says, but only one part of it has been used as yet. Any hon. member who has seen that vast shed knows how little it has been put to use in the service of the country. I recall when we voted $10,000,000 for the harbour of Quebec it was said by the responsible minister that it would be the last sum that would be asked; that no greater sum would be required. We all know that the work cost more than was intended, and finally, as Sir Alexander Gibb points out, in order to preserve the works at the lower harbour something had to be done to repair them. The government put the work off; we had not the money to spend. But when the property was falling into disrepair; when the concrete was going to pieces the report was that we must do something, and we spent there substantial sums of money to repair the old wharf and dock property at the harbour proper of Quebec.
Then we come down the river to Chicoutimi. Can any one explain why Chicoutimi harbour came into being at all? All one has to do is to look at it. It is only necessary to study the plan which we inherited, of the work which we had to continue, which I do not think is yet completed, to realize how difficult it is to understand why that work was launched. There is of course a great difference of opinion as to the ultimate selection of the place where the works now are and the place where it was thought they were being put. A picture postcard showing the ships loading at Ha I Ha! bay would leave the impression that the works were there, but as a matter of fact that is not where they are at all. Be that as it may, the completion of the contract in connection with Chicoutimi found that harbour in much the same position as those of Saint John and Halifax. To change the administration at that time was almost impossible.
We then come to Three Rivers. There again the work was partly done; there again the harbour board had undertaken certain responsibilities and carried out in part the work which they had contemplated. There again the top of the wharf was not floored; there again part had not been completed by proper ballasting to enable it to be made effective and efficient as a port facility, and so had to be extended or else what had been done was of no use. So the engineers undertook to complete it, and finally a revenue was secured from the International Paper Company in connection with the use of a certain part of that port.
Then we come to Sorel. Now, Sir Alexander Gibb points out that there are two kinds of ports, publicly owned ports, and privately owned ports or enterprises. He goes on to point out that there should not be conflict between the two. I shall not take time to-night to go into a detailed discussion, although I may have to read these paragraphs at a later time. They may be familiar to hon. members. But at that port there was a situation in which grain elevators were involved. He points out that competition for traffic and lower rates of privately owned companies had shattered the very value of the port that public money had created. And he said, what is more, that the privately owned business had selected the cream of the business, and had profited, leaving the publicly owned enterprise to take care of the unprofitable business.
The harbour at Quebec had expected a large grain business. It did not eventuate. The harbour of Montreal had constantly supplied facilities for shipping Canadian and American grain to the ports of the world. Sorel meant the loss to some extent of part of the traffic which Montreal had previously had. Sir Alexander Gibb deals with that point at some length. There again we had a position in which Montreal had partly finished work, but their general plan had for the moment been concluded, unless very large expenditures were undertaken dealing with the question of deepening the harbour, on the one hand, and the seaway or pathway to the sea, on the other. When we came into office the pathway, which perhaps might
1428	COMMONS
National Harbours Board-Mr. Bennett
more properly be called the seaway channel, was being developed to a depth of thirty-five feet. We continued that work. I believe any government in Canada would have done the same thing. I think they would have regarded it as their duty, and after a change of government that work was pushed forward with very great expedition indeed under the contract that bad been made. And there remained, according to the profile which I examined myself with care, a very small number of spots in which rock, gravel and other parts of earth had to be removed for the purpose of making the channel complete from the bridge that crosses the St. Lawrence, near Quebec, straight up to the harbour.
But the harbour itself had not been deepened to thirty-five feet. A certain school of engineering thought believed that fact meant a constant drain by the swift flowing current of water from the harbour, so that the harbour became less useful than otherwise. Down in the basin near Vickers it will be recalled that certain dredging had taken place, but it was pointed out that some of the vessels requiring a heavy draught of water, owing to the shortage of water in the river had to leave with smaller cargoes than they otherwise would have had.
So that as a result of careful study of the situation, and discussion of it with competent engineers Sir Alexander, I think, himself realized that the report would have to be made effective by legislation at the beginning of a new parliament. I believe if this government had not seized the opportunity on coming into office to do what was done, it would have been quite impossible to do it at all. I say that for two reasons. I have no desire in any sense to magnify the political viewpoints of one party or to minimize the advantages of another. In dealing with a matter of this kind it is quite fair to say that one has always desired to do exactly what the other did-used to the maximum for political purposes, consistent with the discharge of duties which rested upon them, the work which might take place in these various harbours. That meant political control in the worst, and not the best sense. There is nothing that gave me more concern than did the whole question of the harbours of this country, for the reason that the whole life of western Canada is bound up with them. They are deeply concerned in the tolls that were to be paid for the handling of freight through them, inward or outward.
We have not had anything to do with the development of the harbour at Toronto. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church)

very properly pointed out to-night that if hon. members want to see a really magnificent piece of work they should go and look at the work in Toronto. At that point there has been redeemed from the lake an area of land) now amounting to many acres. There has been established a breakwater outside, and within the lagoon there is still water. I would say that there is a waterfront and a boulevard second to none in any part of the country. Then, it is provided that in the eastern end there may be industrial development of oil refining plants, and works of various kinds. Again, the higher type of building necessary for manufacturing purposes we find not on the boulevard but distant from it, and between the main part of the city and the water. Hon. members would find that many new buildings have been erected in that area. Development of that kind is not possible in some of the other harbours, because they do not lend themselves to it. You cannot have it in Saint John harbour; you cannot have it in Halifax harbour. There is an area around the harbour which might be available if the old buildings were cleared off, but the development could not be done as it was done in Toronto. Neither would it be possible in Montreal, because the harbour railway must from very necessity operate at different points, and conditions would be different from those in Toronto.
In the city of Vancouver we had an added difficulty, a very great difficulty indeed. It is well that the house and the country should realize that at the entrance to the harbour there is a narrow passageway, followed by a narrower one called the second narrows. In days gone by across the second narrows a bridge was erected. The bridge had been struck by a vessel entering the narrows channel, with the result that injuries were sustained and the span ultimately dropped into the bottom of the harbour. Then it became necessary to construct a new bridge. Certain questions of legal liability arose. It will be observed that after the new span was erected limitations as to liability were imposed by the statute other than those which would be attached by the common law, under judgment of the privy council.
Therefore this work which the minister is now carrying on, or this legislation which the minister now submits to the house, was not dealt with for reasons which I shall no more than repeat: First, the condition of the work in the various harbours referred to, and, second, that I did not believe, nor do I yet believe, after discussing the matter -with my

National Harbours Board-Mr. Bennett
colleagues, that it was possible to introduce that legislation in the midst of a term of parliament.
We now have the bill before us. In the main it contains the recommendations of Sir Alexander Gibb with respect to the question of central control. But Sir Alexander pointed out that you had to determine certain legal questions before you went further. Shall this board of management-and I shall call it that for the sake of argument, although it is described in the bill as a national harbours board-be said to be an agent of the crown? It is a corporation. It is capable of suing and being sued. It is a corporation acting as an agent of the crown. Sir Alexander Gibb deals with the point and states that it is a matter of gravest moment, one which must be considered from many angles. As to what the legal position was I must not take time to read to-night. But as to what the legal position then was he is in doubt. He states that lawyers in Montreal have advised that the position is one way, and that the department has advised that it is another way. I submit that the bill in its present form must be amended not only along the lines suggested by my colleague, the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George, who has dealt with it in the light of his wide experience in matters of this kind, but from the legal implications which flow from the appointment by the crown of an agent.
Last year when the marketing bill was before the house the right hon. gentleman now leading the government raised a point, in connection with which he stated that he was not a lawyer. His point had to do with the appointment of an agent of the crown. The marketing board was not the crown; it was a separate organization. We have said in the bill that this national harbours board should be a corporation, and it is therefore to have continuing life. It may sue and be sued. But it is the agent of the crown. That is one of the points to which, as I say, Sir Alexander Gibb directs attention, and which I think is not adequately safeguarded in this bill. Must there be a petition of right to sue this board? I shall not repeat the arguments introduced by my friend and colleague from St. Lawrence-St. George, but shall leave the matter at that. But I do think this legislation must be reconsidered very carefully with respect to that angle.
Now we come to the next question, having set up a corporation as the agent of the crown. The question of a corporation being the agent of the crown is a modern doctrine. The question of a corporation acting as a trustee, as an executor, is also a modern development of practice. Although the three men composing the board are living entities, the result is an entity that does not live, and that is a corporation, not a corporation sole, but a corporation having continued existence and capable, as I say, of suing and being sued. That phase of the question I commend to the minister for most careful consideration, for I think he will find that under the decisions of the courts grave difficulties arise which must be overcome.
I shall not repeat the argument as to boundaries. The difficulty about this to which the minister has referred is not a difficulty that is not capable of solution. He has contented himself with saying that the boundaries of the harbours will continue to be the boundaries as they now are, and then says that as there are additions or otherwise there will be an extension or contraction of those boundaries. Having regard to the decisions of the privy council in connection with the harbour of Montreal, when the whole matter was litigated at great length as to the rights of riparian and other owners, and as to the right to the land under the water, which vitally affects the question of navigation as distinguished from the use of water for any other purpose, I believe there is a problem of first-rate importance which must receive more consideration than it has received in this bill.
There are several other questions which I should like to deal with, but which I may deal with at a later time because I have no desire to keep the house unduly long in further considering this bill. But there are problems in connection with expropriation. There are questions that arise in connection with the acute problem of ownership for purposes of taxation. No one knows better than, for instance, one member of the administration, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) of the difficulties that have arisen in connection with the development of taxation. The British North America Act declares that crown property is free from taxation, and neither the government nor any member of it nor the members of this house can violate the constitution and make property taxable. But the privy council held this, that the interest of lessees in properties may be taxed as distinct from the property itself, and so from time to time an effort has been made to tax the value of leases held by lessees of dockage and other space on wharves and properties owned by the various harbour commissions. This bill deals with that, not directly, but by implication. It says:
Any property now held by any of the corporations in the name of such corporation may continue so to be held until the same shall be transferred by such corporation or the board to His Majesty.
1430	COMMONS
National Harbours Board-Mr. Bennett
There is one of the most difficult and complex of all questions with which legal practitioners have to deal, so I suggest, in view of the efforts being made by municipalities from time to time to tax properties of this kind, that there should be in this bill a provision that beyond all peradventure vests these properties in the crown, and appropriate action should be taken to that end for that purpose. That should be done without delay. Then, once these properties are vested in the crown, the question of taxation disappears.
It might well be desirable in this measure to provide that nothing in this bill shall be taken in any sense to lessen the right of municipalities to tax the interests of lessees in these properties. We have had that question, of course, in connection with homesteads; we had it in connection with the old Canadian Pacific railway lands; we had it in the celebrated case that went from Saskatchewan, and we had it in the Calgary and Edmonton case that went from Alberta. These questions have been settled. But the	late government was
bothered with petitions claiming, for instance, that legislation about to be introduced into the legislature of British Columbia proposed to tax the interests of certain persons in properties that they held under lease, and that the basis of taxation was to be as though they owned the property. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre will recall that ultimately the legislation was withdrawn, because it was pointed out that the federal government could not concur in any such legislation as that being enacted. I suggest to the minister that it might be made abundantly clear, to remove any doubt, that nothing in the bill was intended in any sense to lessen the right of municipalities to tax the interest of lessees in properties under lease. Then the difficulties that have been experienced would disappear.
I think on the second reading I should point to one difficulty, and that is the power of expropriation. When the Canadian National Railways were dealing with Churchill, on the one hand, and the city of Montreal, on the other, the Minister of Railways filed a plan, and under the law as it stood, he being a minister of the crown, the property was expropriated. That meant that the property was taken from the owner and vested in the crown. The right of way for projected changes in Montreal in connection with the terminal was vested in the crown by the filing of a plan by the then Minister of Railways, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), I think. Now, this has been reenacted here, although it was the subject matter of much dispute and adjudication in the exchequer court. The bill says:

Any plan and description deposited under the provisions of the Expropriation Act shall be signed by one of the members on behalf of the board and the land so shown and' described shall thereupon be and become vested in His Majesty, unless-
So and so. The effect of that is for the crown to confer power upon three persons constituted a national harbours board, to expropriate properties in the name of the crown, and mark you, the plan may be signed by only one member of the board. I cannot think that a sound exercise of power, and I say that without any limitation at all. It has been in our law for many years with respect to certain railway proceedings. For instance, I recall that a Minister of Public Works was once able, by a plan being filed with his signature, to vest in the crown certain property requested for a post office site. Now you have this body, which is a body created by this parliament, which is the agent of the crown, empowered through the act of one member of the board to expropriate property and vest it in His Majesty. I think that is unsound. I mention that because an important principle is at stake there, a principle to which at least eminent lawyers in many countries have directed attention. One of the most, shall I say, powerful powers that the crown may exercise is that of compulsorily taking a man's property from him. In Churchill men for speculative purposes paid large sums of money for lots, and when the final determination took place they got in many cases a very much less sum than they paid for the lots. The property was taken compulsorily from them and it was said that any residue was to be given to Manitoba. I regarded that at the time, and still do, as an improper exercise of the powers of the crown. Here the crown is not exercising them; it is vesting them in a board, any one of whose agents may exercise that power. For any one member of a corporation to exercise the power conferred upon the corporation as an agent of the crown, I conceive to be greater power than ought to be exercised.
I shall not repeat what was said by my colleague, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, but there are in connection with this measure certain details that are of tremendous importance. These have to do with what might be called the administration of the funds of the enterprise. To create a trust fund has many advantages and to provide that it can be drawn from only under certain conditions is exceedingly wise. As a very young man I recall being told by an experienced man that one of the first things to do in dealing with a corporation is to provide that there must be two signatures on

National Harbours Board-Mr. Bennett
every cheque. One of the commendable provisions of our law is that trust funds that are held in trust for certain designated purposes must be used in a large sense for those purposes so that they may fall into the hands of persons who should subsequently receive them. It is a light thing to create a trust fund and say that the Minister of Finance may draw money out of it; it should be surrounded with many more safeguards than are provided in this bill. While a minister of the crown is free from personal responsibility, the privy council held in the case against Mr. Fulton of British Columbia that he as provincial secretary was liable because he had not done certain things that he might have done within the period of time at his disposal. I do not think the provisions of this measure deal sufficiently with the principles which, I believe, should prevail with respect to the segregation of funds for specific purposes.
We come now to one other principle which Sir Alexander Gibb said was of tremendous importance, that dealing with tolls and charges. I suppose that every hon. member knows of the reductions in elevator tolls which occurred in connection with grain for the purpose of securing more business for Quebec, on the one hand, and for other points between Quebec and Montreal, on the other. There are always those who are anxious to take advantage of such things. Sir Alexander points out the difficulties to be encountered in this connection. He points out how matters have been controlled in other countries to some extent and the necessity of dealing with them here. Those who are familiar with the litigation that took place in Montreal in connection with the habit of swapping wheat, so to speak, for the purpose of accommodating shippers will realize just what I mean when I say that it probably is desirable to see that the consent of the board should be received as to the adequacy of the security which may be taken in a place like Vancouver.
I get back to the principle in connection with which I desire finally to make an appeal to the minister. Apart from what has been said by my colleague, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, I think the minister should give consideration to making some provision in this legislation with respect to tolls and charges so that there cannot be such a condition in competition between harbours as has prevailed heretofore. I am not sure that this bill does not improve matters to some extent, but I think they should be tightened up.
The next point I desire to leave with the minister is whether we have secured the autonomy of each port to the maximum, consistent with the exercise of general supervision by the central board. That is the whole issue. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Bertrand) is right; there must be autonomy in these ports. Sir Alexander Gibb points out that an engineer is a very bad man to have as a port manager. Sir Alexander occupies a distinguished position in his profession, and he said that he could not recommend that a port manager be an engineer. What the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) said a moment ago with respect to business men, I think is implied not only in the report of Sir Alexander Gibb but in this measure itself. I put it to the house and particularly to the minister: Must we not provide for the largest measure of autonomous control by the managers of these several ports? I say local government to the maximum, but subject to supervising power by this board with respect to everything that affects the national interest.
I do not think it is abundantly clear that these port authorities have sufficient, shall I say scope, to their activities to expect them to function successfully while, on the other hand, I am quite certain that the limitations and restrictions that by the bill have been imposed upon their activities in the national interest, having regard to the fact that the money is found by the people of Canada, are quite ample. I am satisfied of that but, if my memory serves me rightly, I said to Sir Alexander Gibb that I believed Canada with its great distances must be prepared to grant a large measure of self-government to the port authorities without parting with real control over finances, on the one hand, and general administration as signified by tolls and construction work, on the other.
Construction must be carried on with a view to the future, looking ahead twenty-five or fifty years. It must be carried on according to the most approved manner and so that it can be added to. It cannot be uniform for all ports. Consideration must be given to the flow of tide in Saint John, for example, or to the deep water in Halifax, where no dredging is required. Consideration must be given to the fact that you have borers abroad, such as in Vancouver, while you have none in Halifax. While there are no borers upon the river St. Lawrence, the life of timbers is not very long. These are all matters of variation, but the constant factor is a oneness in administrative practices, a oneness with respect to tolls and with respect to the principles that govern the application of tolls,
1432	COMMONS
National Harbours Board-Mr. Bennett
a oneness with respect to the financial structure and a oneness with respect to the conditions that must be imposed for the purpose of carrying on new works and undertakings so that these harbours, which are the property not of the government but of the people both east and west, in which the west has as great an interest as the east and in which the east has as great an interest as the west, may be national ports in the broadest and truest sense of the term.
There are ports in Canada which are not being dealt with by this bill. What is to become of them? How are they to be dealt with? What is to happen to New Westminster? It is not my purpose to discuss these matters at the moment, but I do say to the minister that if he will modify this legislation, not only in the manner indicated by my colleague, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, but also along the lines indicated by myself, that control while effective will not be such as to lessen the responsibility of those who have to look after the management of the port itself, and that consistent with the exercise of this control along the lines I have indicated there will be the largest possible measure of freedom, within limitations, on the part of those responsible for the administration of the port, that is, the management appointed under the statute.
There are references to Sir Alexander Gibb's report which I should like to have made, but in view of the lateness of the hour I have refrained, for which I am sure the house is deeply grateful. I am desirous of doing everything within my power to contribute my little towards making this bill as successful as it is possible to make it in operation so that it may reflect the earnest and deliberate desire on the part of the parliament of Canada to deal with the situation. That, I think, is of the first importance, because the minister has not yet signified whether the Montreal harbour bridge, for instance, is to be dealt with under this bill as part of the harbour. Our responsibility in that respect is so great; it extends over such a period of years, that it cannot be lessened or curtailed, and therefore it is important to know what will be done with respect to that harbour, which was self-sustaining before that load was placed upon it, before the period within which the contribution to be made by the province of Quebec on the one hand and the city of Montreal on the other, has passed away. That will expire in a limited time, and it is important to keep that fact in mind in dealing with the Montreal situation. There are other considerations to be borne in mind, special in their character, with

respect to each harbour, on which matters I shall have something to say when the house is in committee.
On motion of Mr. Finn the debate was adjourned.

The house in committee of supply. Mr. Both well in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP MINES

[Stage Direction]
For administration of the Explosives Act (chap. 62, R.S. 1927), $8,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Travelling expenses are in this item, I take it?


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines):: Yes, and a few other small items.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What were the travelling expenses of inspectors under the act?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The item for travelling expenses is S3,320.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it has been that for years, I take it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is the estimate for 1936-37.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 25, 1936