[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) presented the first report of the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Sonya Shenk-man, otherwise known as Sadie Shenkman.- Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Louisa Mark-land Molson Blaiklock.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 31. for the relief of Rita Constance Beatrice Gurd Rykert.-Mr. Lennard.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Helen Elizabeth Ham Lilley-Mr. Davidson.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Mary Kaydouh Massabky.-Mr. Hyndman.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Dora Louise Gustiana York.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Violet Charlotte Dyke Duiven.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Irene Louise Penny McKee-Mr. White.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Esther Shapiro. -Mr. Lennard.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Thomas John Howard Fox.-Mr. Lennard.

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

Mr. BOTH WELL:: 1.	What amounts, if any, were expended in the building of dams and the conservation of water in southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta prior to the passing of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the Supplementary Public Works Construction Act, 1935, (a) on leased lands; (b) on deeded lands?
2.	To whom were such amounts paid?
3.	On whose lands was the work done?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	(a) Nil; (b) $1,450.30.
2.	To local residents and merchants for labour and materials.
3.	One dam and ditch on lands of J. Y. Surrey of Elkwater. Second dam in bed of Ross Creek near Elkwater. No record of owner.



INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES

Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	Did the comptroller of the treasury purchase or rent international business machines?
2.	If so, when, how many and at what cost?
3.	What kind of work is done with such machines?
4.	How many employees could be replaced by one man using such a machine?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes; Hollerith tabulating equipment, on a rental basis, from the International Business Machines Company, Limited, Toronto.
2.	1933 ; 3 punching machines, 2 tabulators, 1 sorter and 1 reproducing punch at a monthly rental of $810.
3.	These machines are installed in the central pay office, and are used in the preparation of pay rolls and the writing of cheques for 35,000 government employees and for the annuitants under the Government Annuities Act. Approximately 54.000 cheques are issued monthly.
4.	It is estimated the work now performed by the equipment and the 31 employees in
Questions

the office would require 65 persons, if machines were not used, without taking into consideration the additional persons who would be required to deal with peak loads during each pay period.



EXPORT OF POWER

Mr. STEWART:: 1.	What is the rate of export duty on hydro electric power?
2.	What companies or individuals have been granted licences for the export of such power for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1937?
3.	What quantity of hydro electric power is specified in each of such licences?
4.	Has the department concerned or the governor in council refused to issue any licences asked for the year ending March, 1937?
5. If so, what are the particulars of applications, including names of applicants and grounds of refusal?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Three one-hundredths of a cent per kilowatt hour.
2.	None.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.



MONTREAL POLYTECHNIC SCHOOL

Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmoremcy):: 1.	How many civil servants graduated from the Montreal Polytechnic school are permanently employed in the government technical services at Ottawa?
2.	How many engineers graduated from English Canadian universities are similarly employed in such services?


Mr. RINFRET:: I may tell the hon. gentleman that the government has no records out of which the information asked for might be readily supplied. To answer the question it would be necessary for the civil service commission to go over all its files or to have a special census conducted in every department, involving every appointee. Under the circumstances I think the house will agree that the tremendous work involved is hardly justified. I suggest that the question be dropped.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.



RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION BROTHERHOODS

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did Mr. W. L. Best, secretary, joint legislative committee of Railway Transportation Brotherhoods, Ottawa, write to the right honourable the Prime Minister on February 28, 1936, to express regret to the government that Bill No. 6 "had passed the Commons"?
2.	Did the said W. L. Best forward copy of that letter to the honourable Minister of Labour, the honourable Minister of Trade and Commerce, the honourable leaders of the government and of the opposition in the Senate, the Right Honourable Leader of the

Opposition in the House of Commons, Mr. J. S. Woodsworth. M.P., C.C.F. party leader, and Mr. John H. Blackmore, B.A., M.P., Social Credit party leader, as well as to the member for Temiscouata?
3.	In the above mentioned letter, did the said W. L. Best express the hope that the present parliament would not repeal the Economic Council of Canada Act?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am prepared to answer
this question orally. As to No. 1, yes; No. 2, we have no official knowledge except in the case of members of the government mentioned in the question and who have received a letter; No. 3, yes.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
CIVIL servants' salaries
['Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the orders of the day the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) asked for certain information with regard to a supplementary trade agreement recently concluded with France, and I promised to make a statement to-day. It is very brief. I might perhaps in fairness say, first, that the original negotiations were initiated by the former administration and concluded by the present one.\nAn exchange of notes between Canada and France was effected at Paris on March 20, 1936, whereby each country accorded to the other some concessions additional to those provided for under the trade agreement of May 12, 1933, and the additional protocol of February 26, 1935. The new arrangement came into force yesterday, March 31, 1936. The Canadian government agreed to make, by order in council, the following adjustments in favour of France.\nItem 156(a)\n\nRum-intermediate tariff less a discount of 30 per cent.\nItem ex 197 and ex 198-Cigarette paper, gummed or not, in rolls-intermediate tariff on item No. 197 less a discount of 30 per cent.\nItem ex 199-Cigarette paper, gummed or not. in tubes, booklets or packets-intermediate tariff less 30 per cent.\nIn return the French government gives to Canada the minimum tariff of France on a number of commodities, including selenium, knitting machine needles, outboard motors and hairpins. I might say that the department has received numerous requests from Canadian exporters of these products who stated they could do business with France if they were given the benefit of the minimum tariff of that country.\nIn addition, France has agreed to continue quotas on porcelain insulators, electric heating apparatus and vacuum cleaners, which were enumerated in schedule F of the additional protocol of February 26, 1935. In the exchange of notes France also undertakes to grant Canada sympathetic treatment with respect to quotas generally. I might add that the further details were published in the edition of March 2S of the Commercial Intelligence Journal, of which every hon. member received a copy.']
Mr. BOULANGER:: From August 7, 1930, to October 23, 1935, who were the civil servants whose salaries were increased, and what was the amount of the increase in each case?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I surmise that this deals
only with special increases and not with statutory increases. I will see that the order for return is prepared accordingly.
dismissals from public service


['I surmise that this deals\nonly with special increases and not with statutory increases. I will see that the order for return is prepared accordingly.\ndismissals from public service']
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I would suggest that this
be made an order for return. One has already been passed. Does the leader of the opposition desire to have the question merged with the other?


Mr. BENNETT:: The information should
not be prepared twice; compilation of it once should be ample.



Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: From August 7, 1930, to October 23, 1935, what civil servants received compensation for overtime ivorlc in addition to their statutory salary, and what was the amount of such extra compensation received by each?


DISMISSALS FROM PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. GRAY:: 1.	How many persons were dismissed from the public service of Canada between the 7th of August, 1930, and the 23rd of October, 1935, inclusive?
2.	How many persons were appointed to the public service of Canada between the 7th of August, 1930, and the 23rd of October, 1935, inclusive?

Alberta Financial Situation


PAPER MILLS IN CANADA
Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	What were the paper mills operating in Canada each year from 1925 to 1935?
2.	How many tons of paper were produced each year from 1925 to 1935?
3.	How many tons were produced by each mill yearly from 1925 to 1935?
4.	What has been the average price of newsprint each year from 1925 to 1935?
5.	How many tons of newsprint were exported yearly from 1925 to 1935?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled herewith. MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


BERT II IERVILLE, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. LACROIX (Beauce):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, affidavits and other documents relating to Mr. Alfred Rousseau, postmaster of Berthierville, covering the period from October 1, 1935, to date.


HALIFAX HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. WEIR:: For a copy of all documents relating to the purchase of a cold storage plant in Halifax, or the guaranteeing of the bonds secured by the said cold storage plant, by the Halifax harbour commission or by the government;
Also a copy of the order in council approving of the same and passed during the month of October, 1933; together with all correspondence passing between the Prime Minister, or Minister of Marine, or any other minister, deputy minister, or official representing the government, and Mr. Victor Drury of Montreal or any officer or other representative of the former owners of the said cold storage plant;
Also a statement showing the amount and particulars of the said guarantee or purchase price as the case may be;
Also a statement setting forth the total amount of revenue and expenses for the operation of the said plant since the date of the said order in council, together with a statement showing interest payments made and to whom paid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In terms, this motion
was passed last year at the instance of Colonel Ralston. A few questions perhaps are involved here that were not then involved, and I mention that for the information of the Secretary of State because it would save the preparation of documents over again.


CITY OF OTTAWA AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient the authorize the Minister of Public Works on behalf of His Majesty, to enter into an agreement with the corporation of the city of Ottawa to extend the period of the existing agreement with the corporation for one year from 1st July, 1935.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I was proposing to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) whether he has any statement to make in connection with the Alberta situation. I assume that probably he would do so in any event without being asked.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): As my right hon. friend has anticipated, the government deems it right to give the house immediate and full advice with respect to the Alberta situation. I do not think that advice can be given in any better way than by reading the correspondence between the premier and the provincial treasurer of Alberta and myself as representing the government of Canada.
The first communication is in the form of a letter from Edmonton dated March 12, 1936, signed by C. Cockroft, provincial treasurer of Alberta:
Edmonton, March 12, 1936. Dear Mr. Dunning,
I regret very much that I am obliged to approach you again on a matter which is, I am sure, of as much concern to yourself as it is to me. It should hardly be necessary for me to remind you that there is a debenture issue of $3,200,000 falling due on April 1. I dislike very much making this approach, but the issues are so vital that I thought I had better communicate with you and let you know how far I could go in regard to this maturity.
We have in the sinking fund available on this issue, $354,000, and in addition we can add to this figure $196,000, making a total of $550,000; the balance to be met of $2,650,000, we wish you would advance to us on the same terms and conditions as applied to our January 15 maturity.
I sent you the 1936-37 provincial budget, which I doubt if you have had time to peruse. You will note, however, that we have provided for a substantial increase in revenue by additional taxation. Changing the procedure which has been followed in past years, we have dealt with unemployment relief as a current income expenditure. In view of its continuing character we feel that this procedure is sound and if our increased estimated revenue is realized and no unforeseen expenditures of any magnitude have to be met, we will be in a position to finance our share of the direct relief estimated.
Taking the budget as a whole, every effort has been put forth by this government to meet its difficult financial situation and if our
16S4
Alberta Financial Situation

expectations are realized, we should not be obliged later on to approach your government or to raise funds in any other manner to meet the expenditures of unemployment relief, as this government has done in past years.
I sincerely trust that you will see your way clear to assist us in this matter and would appreciate it if you will let the writer know, preferably by wire, whether you would desire to go into this matter in more detail, in which event I will arrange to be in Ottawa a few days before the end of this month. It would of course be a convenience if arrangements could be made by wire, as our legislature is in session and as you know the treasurer is at the beck and call of all and sundry.
With best regards.
Yours sincerely,
C. Cockroft, Provincial Treasurer.
Next is a telegram dated March 17, signed
by myself:
C. Cockroft Provincial Treasurer Edmonton, Alberta
Ottawa, Ontario,
March 17, 1936.
Your letter requesting dominion loan to assist you in meeting April first maturity reached me simultaneously with premier's newspaper announcement that province was about to introduce legislation reducing interest rates on outstanding debt apparently without reference to proposed loan council arrangement. Announcement has already had serious adverse effect on market particularly for western provincial bonds and proposal if carried out would nullify all efforts already made and proposed to be made by dominion to protect credit of the provinces and the dominion as a whole. In view of action contemplated by province I do not see how I could justify to parliament and the country the loan for which you are now asking.
Chas. A. Dunning.
Then, on March 19, I telegraphed to the premier of Alberta and also to the premiers of the other three western provinces, saying:
Ottawa,
March 19, 1936.
Hon. Wm. Aberhart Premier of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta.
As you know authority to make loans or give guarantees to provinces will expire March thirty-first. It is not the intention to ask parliament for authority to give assistance in future in respect of maturing obligations or for general provincial purposes. Proposed constitutional amendment implies virtually unanimous approval of provinces. As objections have been raised by some provinces and as difficulties may arise in connection with early maturities we wish the provinces particularly interested to be fully cognizant of dominion's attitude and future policy. Believe matter sufficiently important for conference with premiers or provincial treasurers of four western provinces. Would it be possible for you to attend such a conference to be held next week.
Chas. A. Dunning.
It will be remembered that in the letter from the provincial treasurer which I read

first he spoke of coming to Ottawa, and the dominion government thought the situation sufficiently serious to ask if it were possible to secure a further conference of the premiers or treasurers, of the four provinces particularly interested. In that connection I may say that it was found rather difficult, from the point of view of the premiers and the treasurers of the provinces to arrange for such a conference, because of the fact that their legislatures were in session.
Replying to the telegram I have just read was a telegram from the premier of Alberta to myself, dated March 20:
Edmonton, Alta.,
March 20, 1936.
Hon. Charles A. Dunning,
Minister of Finance, [DOT]	.
Ottawa, Ont.
Impossible financially to meet our obligation April first. Alberta legislature will not complete its session until next week. Urge that arrangements be made by federal government for this maturity and will confer at your convenience afterwards.
William Aberhart.
I then wired on March 20, to Hon. William Aberhart, premier of Alberta, as follows:
Ottawa, March 20, 1936. Hon. William Aberhart,
Premier of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alta.
Your wire to-day's date. For past five months dominion has been making utmost effort to work out with provinces solution for financial difficulties of certain provinces. At dominion-provincial conference and subsequent meetings of financial committee it was made abundantly clear that the dominion cannot consider making further loans for the purpose of meeting provincial maturities and cannot possibly consent to any plan which removed from dominion parliament absolute control at all times of extent to which dominion guarantees or loans shall be given. In these conferences we evolved a plan whereby provinces finding it impossible to meet existing obligations could obtain privilege of dominion guarantee for refunding and new borrowing under a loan council arrangement. With unanimous consent of representatives of all provinces dominion undertook to initiate steps to secure necessary enabling powers and after submitting proposed draft to all provinces requisite legislation has now been introduced in parliament. In January we agreed to assist you in meeting a provincial maturity because we felt that you had not at that time had sufficient time to consider fully the nature of the proposed arrangement. As over two months have since elapsed that reason no longer applies. It is unreasonable to assume that with a maturity coming on April first the Alberta government has not been giving careful consideration to the problem thereby created. Yet apart from various newspaper statements reported to have been made by you we have not been made aware of your attitude to the proposed loan council arrangement under which dominion guarantee would be available to the province. It may be that the views of the dominion and

16S5
Alberta Financial Situation
Alberta cannot be reconciled but my telegram of yesterday was intended to invite a final effort to avert serious impairment of the credit of Alberta and other western provinces which default on your impending maturity would inevitably cause. Regret impossible for me to suggest any other course.
Chas. A. Dunning.
On March 21. I received this reply from the premier of Alberta:
Edmonton, Alta., via Ottawa, Ont.,
March 21, 7.30 p.m.
Hon. Chas. A. Dunning,
30 Whitney avenue,
Toronto, Ont.
Quite appreciate sincerity of statements in your wire. Replying categorically. Agree dominion has made utmost effort for last five months. Dominion parliament certainly has right to absolute control of extent of guarantees and loans to provinces. ' Agree conferences discussed plan regarding refunding existing obligations with dominion guarantee. In this regard Alberta was the first to agree to earmark certain revenues against interest upon refunded debt in accordance with federal bill drafted March fourth section three subsection one clause A B C. Appreciate your assistance in meeting January maturity. Reference lapse two months we have given consideration during this period but obviously impossible to arrive at definite conclusion for reason see section one proposed bill that parliament of Canada has not defined the terms and conditions to be prescribed by it. We are not evading this point but no matter what the requirements might be you could hardly expect advanced definite commitment by any legislature on undetermined details. Failure to advise regarding loan council is explained in preceding paragraph. We sincerely hope that the views of Alberta and the dominion can be reconciled. We appreciate your invitation and would have gladly accepted but introduction of taxation bills and other important acts incident to our budget made it imperative for provincial treasurer and self to remain here until close of session. As evidenced by her budget Alberta is doing everything possible to meet her obligations with the one objective of ceasing to be a financial burden on the dominion. Trust you and your colleagues will give immediate and most serious consideration to the drafting of the importing provisions of the loan council which will insure approval by our legislature.
William Aberhart.
On March 23, I replied as follows:
Ottawa, Ontario, March 23, 1936.
Hon. Wm. Aberhart Premier of Alberta Edmonton, Alta.
Your Saturday's wire. Am glad that you appreciate efforts made by dominion during past five months to meet financial difficulties of certain provinces and also dominion's right to absolute control of extent of guarantees and loans to provinces. I do not understand your statement that dominion has not defined the terms and conditions to be prescribed by it under loan council arrangement. In meetings of committee on financial questions in which your provincial treasurer took part these terms
and conditions were fully considered and the minutes of the committee sent to all provinces describe them in all essential detail. Moreover the draft of the British North America Act amendment bill which you have seen covers fully in legal form nature of the security to be given by province for dominion's security. The only points that remain to be covered in legal phraseology are the constitution and powers of the individual loan councils but the minutes referred to above should leave no doubt about these points. In brief a council consisting of representative named by the province and the dominion Minister of Finance with the Bank of Canada governor acting as technical adviser will have power to approve any program for refunding of existing provincial debt and any future borrowing by provinces before dominion guarantee will be given. This is the sum and substance of the matter and I cannot conceive that there would be any controversy over details. Am glad to note that you hope the views of Alberta and dominion can be reconciled but only a week remains for such reconciliation and as stated in my previous wires my request for a conference this week was to enable such reconciliation to be made in sufficient time.
Chas. A. Dunning.
On the same day a communication similar to the following was sent to all four western premiers:
Ottawa, March 23, 1936. Honourable William Aberhart,
Premier of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta.
The dominion government to-day were strongly of the view that it would not be advisable to go forward with constitutional amendment bill resolution for which is now on the order paper if any of the provinces object to its being proceeded with. Would you therefore please advise nie at earliest possible moment whether you object to our proceeding further with the legislation designed to implement decisions of the committee on financial questions and to make it possible for any province desiring to participate in loan council arrangement to obtain dominion guarantee for refunding purposes.
Charles A. Dunning.
On March 24, the following wire was received from Mr. Aberhart:
1936 March 24, 6.56 p.m. Edmonton, Alta., March 24, 4.37 p.m.
Hon. Charles A. Dunning Minister of Finance, Ottawa, Ont.
Will reply fully to your wires to-morrow.
William Aberhart,
Premier.
And on March 25 there is the following wire from Mr. Aberhart to myself:
Edmonton, Alta., March 25, 1936.
Hon. Chas. A. Dunning Minister of Finance, Ottawa, Ont.
Your wire twenty-third. Reference minutes provincial treasurers meetings we consider conditions outlined inapplicable to assistance by dominion which does not extend to entire funded indebtedness of province. Only refer to this in substantiation of position we took in our
Alberta Financial Situation

Saturdays wire. We have reviewed our complete situation and taking everything into consideration we are drafting legislation along following lines in which we hope you will concur and cooperate. We have in mind fixing an early date for the maturity of outstanding bonds bearing interest at five, five and half and six per cent and issuing approximately sixty-seven million dollars provincial perpetual stock interest three per cent for purpose of retiring in cash or by exchange equal total of mentioned bonds and also including all of the maturities for five or six years so that we would have no early maturities to provide for.
It is not our intention to include presently outstanding Alberta government stock. We would however include all our savings certificates. To insure due payment of interest on stock our dominion subsidies would be charged with the payment of the interest. This plan means that the dominion would incur no liability for the principal and would be fully protected for interest by the hypothecation of subsidies. The saving resulted from the above plus sinking fund included in our budge would on a cash basis about balance our total budget. May we reiterate request for your assistance in meeting maturity due April first to extent two million six hundred and fifty thousand dollars, we providing balance. Proposed bill provides first guarantee by Canada payment principal and/or interest and/or sinking fund in respect of present and/or future securities; second empowering lieutenant governor in council create an issue perpetual provincial stock paying three per cent interest; third hypothecating subsidy; fourth accelerating maturity date existing bonds holder accepting stock in exchange in full satisfaction; fifth to accept lawful money of Canada in full satisfaction sixth act to come into force by proclamation.
William Aberhart.
To that I replied on March 26, as follows:
Department of Finance, Ottawa, March 26, 1936. Honourable William Aberhart,
Premier of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta.
Your wire twenty-fifth. Do not understand your reference to minutes provincial treasurers meetings. It was fully understood that any province desiring to participate in loan council scheme could with loan council approval refund entire existing indebtedness under dominion guarantee also that if any province did not desire to refund existing debt but wished to take advantage of loan council arrangement for future borrowing this privilege would also be available under similar conditions. You outline a refunding program which any province participating in loan council would be entitled to submit but such suggested program which necessarily involves highly technical matters would naturally be one for detailed analysis and working out with the expert assistance available through loan council. Your program does not contemplate what would be position with respect to further borrowings for necessary capital purposes. Necessity for providing means of dealing with future borrowings is obvious otherwise dominion would be unable to effectively control from time to time extent to which its own credit would be pledged. Would also point out that I know of no existing constitu-
[Mr. Dunning.l	*^-1
tional authority under which dominion subsidies could be pledged as provided in your proposal. Arrangements under which loans will be made to your province or guarantees given to enable you to refund existing debt have already been repeatedly made clear to you. You have not answered my question as to whether you object to our proceeding further with legislation designed to implement decisions of committee on financial questions.
Charles A. Dunning.
On March 27, 1936, the following telegram from Mr. Aberhart, was addressed to myself:
Hon. C. A. Dunning, Minister of Finance, Ottawa, Ont.
Edmonton, Alta.,
March 27, 1936.
Reference your wire twenty-sixth we have no objection dominion government proceeding with constitutional amendment bill. Reference our request for assistance to meet maturity April first we still feel we cannot agree to future loan council regulations controlling future borrowings for a refunding advance of this character. Beyond recent advance we expect to go through the coming season without asking the dominion to assist further agricultural relief. Beyond nominal capital expenditures provided in budget we have no additional ones in contemplation. Taking up maturities for some years to come with new stock issue as covered in recent wire the dominion's assistance should not be required beyond the maturity now under discussion. In view of no existing constitutional authority to hypothecate subsidy we request dominion to agree to guarantee interest only on proposed stock issue limited to an amount equal to subsidy payable to province. The proposed constitutional amendment would give your government power to withhold subsidy in the event of default by provinces. We have no objections to this. Our proposal sets out the extent to which we ask the assistance of your government and we feel that it can be carried out and that it limits your responsibility to an amount which will at all times be covered by the subsidy. In view of very limited nature of obligation which your government would assume under our proposal we trust you will assist us in meeting April first maturity and favorably consider our request.
William Aberhart.
On March 30, 1936, I sent the following telegram to Mr. Aberhart:
Ottawa, March 30, 1936. Hon. Wm. Aberhart,
Premier of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alta.
Your wire twenty-seventh has been considered by government. You state that you cannot agree to accept loan council arrangement. Nevertheless you ask us to assist in meeting your April first maturity and then you propose to go forward with program outlined in your previous wire involving change in maturities of and reduction of interest upon large portion of your outstanding debt. Not only would this involve unfair discrimination between holders of obligations maturing April first and holders of other securities but it.

Alberta Financial Situation
would cause all the injury to provincial credit which we have been doing our utmost to avoid. Regret very much that your decisions make it impossible for the dominion to assist you on April first. Nor can dominion government agree to ask parliament for authority to give dominion guarantee to your proposed partial refunding ^program under conditions outlined in your wires.
Chas. A. Dunning.
On the same day this telegram from Mr. Aberhart, addressed to myself, apparently crossed the one which I have just read:
Edmonton, Alta.,
March 30, 1936.
Hon. C. A. Dunning,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ont.
Further to our wire twenty-seventh, if you assist us as requested to meet maturity we would agree to reimburse you to full amount from natural resources settlement as and when agreed upon. On this basis we would owe the dominion less than any western province. If you accept our proposal we are confident refunding plan can be carried out.
William Aberhart.
To that I replied on March 30, as follows:
Ottawa, March 30, 1936. Hon. Wm. Aberhart,
Premier of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alta.
Your wire thirtieth reached me in house after my wire giving government's decision had been dispatched. Your suggestion that natural resources settlement amounting to five million dollars and interest should be offset against new loan was made to me in January by your provincial treasurer. I pointed out to him that as in the case of Saskatchewan the natural resources award would have to be offset against debts already owing by provinces to dominion amounting in Alberta's case to twenty-four million seven hundred and forty-nine thousand dollars.
Chas. A. Dunning.
That, Mr. Speaker, completes the correspondence and tells the story much better than I could by any statement.


Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) stated that he received a telegram on March 19 from the provincial treasurer, Mr. Cockroft, suggesting that a meeting be held with the finance minister to discuss this loan, and the only reply sent was to call a conference of the four western premiers. Does not the Minister of Finance believe that it was the intention of Mr. Cockroft to come to Ottawa and discuss this matter with him personally? I notice that there was no personal invitation to Mr. Cockroft to come at all.


Mr. DUNNING:: My hon. friend, I am sure, will not ask his question if he reads this correspondence in Hansard to-morrow. It will be perfectly clear to him that I was anxious that all provincial premiers and treasurers should come to Ottawa to confer regarding this matter.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):: I was not clear on one point. May I ask the Minister of Finance whether at the dominion-provincial conference held early this year all the provinces agreed to the establishment of a loan council?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That' includes Alberta, of course, does it?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The minister stated a little while ago in his explanation that they had previously loaned Alberta the sum of S2,000,000 because the provincial authorities had not had time to study the plan proposed. That was the only reason why that loan was made. Now the government has refused to make a loan to that province and no reason is given. The people of Alberta have always paid promptly; they have always met their bonded indebtedness and now apparently they have suddenly become dishonest.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member is out of order.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall let the correspondence speak for itself in connection with my hon. friend's question.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I should like to get a little information from the Minister of Finance. He said that because of the newspaper reports regarding the Alberta government wishing to refund their debts at lower rates of interest the credit of the dominion had been impaired. I should like to know upon what fact that statement was based-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: -as to that having impaired the credit of the province. What fact is it based on?


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. gentleman is out of order.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I suggest that hon. members read the correspondence which has been
Canada-Franee Convention

placed on Hansard. If it is desired at a later stage to debate this question, there will, of course, be an opportunity so to do, but I do not think a discussion of this question is appropriate at the moment.


CANADA-FRANCE CONVENTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the orders of the day the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) asked for certain information with regard to a supplementary trade agreement recently concluded with France, and I promised to make a statement to-day. It is very brief. I might perhaps in fairness say, first, that the original negotiations were initiated by the former administration and concluded by the present one.
An exchange of notes between Canada and France was effected at Paris on March 20, 1936, whereby each country accorded to the other some concessions additional to those provided for under the trade agreement of May 12, 1933, and the additional protocol of February 26, 1935. The new arrangement came into force yesterday, March 31, 1936. The Canadian government agreed to make, by order in council, the following adjustments in favour of France.
Item 156(a)

Rum-intermediate tariff less a discount of 30 per cent.
Item ex 197 and ex 198-Cigarette paper, gummed or not, in rolls-intermediate tariff on item No. 197 less a discount of 30 per cent.
Item ex 199-Cigarette paper, gummed or not. in tubes, booklets or packets-intermediate tariff less 30 per cent.
In return the French government gives to Canada the minimum tariff of France on a number of commodities, including selenium, knitting machine needles, outboard motors and hairpins. I might say that the department has received numerous requests from Canadian exporters of these products who stated they could do business with France if they were given the benefit of the minimum tariff of that country.
In addition, France has agreed to continue quotas on porcelain insulators, electric heating apparatus and vacuum cleaners, which were enumerated in schedule F of the additional protocol of February 26, 1935. In the exchange of notes France also undertakes to grant Canada sympathetic treatment with respect to quotas generally. I might add that the further details were published in the edition of March 2S of the Commercial Intelligence Journal, of which every hon. member received a copy.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) if he has received from any other province objections to the proposed legislation for amending the British North America Act.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): It will be remembered that I addressed a wire to each of the western premiers asking for their views in that regard, although, of course, we thought we had them previously, and British Columbia in reply asks for a conference with respect to a point. I have not the wires under my hand at the moment, but I may say that the Premier of British Columbia is coming down here shortly. Saskatchewan raised no objection to our proceeding with the legislation, but raises in the wire the point of some provision being necessary under which a province should have the right to withdraw from a loan council arrangement under proper conditions after the situation had become favourable to its doing so. Manitoba indicated no objection to our proceeding with the legislation, but it also indicated that that did not necessarily constitute a commitment that they would come under its provisions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) when reading the correspondence with respect to the Alberta situation stated that practical unanimity was required in order to effectuate an amendment to the British North America Act. I read in the press a report of a speech said to have been made by the Premier of Quebec in which he stated that any amendments to the constitution were to be submitted to and approved by the legislature of the province of Quebec. Of course that becomes of very great importance in view of what has been said this afternoon. I do not know whether or not it is correct.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted, the telegram to which my right hon. friend refers reads as follows:
The dominion government to-day were strongly of the view that it would not be advisable to go forward with constitutional amendment bill resolution which is now on the order paper if any of the provinces objected to its being proceeded with.
My right hon. friend appreciates the reason for that.

British North America Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I do not.


Charles Avery Dunning: An address to the imperial parliament for an important constitutional amendment should have, I think my right hon. friend will agree, fairly substantial support from both parties, provincial and dominion. At any rate, an objection from some of the parties designed to be benefited by the proposed constitutional amendment might be good reason for any government of Canada not proceeding further with the matter. With regard to the Quebec aspect of the matter, I am advised that the speech to which my right hon. friend has made reference had to do rather with the measures dealing with the methods of amending the British North America Act in future and not with the constitutional amendments, notice of which is now on the order paper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking only with the permission of yourself and the house. The telegram from which the hon. gentleman read as indicated by the copy which he was good enough to send me, is dated March 19, 1936, and reads:
As you know authority to make loans or give guarantees to provinces will expire March 31st. It is not the intention to ask parliament for authority to give assistance in future in respect of maturing obligations or for general provincial purposes. Proposed constitutional amendment implies virtually unanimous approval of provinces.
I would direct particular attention to those words. I continue to read:
As objections have been raised by some provinces and as difficulties may arise in connection with early maturities we wish the provinces particularly interested to be fully cognizant of dominion's attitude and future policy. Believe matter sufficiently important for conference with premiers or provincial treasurers of four western provinces. Would it be possible for you to attend such a conference to be held next week.
The point I was endeavouring to make was that the minister in his telegram said that the proposed constitutional amendment implies virtually the unanimous approval of provinces, and the telegram indicates that it was sent to the four western provinces and to no others. That is the point I could not follow.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps I could clarify
that. There was no doubt at either the dominion-provincial conference or the subsequent financial conference dealing specifically with this matter that all the provinces were agreeable to this going forward.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Without anything further being done?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, in regard to the
measure now proposed but not in regard to the methods of amending the British North America Act in general. In the interchange of communications respecting the drafting of what is now on the order paper there developed what appeared to us to be questions in the minds of some of the provinces. As a government we did not want to be in the position of proposing legislation of this kind to the British parliament and then afterwards being faced by objections, all of which we thought we had cleared away at the conferences. Hence that straight question in the wire of March 23.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact it is covered already by the provisions agreed to by the imperial authorities at the time of the passing of the statute of Westminster. No provincial government can go behind what is done by this parliament if the arrangements made at the time of the passing of the statute of Westminster are to be given effect to. If this parliament takes appropriate action in the manner and form by law provided, the British authorities have agreed that they will pass such legislation as we may in that form ask them to pass


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend
understands that I was not referring to the strictly legal or constitutional aspect, but rather to the advisability of going forward if objections were to be raised at the last moment.



RELIEF CAMPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). In his statement to the house on February 26 as to unemployment relief camps he said that it was intended that 10.000 of the men then in the camps would be employed on deferred maintenance work for the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National railways. I am advised that this work is commencing in British Columbia to-day and I should like to know whether the government has come to an agreement with the railway companies. If so, will a copy of that agreement be tabled shortly and will it show the rates of wages to be paid, the daily hours of work and the other working conditions to be complied with?
Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett

Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour):	Mr. Speaker, I may say
that the terms of the agreement between the government and the railway companies are now under discussion. I anticipate that the agreement itself will be brought before the House of Commons when it is completed. The railways have indicated that they will be able to take some men in the month of April, but I doubt whether the movement will reach any great proportions until the month of May. I think I can assure my hon. friend that the details of the agreement will be available before that time. We shall have in mind the suggestions he has made respecting rates of pay, hours of labour and so forth.



PROFESSIONAL DOG RACING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Wilton) asked me if I would ascertain from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) whether the use of the words "recent date" referred only to the last month or two or covered the time the present administration has been in office. His question had reference to whether or not there had been received any communications from the United States respecting the legalizing of professional dog racing. I have ascertained that no communications of the kind have been received by the Minister of Justice since he came into office in October last.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the third reading of Bill No. 22, to provide for the payment of certain sums of money to primary producers of wheat with respect to wheat of the 1930 crop delivered to provincial pool organizations.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad to see that the first minister is in his place for the first time since this bill has been engaging the attention of the house, because the legislation involves matters to which I desire particularly to direct his attention.
The circumstances connected with the introduction and explanation of this legislation are so extraordinary that I regard it as of first importance, on the third reading of this measure, that I should summarize the situation, for not only does it affect to-day but it is a precedent which, if followed, will

open up an avenue to which I do not believe the first minister, having regard to his high purposes with respect to the maintenance of the institutions of parliament, would desire to become a party.
The situation may be summarized very briefly. In 1935, at a session of this parliament, a measure was enacted that authorized and empowered a corporation created by this parliament, namely the Canadian wheat board, to acquire from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, on terms and conditions to be approved by the governor in council, all stocks of wheat that they might hold at the time the board took those stocks over. The wheat held amounted to many millions of bushels, not only some seventy-five odd millions but that wheat which that cooperative enterprise had accumulated during the years from 1931 to 1935. That may be held to be agreed upon, and is common knowledge from the records. The second point to which attention is to be directed is that there was prepared and passed on October 10 an order in council by which what purported to be an agreement between the selling enterprise and the purchasing board was approved subject to auditors' certificates being produced to indicate the correctness of the figures which were employed in the body of the documents.
It will be recalled that during the progress of the discussion a memorandum from the former Minister of Finance was produced indicating that he had received from the then Prime Minister a memorandum upon which action had been taken. I pointed out that my memory was that no such memorandum had been prepared by me, but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), as reported at page 14)81 of Hansard, referred to this memorandum and asked what were its contents. I told him that I could not undertake to speak as to its contents for I did not recollect ever having signed or made such a memorandum. He thereupon reasserted that it was an important state document and that it was too bad it was not then available. Yesterday, in reply on the second reading, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) produced a memorandum. It has not been laid upon -the table of the house, as I thought it had.


Mr. GARDINER:: If the memorandum, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman is referring to is that which the Minister of Finance referred to, it is, I think, in the right hon. gentleman's hands now. I think I noticed it there a moment ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; that is the auditors' report.

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the one the Minister of Finance referred to Monday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker. That is the point that I am anxious the first minister should follow. Yesterday afternoon in reply, a memorandum was produced purporting to have been the instructions of the P.M. per R.K.F., which document of course I assumed had been laid upon the table of the house. It is not there. I particularly desired to make some reference to it, but I do not have it before me, so I shall have to confine myself-


James Garfield Gardiner: I have sent up for it. Word just came across to me that the leader of the opposition desired it. It will be here in a few moments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I thought it was here. When I could not get it I sent word to the hon. gentleman. I desire to see it for a very special purpose. But so far as this is concerned I think we can deal with it from Hansard according to the language used by the hon. gentleman himself. He produced the document from the archives of the government. I do not suggest that the Minister of Finance knew it was there.


Charles Avery Dunning: I never saw it at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. But I do suggest that when a minister comes into the House of Commons for the purpose of making an exposition of a matter, and it is common knowledge that documents were prepared in various departments, we should have before us, if possible, the documents or copies of them to which reference is made. I was in an embarrassed position in view of what the Minister of Finance said, and I ask any minister of the crown to put himself in the same position as I was placed in by that observation. It was stated by the Minister of Finance at that time that the order in council had been prepared on the instructions of the then Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance said that those instructions, of course, were state documents. I tried to show him that such was not the case, and I said that Mr. Paul Bredt, of the cooperative enterprises, had come to my car at Montreal and, he having made certain statements, Mr. R. K. Finlayson-I did not give his name yesterday-at my request came to Ottawa, Mr. Bredt accompanying him. I find on the file the memorandum that was prepared by Mr. Finlayson for the Department of Justice. At page 1645 of Hansard the Minister of Agriculture is reported as having said this:
Some reference was made last evening to a *document which I did not know at that time
was available. I have before me a copy of that document, and I take it off the file because it is impossible to read it without taking it off, for a very important part of it is under the clip on the file. That important part is also written in in pen and ink, across the top of the memorandum. It reads like this:
Instructions received from P.M. through R.K.F. on 8th October.
That document was produced by the minister from the file, and there are other documents on the file as well, including the order in council; I do not see it here now.


James Garfield Gardiner: The memorandum is the second last document.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The document has in writing these words:
Instructions received from P.M. through R.K.F. on 8th Oct. F.P.V.
In Hansard it appears "F.P.E." "F.P.V." are the initials of Mr. Varcoe, of the Department of Justice. That is in his handwriting and not mine nor that of anyone connected with me; and in order that the matter may be succinctly and logically placed upon Hansard I shall read the memorandum, which is as follows:
The Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, agree to sell to the Canadian wheat board, all wheat owned by them and all their contracts for the purchase of wheat, and to transfer and deliver the same to the Canadian wheat board immediately upon the acceptance of this offer, and upon the terms hereinafter set out.
(a)	The Canadian wheat board accepts as of the 31st day of August, 1935, all liabilities of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, in respect of the said wheat and the said contracts for advances made in connection with the acquisition and the holding thereof by the following banks:-
As stated by the minister yesterday, the names of the banks are not given.
(b)	The amount to be paid by the Canadian wheat board to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, is the sum of-
No figure being given.
-being the balance due to the primary producers for wheat and expenses and other charges in connection with the holding and handling thereof.
That is the entire memorandum which Mr. Varcoe's signature says was received from Mr. Finlayson, secretary, as indicating the instructions of the Prime Minister. That is the story up to that point. There is, however, attached to the file what was not read yesterday, namely, the memorandum which was sent to Mr. Rhodes, Minister of Finance, by the deputy minister. It says:
Dear Sir:	8th October, 1935.
At the request of Mr. R. K. Finlayson I have had prepared and enclose herewith for

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett

your signature a report to council in connection with the proposed acquisition by the Canadian wheat board of wheat and contracts to purchase wheat from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited. I understand that the letters set out in this report are to be exchanged to-day.
I assume that the president of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, has been duly authorized to agree to the terms set forth and that the wheat board has or will have duly authorized its chairman to accept the offer.	,
With reference to the cash payment to be made to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, for the purpose of paying certain claims advanced by their members in respect of wheat delivered in 1930, I nave, of course, no knowledge of the legality of these
claims.
Yours truly,
Deputy Minister.
The Honourable E. N. Rhodes,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
That of course is the first knowledge I have of that letter, obtained this afternoon from the files sent me just now, in the presence of members of this chamber, by the Minister of Agriculture. There we have the order in council situation, I think, clearly explained by the documents that were produced from the custody of the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice and the privy council office. They clearly indicate how the order in council came into being or was formed, to use the language of the Minister of Agriculture. Another expression used was to the effect that it was built up. I think that abundantly appears from the evidence that has now been presented. I deeply regret that no opportunity was afforded even to see these documents before they were used in reply, when I had exhausted my right to speak, and the only opportunity I have to clear up this situation and to place it in some form of continuity is on the third reading of this measure.
Then, let us proceed to the next point, which is very simple. Mr. Rhodes dispatched the order in council by messenger and it was signed as indicated'-the draft of the report, I should say, not the order in council. May I take that back and say that he dispatched to two ministers the report thus prepared and it was signed, under the circumstances set out, by one of them, the other not being accessible; and when it came to Toronto to the then president of -the privy council, or the Prime Minister, whichever you desire to say, he added to it the words: that these amounts should be certified by the auditors. My information is that the query was as to what warrant there was for these figures, and there being no certificate with respect to them the request was made in writing placed upon the

document that there should be provision for there being a certificate by auditors. And in that regard it will be remembered that when the order in council was passed on October 10 it was subject to the certificates of auditors with respect to the matters in question.
The document, dated October 5, produced yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture, was a certificate by auditors addressed to the cooperative enterprise at Winnipeg. How it came into the possession of the Department of Justice, I do not know, but it did not come from the office of the Prime Minister so far as I have been able to ascertain. I suspect at least-and I think I may say that without making any inference-that it came from Mr. Bredt who was here in the east at that time. That ends the order in council.
Shortly after that, to continue the narrative, the new Minister of Finance sent out instructions, which have been set out at length in Hansard, to the auditors asking that certain information should be furnished by them with respect to the transactions between the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited and the wheat board and the producers of grain during the whole period that they had operated in connection with the stabilization operations. That information from the auditors was not received until late in January, 1936. It would next appear that the new government, the present administration, at the request of the new chairman of the wheat board, required that the wheat owned by the cooperative enterprise should be turned over to the wheat board. Bear in mind that the quantity of wheat was not only that which was represented by the 1930 crop but also the additions that had been accumulated during the period in which the cooperative enterprise had operated. It will be remembered that last year the evidence given before the committee was that this amounted to a very large quantity, I think nearly 200,000,000 bushels in all, which they had accumulated during the progress of the stabilization operations carried on in the years intervening between 1931 and 1935.
It would next appear that the action of the cooperative enterprise in turning over wheat was not as rapid as the government desired and that there were certain difficulties to be overcome in connection with determining what was to be paid to the organization by the purchasers, the wheat board. That is. abundantly clear. But here again I regret, to say-and that is the reason I do direct the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister, who after all is responsible for the

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
conduct of business in the house, as I found out to my sorrow at times-the fact is that these documents indicating that something other than the order in council had been created were not produced in this chamber on the initial statement with respect to the matter, nor do they appear in the terms of ohe resolution which we have considered, nor do we hear of them until later, when the preamble of the bill became known to us and it there appeared that the wheat had actually been turned over to the new board on the second day of December, 1935'. Close reading of that so-called assignment will indicate that it was hardly sufficient for the purpose of turning over the visible wheat; it undertook to deal only with the contracts. It was not until December 17 that a memorandum was produced indicating that the wheat had in fact been turned over to the new board.
Now, sir, I suggest that there is not an hon. member in this chamber who heard the explanation given on the resolution who did not believe, as I did, that the government were proceeding under the order in council of October 10, and that owing to delays in connection with securing information from the auditors, negotiations had taken place for the purpose of settling terms that under the order in council would be settled by auditors' certificates. What was my surprise, and the surprise, I think, of most hon. members who had not any previous information, to find that instead of the order in council of October 10 being the important document which was responsible for the turning over of the wheat, it was the action taken by the government upon which a telegram had been sent by the Minister of Trade and Commerce threatening the cooperative enterprise with two grave results that would follow if they did not act promptly. One was that the government would avail itself of the provisions of the order in council and sell the wheat and wheat contracts, the other that the government would close off the credit of the cooperative enterprise by cancelling the guarantees. That, I think, is a fair statement of the situation up to that moment.
In view of the production of the documents to which I have referred, and the statement made in the preamble of the bill that the wheat was actually'turned over on December 2, I regard the situation as being one of very great importance, because the preamble of the bill is contradictory, as I shall presently point out. We have first of all the statement made yesterday by the minister, as reported at page 1652 of Hansard, that the order in 12739-108J
council of October 10, 1935, had ceased to have any value whatever. In order that there may be no misapprehension I read his statement:
But whoever pays will be the agent of the government in paying the money to the primary producer. The money is ours; it does not belong to the pool but passes through their hands to the people to whom we think it should go, the primary producers.
Mr. Bennett: That puts the order in council out of business.
Mr. Gardiner: That has always been out of business.
That has always been out of business 1 Now, in the face of that I do not think it is necessary to make any further reference. But there is another reference of the hon. gentleman to the matter, at page 1653 of Hansard, in exactly the same sense. I was reading from the documents and I said:
I object to the following words, which are at variance with the facts as produced by the minister. It was not under authority of paragraph (f) of section 7 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, that this was done, at all.
Mr. Gardiner: I have never said so.
Now, there one has, without going into other statements which have the same meaning, a fair and clear indication, I submit, that the government-wholly within their rights -took the view that they wanted possession of that wheat for the wheat board, which in my judgment was a proper thing, because parliament had said that it should be done, and as the terms and conditions under which it was to be done had not been dealt with as provided for by order in council owing to the difficulty of getting the necessary information by way of certificates, the government took the position: We will sit down and make a settlement with you. And they made a settlement, because yesterday the Minister of Agriculture said: This has been agreed upon by everybody and you need not have any doubt about any wording. I will not take time again to read the statement into the record. It was said: You need not worry about taking time in connection with this, there will be no trouble about releases because this has been agreed upon.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, that is not it. The right hon. gentleman is not quoting my words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I could read them; they are here, but the point is that the hon. gentleman said when he was in western Canada during the by-election: If we cannot do this we will sit down and get together. Those words were in the quotation from the Leader-Post, as I read it the other evening indicating
Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett

what he proposed to do, namely negotiate a settlement. He therefore said distinctly and positively in terms that the settlement had been made.
Without going into that further, although possibly it might be important to do so, I desire, I repeat again, to direct the attention of the Prime Minister specially to the terms of the preamble of this bill. I do not think the Prime Minister would desire that the house should give its support to a preamble which is not in accordance with the facts. I point out that the language which is employed in this preamble is not even consistent, and is not in accordance with the facts. Yesterday I appealed as well as I knew how to the house to remedy the bill in this respect, but unfortunately party differences become so acute that anything that may be said by me with respect to the matter is regarded by the other side from a purely party point of view, and I suppose e converso, anything said by the other side is regarded on this side as being purely political. But I have an interest m this matter purely as a member of the House of Commons, and when I suggest to the chamber, as I do, that this preamble contains contradictory phrases, wholly at variance with what has been said by the minister, I state I think something that is axiomatic; it is apparent to whoever reads. The minister said last evening that he desired that this preamble should remain in its present condition because it was an historic record of the whole transaction from 1930 to date. If it is a matter of history there are two factors that must combine to give it value; it must be an impartial statement, and it must be accurate. If the statement is not impartial it is not a proper statement of facts. If it is inaccurate obviously it should not be in the preamble.
The rule with respect to preambles of private bills is that they must be proved; with respect to public bills the rule is that there must be evidence in the bill itself as a basis for the preamble. In chapter 61 of the statutes of Saskatchewan to which I referred yesterday there was a preamble. That preamble was based upon the agreement reached at the wheat conference in London in 1933. But the draftsman in that case pursued the course that is always pursued when a public bill carries with it a preamble with respect to which there may be difference of opinion as to the facts; there was attached to it as a schedule the agreement. The wheat agreement of 1933 signed in London was attached to the schedule as the basis upon which the preamble -was founded. Now, this document goes from . 
this chamber without a single annex or schedule showing the basis for any statement made in the preamble. Not a word. I desire at least to make it perfectly clear that any statement of policy such as that made by the Minister of Labour in the preamble of one of the bills, or such as was made in another bill to which reference has been made this session, containing an indication of policy such as, for instance, the widening of markets and the broadening of trade, which are essential parts of the policy declared by the Prime Minister-those declarations of policy in a preamble are very ordinary preambles which Lord Thring, the great draftsman of parliamentary bills in England, says are frequently inserted in bills. The modern practice, however, is not to include a preamble at all in public bills, for the reason I have indicated, I am not going to be lengthy in regard to this matter, but I am going simply to direct attention to provisions in the preamble for the purpose of showing that the preamble itself is contradictory. And you cannot have a preamble to a public bill which in my opinion is not evidenced by public documents unless you refer that preamble to a select committee of the house for the purpose of having evidence given with respect to it.
On page 2 of the bill there is a recital commencing at the top of the page with respect to the establishment of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 19'35. Paragraph (f) of section 7 is quoted, and set out at length. About that, one would say that being a quotation from a statute there would be no difficulty if the bill proceeded under the authority of that provision. But I have just read from the record all the statements within a short time of one another from the minister in which he said that this order in council never had any value so far as this transaction is concerned. I could have reinforced that by a statement made by the Minister of Finance who distinctly said, "This bill contains the terms under which this wheat is being taken over, and the reason we are here is because of that fact." That, I suppose the hon. member will recall, took place in the discussion between the Minister of Finance and myself immediately after the minister had concluded his speech on moving second reading of the bill.
Let us come to the next preamble. It contains a recital, as does the next one, referring to what was done under order in council. Then, like a bolt from the blue comes this:
Whereas a transfer of wheat and contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
respect of which the government of Canada had given a guarantee was made by Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, to the Canadian wheat board as of December 2, 1935, subject to final settlement of the terms of such transfer.
And the Minister of Finance has said that this bill comprises those terms. And the Minister of Agriculture likewise, in what he said yesterday, agreed that that was so, namely that the terms had been agreed upon by the central pool and by others, and that this bill was before parliament in order that that matter might thus be settled. That is the story.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman where he gets authority for that statement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall stop and take time to verify it. Does the hon. gentleman say he did not say yesterday that we need not have any difficulty about questions of release or matters of that sort, because those matters had been agreed upon?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not go to the extent of saying that it had been agreed upon. I said that this bill in section 5 provides for agreement being reached.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry if I have to turn up Hansard.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has not been agreed upon at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry if I have to take time because the hon. gentleman-


James Garfield Gardiner: I think what the right hon. gentleman has in mind is that I said there would be no trouble in reaching an agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We were talking about
releases; I was speaking about the difficulty in connection with the matter, and the hon. gentleman said that there would be no difficulty, and that this matter was agreed upon by all parties.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the right hon. gentleman will find that my interpretation is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All right, we will look it up. My colleague will look through Hansard and find that to which I have been referring.
I now come to the next inconsistency to which I direct attention, and it is this: The recital in the third last paragraph on page 2 refers to amounts to be verified by auditors' certificates. It is admitted that no such certificates have been produced for any sum, because of conditions to which the hon. gentleman referred, but that action was taken by the government, the sum was arrived at, and the pools were told that this was the sum to be paid. They had to agree in order to get it.
There is another difficulty to which I directed attention and which, I believe the Prime Minister will agree, is vital to a preamble of this kind. A preamble which asserts a conclusion in law unless warranted by judicial decision, is one that does not appear in any public bills I have ever been able to discover. If, however, there has been a judgment of the court, the preamble refers to that for the purpose of indicating what the interpretation placed upon controverted acts has been.
At the top of page 3 of the bill we find these words, "Whereas no justification exists." Then we come to the second following paragraph and we find, "Whereas no justification exists," and so on. My submission with respect to that is very simple, namely that where there is a difference of opinion, to assert in a preamble that there is no justification for taking certain action is wholly at variance with the principles upon which legislation is drafted. In other words determine by this action that legislation of the future shall consist of what are called historic statements of a situation, a part of which consists of allegations. I submit that that is contrary to the whole principle under which parliament has acted in the past. I cannot find any precedent for it, although I have spent some time in an endeavour to find a precedent where parliament has acted in this way in connection with public legislation. In private bills a preamble has often been historic, and in every case unless the preamble is proven before the committee, the bill fails.
This bill was referred not to a special committee, but merely to a committee of the whole house, and there is no proof of allegations beyond the mere statement by the government contained in telegrams and letters to the effect that they proposed to take possession of the wheat and, later, that the terms and conditions under which they took it were to be settled as they have been settled, maybe not to the full satisfaction of the cooperative enterprise; but whether to their satisfaction or not, it does not matter. What has happened is that wheat has been taken and the party who took it, by reason of its paramount power, says, "Here is what we will give you for it." As I understand yesterday, that was agreed to because it was said that there would be no difficulty with respect to releases.

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the quotation before me now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What page?


James Garfield Gardiner: At the top of page 1650 of Hansard. In reply to a statement by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) I said the following:
Mr. Gardiner: No; the situation is this: When the bill is passed and the money is available to the pool organizations no doubt we shall have some discussions with them. If the pool organizations say that they want to pay the money-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not it at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is my statement of the position.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I continue reading:
If the pool organizations say that they want to pay the money out in the ordinary way and pay it over to the producers, that is the way in which it will be paid. But if something else is said then I am not in a position to state to the committee what the government will be competed to do. I assume that is what is going to be said; I do not think anyone is in a position to assume anything else. This is all the money in connection with wheat that the pool organizations asked for, with the exception of their expenses.
As long as we are giving them all the money they asked for, I do not know that anybody can complain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That exactly supports
the contention I was endeavouring to make, although that was not the quotation I had marked. If the pools have all the money they asked for, one cannot understand any difficulty arising in that regard.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; but the hon.
gentleman said a few minutes ago that the whole matter had been discussed and settled, and therefore there would be no trouble.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When I rose to-day I
desired to make a statement on the third reading of the bill. Ordinarily I would not have spoken on the third reading had it not been that the hon. gentleman used certain documents and I had no opportunity to speak with respect to them. This is the only opportunity I have because in committee I could not deal with other than the immediate sections.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. gentleman
will permit me, I do not desire to speak on the third reading at all, unless I have to. The reference I made was only in reply to what the hon. gentleman said the night before- he mentioned certain documents and I had them here yesterday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, perhaps
I might have the floor, and probably you will enforce the rule with respect to the hon. gentleman. I said to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) that I had no knowledge of any such memorandum, and the facts now disclose not only that did I have no such knowledge, but that it was prepared here, as Mr. Varcoe says, by Mr. Finlayson on October 8, when I was elsewhere. At the top of page 1653 of Hansard I find this:
Mr. Gardiner: This deals with a different matter. It deals with a question really covered in order in council P.C. 3199. That is, if the terms of the bill are acceptable to the wheat pools then of course this section really provides for the new agreement with regard to the whole matter. Immediately the moneys are accepted by the company a release is given to the government. Thus, in so far as any undertakings previously made are concerned, I would say that they are dissolved by this section.
Note that, "They are dissolved by this section." He goes on:
The release has to do not with dealings as between individuals and the government, but with dealings between Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, and the government.
That is the point I was endeavouring to make, that there need not be any difficulties about the matter. I have no desire to put inferentially an interpretation upon anything that has been said. I desired to summarize what had been said in order to make it fairly clear that what the minister had plainly said, supported by the Minister of Finance as well, was that this bill takes the place of the order in council, and that the order in council, to use the language of the minister in one place, is now dissolved, or to use his language in another place, has no value, or to use his language in another place, is completely out of business. That is all I have to say with respect to that general provision, without going into the matter at any great length.
I only desire to record this short summary of the situation for the purpose of drawing attention to the fact that parliament for the first time within my knowledge, and for the first time within my observation so far as I have been able to search the records in the limited time at my disposal, is asked to pass a preamble introducing something that purports to be a matter of record and that is not supported by documents attached as schedules to the bill. A preamble is rather an important part of a bill. The legal members of the house will recall that eminent judges as far back as Lord Coke have said that a preamble

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
is useful when you are endeavouring to interpret the legislation in respect to it. Now I submit that any reference to this preamble as it stands leaves one in doubt whether the measure is framed to give effect to the order in council of October 10 or to the transaction of December 2, 1935. One would be left in doubt were it not for the statements made by the Minister of Finance on the one hand and by the Minister of Agriculture on the other. But neither the statements made by the Minister of Finance nor the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture would be available for interpreting the documents in a court of law, for the rule is that Hansard may not be resorted to for the purpose of determining how a statute shall be interpreted or as to the meaning of the words used. The meaning will have to be discovered from the words themselves, and as the words themselves are used, you have the allegation with respect to justification in at least two cases in the preamble, where it is stated that there is no justification for the statements that have been made theretofore. Second, there is no public document attached as a schedule to the bill that supports the preamble.
In view of the documents that have been produced, and which served every purpose I had in mind, realizing of course that with the strained feeling in the chamber with respect to the matter there was no likelihood of any suggestion of mine being adopted, and in view of the minister's statement that he desired the preamble to be part of the bill because it gave a history of the transaction, I have only this to add: The highest courts of the realm have said that in determining what is meant by a completed bargain, in the absence of fraud, duress or misrepresentation, what takes place in the way of negotiations prior to the bargain being concluded is no part of that transaction, but once it has been reduced to finality it speaks for itself in the absence of any misconception, misunderstanding, fraud or deceit. I used the words of Lord Lore-burn in the House of Lords when he said that evidence as to prior negotiations could not be used for the purpose of throwing light on the meaning to be given to words in a document that represented finality between the parties to an agreement. The agreement implies a consensus on the part of all the parties to it.
The hon. gentleman says: We have taken the wheat; it has been transferred to the wheat board, and the wheat having been transferred to the wheat board we are going to settle the terms and conditions on which it is to be paid for. Those terms and conditions have been settled. They are embodied, as the Minister of Finance says, in this bill, and
recitals are introduced that have nothing whatever to do with that transaction, that are not related to it, that are at variance with it and render the legislation of this house of a type and character which I venture to say has not been seen before and will not be found in any other country in the world, for if you propose to give the history in the preamble then you must support it by official documents in the form of schedules. That is the only method I know by which you can support the history given in the preamble, where no opportunity has been given for the purpose of examining witnesses as to the facts alleged in the preamble, as in the case of private bills. In private bills it is essential to establish by competent testimony every fact asserted in the preamble, and when a motion is made and passed that the preamble has not been proven, the committee rises and the bill fails. But in this public bill, in committee of the whole we have been compelled to accept a preamble which the minister says is a history of the transaction, a transaction that has nothing to do with the payment of the money or with another transaction which has to do with the payment of the money, and the preamble with respect to that could of course be shortly stated in the terms that were used with respect to the transaction of December 2.
So far as this measure is concerned1, it is one for the payment of certain sums of money to certain persons by reason of the government having exercised its paramount authority and taken possession of certain wheat and wheat contracts in December last, with the understanding that the terms and conditions of their so doing would be settled later. The representatives of the delivering organization, the cooperative enterprise, have been in this city for some time and this legislation is said to be a settlement of the rights accruing to them on December 2 and subsequent dates.
There is just one word more that might be said and I shall have concluded. If it were proposed to proceed under the provisions of the act of 1935 an order in council was all that was necessary to approve the terms and conditions. It might well be that the government thought it desirable to validate that because the power of parliament is supreme. As the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) has very properly said, pro tanto this would operate as a repeal of section 7 (f). It was thought the other evening by everyone that there was an order in council. The hon. member said that my reiteration of that was the cause of his believing that there was one, but that is hardly correct. What is correct is that the Minister of Finance and everyone
169S

Wheat Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
else thought there must be an order in council, otherwise the statute would not have been complied with. As there was no order in council it was quite clear that the reliance in the settlement of this matter was not upon the provisions of the statute of 1935, but was an exercise of its paramount power by parliament in favour of a cooperative enterprise. It was a settlement of the terms and conditions under which payment should be made to the producers through the mediums that have been indicated in the bill itself.
I repeat, that had documents not been presented in reply when I had no opportunity to discuss them it would not have been necessary for me to rise and address the house on the third reading because under our rules the mover of a bill has no right to reply on the third reading. I have endeavoured, therefore, to state my case as clearly as possible and hope that appropriate action may be taken to deal with it in the proper way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take any part in this debate, but the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has addressed one or two remarks directly to me and possibly he expects me to say a word in reply. As I understand my right hon. friend's remarks just now, he is complaining that reference was made in the course of the debate to some documents essential to the discussion which had not been placed before the house when the debate began. I do not hesitate to say and I think hon. members will agree that where it is obvious certain documents are to be brought into a discussion, they should be brought before the house at as early a stage as possible. With regard to the documents to which my right hon. friend has referred, I think from a reading of his own remarks it will be seen that they became essential only during the course of the discussion. They were not of a character which made it absolutely neces-say that the house should be apprised of them in advance. I think I am right in that. Certainly neither my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), nor any other member of the government, would have any intention of withholding documents necessary for the purpose of discussion, in committee or at any other stage. In many debates, the discussion runs to length and into directions not contemplated at the outset. Frequently new documents are brought into the discussion, and have then to be produced.
I regret that it has not been possible for me to be in the house throughout the whole
FMr. Bennett.]
of this debate. My right hon. friend has referred to the fact that I was not here part of the time. I do not know to which part of the time he has reference, but I have been here during a considerable part of the debate. As my right hon. friend knows perhaps better than anyone else, it is necessary to arrange among ministers attendance in the house. I have been in fairly continuous attendance since parliament opened, especially during the debates on the Canada-United States agreement and recently during the debates on unemployment and relief legislation. The subject we are dealing with to-day is one which I thought could be discussed to the satisfaction of hon. members on both sides by the presence in the house of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and for a good part of the time, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe).


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly was not complaining as I know that it is impossible to be in this house at all times. I was only expressing regret that my right hon. friend was not here. Far be it from me to express any complaint because I know from sad experience what are the duties of my right hon. friend. He has been here as much as he could reasonably be expected to be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my right hon. friend for making clear the significance of his words in that regard.
The next subject to which my right hon. friend referred was the introduction of a preamble into a public bill. Here again I agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) when he says that ordinarily it is not customary or necesary to have preambles with respect to public bills. At all events, it is not in accordance with present practice There is however a distinct exception to that rule, as there is to most rules. Where a public bill resembles in essential particulars a private bill dealing with local matters there is every reason why there should be a preamble.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason documents are attached to the schedule.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend will I think agree that there is no better authority on legislative methods and forms than Sir Courtenay Ilbert, parliamentary counsel to the treasury. At page 269 of his treatise, Legislative Methods and Forms, I find the following with respect to preambles:
As a rule a preamble is unnecessary in a public bill. Where the object is merely to describe briefly the reason for and the intended effect of the proposed legislation, that object can often be better obtained by pre-

Business oj the House
fixing a short explanatory memorandum to the bill. Such a memorandum should state concisely the existing law, the reasons for amendment, and the effect of the proposed amendments. A local bill must always have a preamble, the recitals in which must be proved. And when a public bill resembles in character a local bill, a preamble will usually be necessary. Where, for instance, an enactment deals with a special set of facts, it will usually be convenient to state those facts in a preamble.


Mr. CAHAN:: And they must be proved.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says that they must be proved. That is correct. What I am dealing with at the moment is the advisability of having a preamble.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was in agreement with that, as it will be recalled.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If we are in agreement on the fact that a preamble in connection with this particular bill is in accordance with proper legislative methods, then the only remaining point at issue is whether or not the preamble contains an exact recital of facts. [DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: And whether it has been proven.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must here confess that I regret finding myself having to decide as between the leader of the opposition and my colleague the Minister of Agriculture.
The Minister of Agriculture has gone very fully into the record and from his point of view, and certainly from the point of view of the government and indeed all of us on this side, it would appear that the preamble is substantiated by the documents which have been brought into the discussion. My right hon. friend does not hold that view and has, I think, put on record very fully any exception he desires to take to the preamble. To that extent at least his remarks this afternoon, and at other stages of the discussion have I believe met what he had chiefly in mind.
I do not think there is more that I can add other than to emphasize anew that I feel perfectly certain the Minister of Agriculture, in presenting the preamble in the words in which it appears, had only in view the desire to set forth a record which it was useful and desirable to have in a bill of this kind, and that in so doing he sought to be accurate in every particular with respect to the statements which were made.


Walter Edward Foster: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried:


Walter Edward Foster: Carried:	,


Richard Bedford Bennett: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister
of Pensions and National Health has three bills on the order paper for second reading. It is understood that each of these bills is to go to a special committee to be considered there without prejudice and subject to full discussion in the house later. If there is a likelihood of any debate on the second reading of any of the bills before reference to committee, we will not proceed with second readings this afternoon. I should like, however, to ask the clerk to call the first of these measures. If there is no objection to its passing the second reading, on the understanding that they are to go immediately to the special committee which was appointed by the house some days ago to deal with soldiers' pensions and kindred problems for discussion there, we will then proceed with the other two.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I see no reason why the course followed on other occasions should not be adopted here-speaking only, of course, for myself and those associated with me, without prejudice to our position, and without in any sense agreeing to the principle of the legislation. I know that that is a very improper thing to say, because a second reading involves the adoption of the principle of a bill; but in view of the fact that these bills are to be sent to the special committee, and that our rights will be reserved when they come back as though they had not received their second reading, I shall be verr-glad to expedite the business in that way.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 26, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems.
1700	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Church

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 27, to amend the War Veterans^ Allowance Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 28, to assist towards the employment of former members of the forces.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 31, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Rogers for the second reading of Bill No. 14, respecting the establishment of a national employment commission.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Last
evening for ten minutes I discussed the second reading of this bill. I may say that the principle of it surprises me. What this bill proposes is that a post mortem be conducted by a sevenfold commission system. As I said last night, I do not wish to see this parliament abdicate its functions and leave it to any commission to deal with this problem. This particular bill, as the house knows, interferes with the scope of the trade and industry commission act now before the supreme court. That bill, in effecting the regulation of trade and commerce, would have done a great deal for unemployment and we should not have needed this present measure at all. In my opinion if this bill passes we might as well abolish the Department of Labour. The department is getting statistics; the municipalities are getting statistics; the provinces are gathering statistics; we have a bureau of statistics; like the unemployed, we are "statis-ticked" to death.
The commonest error in politics, Lord Salisbury said, is sticking to the carcasses of dead policies. That is what the government is doing, so far as this particular bill is concerned. In my opinion it does not set up any long term policy or provide any cure whatever.

What is needed is that those who want to work shall be provided with useful employment, and nothing in the bill presented by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) will be any cure for unemployment. Also the bill interferes with business. It is an interference by amateurs with the corporate direction of one's business by industry; in fact, as the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) said the night before last-and he uttered words of wisdom-one of the main causes of unemployment is the haphazard way in which legislators are imposing burdens and artificial barriers and restrictions on business and the amateur interference with the heads of business. You are going to hand over to a commission of seven figureheads parliament's sovereign powers, and it will interfere in time with the liberty of the subject and of business as well. It will prevent any redress or reference to the law courts, because the commission can make rules and regulations binding on business, over the heads of the law courts and over the head of this parliament. It amounts to what Lord Hewart has called "the new despotism," and will prevent any further discussion in this parliament of this question.
I have been in this house for ten or twelve years, and in my opinion it is time to stop pussyfooting with this question. Parliament itself must face the issue. The other day the minister spoke very elaborately; he talked for two and a half hours, and no doubt he could have gone on for five or six hours reading statistics which are not at all relevant to the issue. It will bring small comfort to the unemployed to hand them a bound copy of Carlyle. The minister says Carlyle was a great social reformer. No doubt he was, but I quoted last night a great Englishman, and qualified that by saying that as a matter of fact he was an Irishman; I referred to Edmund Burke, who said that government was a practical thing, not something to please the fancy or imagination of ordinary politicians.
I may sum up the cures and palliatives of the minister to date as follows: first, the ambassador cure; next, the supreme court cure. We should now have contributory unemployment insurance for the working classes but for the fact that the Liberal party at the last session sat back and did nothing and then sent it to the supreme court of Canada. The present leader of the opposition in this parliament, who is a statesman if ever there was one, introduced a bill in this matter, for the first time since confederation, under the powers for the proper regulation of trade and commerce. Where is that bill to-day? They have had insurance in

Employment Commission-Mr. Church
England since 1909. They have had labour exchanges. They have them in the United States. And the government refers this legislation to the supreme court. One of the chief reasons why Great Britain has recovered is the fact that in that country they have unemployment insurance since 1909, and an efficient labour department. The duplication of commissions, the handout cure, bonuses, subventions and subsidies to some and not to others lack of equality of treatment, and last but not least the Thomas Carlyle cure-all these quack medicines and palliatives will produce no results. They will not mean another job for another man in this dominion. The farmers are not to be fooled on this April Fool's day; they will not stand for it any longer. The first of May is coming, spring is approaching, and bricklayers, carpenters and artisans are waiting for work; but the minister assures a deputation of municipalities that he is appointing a commission to get the facts. Well, the working classes in this country have all the facts right now; they do not have to rely on any neatly bound volume of Thomas Carlyle and other social reformers, including the professor who is now Minister of Labour, to tell them what ought to be done. They know only too well what ought to be done; what they want is work.
This bill is based on one principle and one principle only, laissez-faire, do nothingism- letting things be referred to useless commissions consisting of figureheads, the policy of muddling through. This policy, perilous and costly as it was during the war, is still more dangerous in times of peace, especially in connection with this particular department. The minister no doubt thinks that his bill, No. 14, is a solution of the unemployment problem. I do not think it is, nor do I regard any of his quack medicines or pills as a cure for the unemployment situation. He offered us nothing in his discourse the other day of two and a half hours. All we have is a policy of standing still, free trade, the teachings of the Manchester school; but I repeat that none of these things will end unemployment. The unemployed are becoming alarmed over parliament's failure to accomplish anything to relieve the situation. We have been here for two months and we do nothing; we do nothing but sit here and talk while jobs are wanted.
I am strongly opposed to this commission idea. We might as well go back home, for all the powers of parliament are being handed over to various commissions. Commissions are superseding parliament, they are taking over the prerogatives of the House of Commons; the passing of rules and regulations, magna charta, everything is being handed over
to these commissions. We have in this country what I would call commission government and I would suggest that all the commissions that have been appointed should be mobilized outside these parliament buildings and placed under the command of the hon member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset), who seems to be an expert in giving signs and high signs in this house. These commissions should be lined up with their staffs, their executives, their sisters, their cousins and their aunts, all of whom have been loaded on the commissions, with these who are to advise and recommend to the minister under Bill 14, and they would constitute a regular standing army in themselves. It is said that Canada has no standing army. I say that in these commissions, with their staffs and various employees, and the others referred to, we have a standing army the line up of wrhich would extend two deep from here to Lansdowne park. We should mobilize them in front of the parliament buildings and then demobilize them, and the sooner we do that the better for the working classes, and let parliament function.
Last night I quoted from the first verse, twelfth chapter of Ecclesiastes. "Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth"; to-day I might add that other famous eighth verse, "Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity." The vanity of commission rule. What are we doing in this house? We are simply sitting here and unloading our functions and powers on a political commission. The unemployed are asking for jobs and bread and we are giving them a stone in the shape of a commission, one of the most useless commissions ever appointed. We hear nothing but a lot of platitudes and high sounding phrases from English authors. We do not need any commission to study this question; what we need is a committee of this house. We appointed a committee to deal with deficits in railways and shipping, one of the most important problems with which the House of Commons has to deal, and that committee functions all right. A committee of the house should study and control unemployment. Here, as I say, we are turning over our powers to this commission.
The solution of this problem calls for widespread national sacrifice and not parliamentary repartee. This problem cannot be solved by majorities in parliament, it cannot be solved by any carnival of statistics. You can gather up all the statistics you like and we shall be no closer to a real solution of the problem. We must have a remedy as far-reaching as conscription was in the war. I believe in Christian socialism and of this kind-the socialism of
1702	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Church
Charles Kingsley and of the Oxford and evangelical movements of a hundred years ago. Those principles of socialism if applied in Canada might not create a new Jerusalem, but at any rate if run with horse sense they would rid this country of middlemen, parasites and shark loan companies and do something that would really help the unemployed. Sacrifice is the only cure for all Canada's ills-sacrifice and the right application of the doctrine of protection for all of the people all of the time and not for some of the people some of the time.
In his long discourse Monday the Minister of Labour could not retain his audience; the galleries for the most part, walked out, and no wonder. And a large part of the chorus of 245 members also begged leave to retire while the hon. gentleman was placing on Hansard tables that were not relevant to the question. A brilliant newspaper man who had edited a prominent journal in this country for forty years once told me that it was not worth five cents of news publicity having a representative here because the people took no stock in what parliament did. As far as this particular bill is concerned, I suggest that what we need is something that would prevent contentious amateur interference with industry and agriculture, interference that has placed so many artificial barriers and burdens upon business so that it cannot function. If the government and the Minister of Labour had to be elected by plebiscite, how many members of the present cabinet would be returned? I say, they have no mandate from the people. The government is here to-day simply because in October last the Canadian people, like the people in every country, were opposed to any government. The deep resentment against all governments the world over elected this government. I say that hon. gentlemen opposite should honour the task for which they have been elected. I agree with what the hon. member for Parkdale said the other night with regard to interference with business. The great mass of the intelligent electorate are not concerned with this game of ins and outs; they are not concerned with party politics, in connection with this problem at any rate. In my opinion the electors of Canada will assert the supremacy of the national over the party interest and shall insist upon their elected representatives discharging their plain duty to the country. They should insist on the private member functioning and should require him to do his duty to his constituents in order to help to rebuild the social and economic structure. The country is sick of politics and we want a

new set of rules for the game. The people do not want the dole, which is only a temporary remedy; they want work, for that is the only lasting form of unemployment relief.
The minister read extensively from Thomas Carlyle, but that is not the type of reading that appeared on the billboards in Toronto and in other counties in October lasrt- "Action, not promises. End unemployment. Vote Liberal. Beat Bennett and Bad Times." On a billboard on Queen Street, Toronto, painted in black and yellow, the colours of the well known racing stable; it said, "End unemployment; vote Snelgrove." Well, the unemployed are still carrying the black flag, and this proposal is nothing but the yellowest kind of yellow as a palliative for the cure of unemployment. Platforms, the late Hon. J. Israel Tarte once said, were made to get in on, not to stand on. But the unemployed will not much longer put up with this kind of thing.
The minister speaks of a publicity campaign. We had an illustration of that the other day in the case of a large department store that in my opinion, is using its employees in any but a proper way, and I know something about it because I go in there quite often. This particular company just snaps its fingers at this parliament and anything it can do. In my opinion the Minister of Labour should look into these complaints about sweat shops and child labour and the way these people are going on with the legislation referred to the supreme court. The liberty of the press, the fourth estate, has been assailed. We should open the tower upstairs and bring some of these gentlemen to the bar of the house as was done in the days of Cinq Mars, and find out who is running this country, and whether these large department stores are to be permitted to intimidate the press and parliament in this way.
This bill forgets all about the suburban workers; also those of our community whom Disraeli called the suffering millions are entirely forgotten. I asked this house twelve years ago, in 1924, to adopt this policy of appointing an economic commission to investigate unemployment. At that time Senator Couzens, the former mayor of Detroit and governor of Michigan, conducted a most exhaustive inquiry into unemployment and this bill is very largely based on the findings off that commission. Many of the recommendations which have been adopted in this bill have been proved to be wrong in many respects, especially the commission and the index
APRIL l, 1936	1703
Employment Commission-Mr. Church
principle. I have not three and a half hours at my disposal or I would take it up in detail and show the errors made in handling this problem. In the nature of things there can be no statistics on unemployment without a census. If a census were taken so that we have the number of unemployed at a given time the Department of Labour could apply their index. This bill furnishes no definition of what is meant by an unemployed person. The labour department under its system of enumerating industries has shown a faulty calculation. In my opinion the only way to approach the problem of unemployment is to have a complete census taken at some definite date. The tables quoted by the minister are of little or no value; they are incomplete and merely preliminary. Elaborate forms are sent out to be filled in, but the history of unemployment in the United States shows that such a procedure is often wrong.
This bill does not define unemployment. The term "unemployed" I understand to mean a person who, usually in work, is seeking a job. It does not include people who are too old to hold a job or who are unemployable for other reasons, people who rightly belong to the outdoor relief class, for which industry is not immediately responsible. The figures relating to these people form a sociological table, not one for the statistics of the department. I can see no object in appointing this form of commission.
A word or two about the municipalities, which have had to bear the brunt throughout these years. Direct aid should be given to the large municipalities, not to the provinces only. The federal government should take over the entire cost of the administration of relief of unemployment, and the larger municipalities should be given equality of treatment with some of the provinces that have been in difficulty during the last five or six years, because the problem is a federal one.
I was disappointed in the minister's speech the other day. I failed to find any reference to many important features of the situation. We have a war in Canada to-day, a war between millions of our fellow men and poverty and starvation, a war between youth and poverty. The enemy is just as dangerous as a foreign foe in war time. Against a foreign foe we unite; against our internal foe we are disunited and do nothing to check or repel it. When the invader is at our gates the country mobilizes its entire resources, its man power, its transportation system, its capital, but in time of depression and unemployment driving people to the wall the
industrial workers are left without any protection at all; they bear the brunt and we do nothing but sit around and appoint commissions. Nothing is said in this bill as to the relation between the industrial worker and agriculture.
I would like to say a word or two in relation to industrial employment, because I want to contrast with the precepts of Christianity the way the industrial workers are used. Contrast our professions with the ruthless competition, the cruelty and vice of present day business and industry. Here personality counts as nothing, the dollar is all supreme. Modern life is machine life, soulless, a life of standardization, high speed production, a highly efficient organization for the making of profit. Everything is done in the mass, and life is made uniform, monotonous and artificial. Dividends are the chief objective; to get dividends human beings are sacrificed. Wages are shockingly low, often below the level of mere subsistence, so that people are forced into immoral and criminal ways of life to eke out a precarious livelihood. The maximum in hours of work is exacted in return for the minimum in wages. Senior employees, whose lifeblood has been drawn from them by long years of faithful service, are in many cases cast out without retiring allowance to make room for younger and cheaper people. It matters not what suffering is entailed for human beings so long as the stockholders are paid their dividends. This amazing selfishness and shortsightedness of the modern industrial system is creating a progressively lower standard of living and a vicious struggle for existence philosophy on the part of the people, increasingly serious social problems which must find their tragic solution either in war or in revolution. In the face of modern methods of competitive living the royal law of love, bear ye one another's burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ, is a hollow mockery in Canada, presumably a Christian country. This is the contradiction of modern life: a truly wonderful appreciation of the value of the single soul in some quarters, but an absolute denial of any such value in others
With all this unemployment around us we sit here and make provision for individual groups. We support vast numbers of public institutions; we provide protection for the under-privileged and weak; we place medical and scientific knowledge in the hands of people who can use it for the preservation of life, and particularly did we do so in the
1704	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Church
case of the Dionne children. We do all this, but we do nothing to protect our industrial workers.
In conclusion may I say a word about the government's unemployment policy as it affects agriculture. I would like to see a maximum production of farm products, and would also like to see a close cooperation between agricultural and industrial producers; for the great and extensive needs of agriculture must be supplied. Prosperous industry depends upon a prosperous agriculture, and the Conservative party has always been associated with the development of agriculture. It is one industry which has not rallied to communist propaganda. I should like to see agriculture in Canada developed by a comprehensive plan, and one which would be adapted to Canada's situation. That could be done by the collaboration of the provincial representatives of agricultural departments with people concerned with industry, and in that way the whole rural population of Ontario would be lifted to a higher collective life. It could be done, not by ruining anybody but by merging single interests into one united national endeavour to develop agriculture in all its forms. In that way we would lift our country to a higher economic and social plane. Every individual should be engaged in this work.
May I observe, further, that the government will have to open up their ranks to new men and their minds to new ideas. There should be a modification of the present parliamentary system; otherwise a socialist government would be possible. The government of the day must be a constructive force for the building of a healthy society, based on economic and spiritual freedom, or give place to those who have a constructive program as an alternative to socialism. The progressive Conservatives are the hope of the country. Such a policy may be unpopular in parliament, but if this fight is carried outside the ring the rules of the party will be broken. The government's policy of setting up commissions is not popular. There can be no question about the personal integrity of government leaders, but their political wisdom is questioned. The opening processional hymn of praise of hon. members who have spoken about the minister disappoints even those who might agree with their policies, and I was sorry to see my friend the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) indulge in flattery. The man on the street knows that the government party machine is fighting for its own life and not for the country or the majority of the people. Their grasp of the post-war problems is feeble.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member has spoken forty minutes.


Thomas Langton Church: I have not been able to complete my observations in half an hour, but I can make further statements in committee.


Mr. T. V. GRANT (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is adopted I should like to say a few words regarding unemployment as it exists in the province of Prince Edward Island. First, however, may I congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) upon the masterly manner in which he has presented to the house the measure now before us.
Before proceeding to further observations may I at least to some extent reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) and, as the time before adjournment is short, I shall be brief. The hon. member admits that unemployment is the most important problem remaining to be solved, and in the next breath he states that the appointment of an employment commission illustrates the decay of parliament. As I see it, sir, hon. gentlemen opposite have watched the decay of parliament in the last five years and they cannot now appreciate its resurrection. The hon. member for Broadview referring to the National Employment Commission states that it is all right to put your name down on a list, but that it would be easy for the minister to wipe it off with a sponge. Earlier in his speech he condemned the appointment of such a commission, and stated in effect that the department should look after the unemployed. May I point out to him that one of the objects in the appointment of a commission is the elimination of political interference. The hon. member stated further that he was not in agreement with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), and that he believed the youth of Canada would not find jobs through the operations of a commission. He stated still further that by itself the government could not pull the country out of the mire. May I say to him that one reason the commission is being appointed is that the government realizes the importance of the problem, and believes that the matter cannot be handled by any governmental department.
I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Broadview criticize the minister for referring to Thomas Carlyle, the great writer, who died many years ago. Well, Carlyle died in 1881, but the hon. member immediately proceeded to call to his support, as recorded in Hansard, an Englishman named Edmund Burke. As

Employment Commission-Mr. Grant
a matter of fact Edmund Burke was an Irishman, like the hon. member, and died in 1797, about ninety years before Carlyle's death.
May I preface my further remarks by an illustration:	Let us suppose that England
should be forced into a European war and that Canada should decide to enter the war at the side of the mother country. Could not this country afford to send three hundred thousand young men overseas for four or five years and pay them $1.10 a day to shoot down our enemies? I do not say that we should send them or that we would send them, but I do say that this country sent them before and paid them $1.10 a day, and in addition fed them and clothed them and housed them. To that end the government committed this country to millions and millions of dollars of debt for generations to come. Then why cannot this government help the poor farmers of Prince Edward Island and other provinces, who are so hard pressed for assistance, by paying that same wage to the young men who are now idle, in order that they may work for farmers who need their help? The farmers would clothe and feed them, but they have not the money to pay them wages. The only difference would be that the government would be relieved in this case of feeding and clothing and housing the men, and the country would not be committed to many millions of dollars of present'and future expenditure. That is one way, Mr. Speaker, that I see in which this government could help put unemployed young men to wrnrk, especially in the province of Prince Edward Island. I have in my constituency perhaps seventeen jobs on boats, and I had four hundred applicants for those seventeen jobs.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What kind of jobs?


Thomas Vincent Grant: Working on tugs and
dredges, and of course everybody who is a Liberal and unemployed is now looking to me for a job. How do you expect me, Mr. Speaker, to divide four hundred into seventeen without getting anything but a fraction? We will have plenty of friction, I can assure you of that.
I realize that different localities require different remedies, and as far as the province of Prince Edward Island is concerned, it is not practicable to put many men to work on the railways, especially if they are going to be operated in the same manner in which they were run during the last five years. In that case we might put a few men to work greasing the track to keep the rails from rusting. That will give you an idea of the sort of railway service we have had in Prince Edward Island during the last five years.
So far as business men and tradesmen are concerned, they are prosperous in our province when the farmers and fishermen are prosperous, and prosperity will come to the former when you put the farmers and the fishermen on their feet.
The province of Prince Edward Island has been neglected for the last five years. It has been allowed to fade off the map. I remember well the famous radio speeches delivered in January, 1935, by the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). Those speeches were printed in book form and distributed among the electors of this country. I received five of them. There was a map of Canada on the front page of the book, and would you believe it, Mr. Speaker, Prince Edward Island was left off that map entirely.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Yes, Mr. Speaker, Prince
Edward Island, the most important province in Canada, the cradle of confederation, was left off the map that appeared on the front page of that book of radio speeches, and yet our province, I repeat, was the cradle of confederation and the birthplace of the great Sir Louis Davies and of the Macphails and Schurmans and of many others of the world's most famous literary men and women; and only recently we had the honour of returning as one of our representatives the Minister of Finance, and we have every confidence that he will stand up for the rights of Prince Edward Island.
But while Prince Edward Island was left off the map in those books of reform speeches, it has been put on the map in some other ways in recent months, and right here I wish to pay a tribute to the memorj' of the late Hon. Walter M. Lea who put Prince Edward Island back on the map last summer one hundred per cent, so that to-day our local legislature is in session with thirty members on one side of the house and none on the other. Prince Edward Island was again put on the map on the fourteenth of October last, and again one hundred per cent, to cooperate with the federal government in ridding Prince Edward Island and the rest of Canada of unemployment.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, public works afford a measure of relief, but that relief is only temporary, and if some arrangement such as I have suggested could be made whereby the government would assist our farmers in securing young men to help work on the farms, the government paying them for a limited length of time. Such an arrangement would be far better than any unnecessary public works. Necessary public works, of course, must go on; we must have them,

i706
Employment Commission-Mr. Grant
and we insist on having our share of them in Prince Edward Island, but there are in our province thousands of farmers who need help and cannot get it because they have not the money to pay out in wages. Again I would impress upon the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) the fact that there are thousands of young men idle to-day in Prince Edward Island; why not pay them $1.10 a day to go to work for the farmers who need their help, and who will willingly supply them with good food, and shelter.
I am one hundred per cent for this bill, Mr. Speaker, . because no government can handle such an important problem as unemployment as it exists in Canada to-day in a routine manner. You may call this a commission or what you will, but something of the kind is necessary, and the men who are to serve on the commission must give this unemployment problem their whole time and concentrated energy because it is a very responsible work that they are called upon to do. When hon. members say we do not need a commission for this purpose, I am afraid they are not sincere. The only thing I see wrong with this bill is that it comes five years too late. Not four years but five years of wasted effort.
In conclusion, sir, I would urge the Minister of Labour to hasten a solution of this unemployment problem, and to see to it that so far as it is -humanly possible, full and equal justice be done to every part of Canada.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it is now
seven minutes to six, and as I have some extended remarks to make on this bill I would ask you to call it six o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are ten minutes yet.


Angus MacInnis: Only seven.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon.
member could make a considerable part of his speech in that time, but I am agreeable, sir, to your calling it six o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 2, 1936
The 'house met at three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved concurrence in the first report of the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems.
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the name of Mr. Gardiner be substituted for that of Mr. Hamilton on the special select committee appointed to investigate and report upon the marketing of wheat and other grains under guarantee by the dominion government and upon all matters pertaining thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	How many persons migrated to Canada from the United States from March, 1930, to March, 1936?
2.	What number per month?
3.	What was their nationality?
4.	Of what race?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1. 70,322.
Total Immigration to Canada from the United States, by Months, from March 31, 1930, to March 1, 1936
1930-31	1931-32	1932-33	1933-34	1934-35	1935-36April	.. .. 2.849	1,591	1.274	875	626	447Mav	.. .. 3,429	1.523	1.834	956	608	496June	.. .. 3.232	1,693	1,794	871	551	525July	.. .. 2,565	1.455	1,299	860	636	494August	.. .. 2,625	1,269	1,338	681	626	603September.. ..	.. .. 2,084	1,457	1,279	792	643	484October	.. .. 1,979	1,198	1,145	715	587	558November	.... 1,318	997	817	542	452	409December	.. .. 9S9	802	617	409	303	347January	.... 940	725	513	327	323	263February	.... 867	684	554	305	288	223March	.... 1,403	903	732	407	317	Total	.. .. 24,280	14,297	13,196	7,740	5,960	4,849

Questions
3.
Immigration from the United States to Canada, by Nationalities, from March 31,
1930, to March 1, 1936.
Arabian	 3
Argentinian	 8
Austrian	 63
Belgian	 59
Brazilian	 4
British	 9,029
Bulgarian	 1
Colombian	 9
Cuban	 3
Czech o-Slovakian	 43
Danish	  65
Dutch	 41
Ecuadorian	 3
Esthonian	 3
Finnish	 34
French	 61
German	 191
Greek	 21
Hungarian	 32
Icelandic	 20
Italian	 77
Japanese	 1
Jugo-Slavian	 21
Korean	 1
Latvian	 4
Lithuanian	 9
Mexican	 8
Norwegian	 78
Paraguayan	 1
Peruvian	 1
Polish	 159
Roumanian	 63
Russian	 122
Spanish	 4
Swedish	 75
Swiss	 51
Syrian	 30
Turkish	 8
Ukrainian	 2
U.S.A. citizens	 59,912
Venezuelan	 1
West Indian (not British).. ..	1
Total	 70,322
4.
Immigration from the United States to Canada, by racial origin, from March 31, 1930, to March 1, 19'36.
Albanian	 1
Arabian	 2
Armenian	 14
Belgian	 228
Bohemian	 119
British-
English	 22,495
Irish	 8,362
Scotch	 8,814
Welsh	 653
Bulgarian	 12
Croatian	 17
Czech	 36
Dutch	 1,238
East Indian	 2
Esthonian	 6
Finnish	 184
French	 12,461
German	 7,298
Greek	 185
Hebrew	 2,230
Italian	 748
Japanese	 2
Jugo-Slav	 55
Lattish	 7
Lithuanian	 32
Magyar	 189
Maltese	 10
Mexican	 2
Moravian	 1
Negro	 394
North American Indian	 78
Polish	 560
Portuguese	 27
Roumanian	 86
Russian	 216
Ruthenian	 194
Scandinavian-
Danish	 429
Icelandic	 60
Norwegian	 1,327
Swedish	 1,004
Serbian	 65
Slovak	 78
Spanish	 70
Spanish-American	 2
Swiss	 220
Syrian	 107
Turkish	 2
Total	 70,322


Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada from March, 1930, to March, 1934?
2.	What was their country of origin?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	147,660.
2.	Total immigration to Canada, by racial origin, from March 31, 1930, to March 31, 1934.
Albanian	 32
Arabian	 4
Armenian	 42
Belgian	 581
Bohemian	 122
British-
English	 41,051
Irish	 12,667
Scotch	 18,460
Welsh	 1,668

Questions

Bulgarian	 335
Chinese	 3
Croatian	 809
Czech	 442
Dutch	 1,480
East Indian	 223
Esthonian	 77
Finnish	 2,610
French	 11,553
German	 15,694
Greek	 628
Hebrew	 5,785
Italian	 2,588
Japanese	 620
Jugo-Slav	 590
Lettish	 43
Lithuanian	 629
Magyar	 3,821
Maltese	 30
Mexican	 1
Montenegrin	 3
Moravian	 6
Negro	 521
North American Indian	 70
Persian	 3
Polish	 5,763
Portuguese	 32
Roumanian	 331
Russian	 1,256
Ruthenian	 7,921
Scandinavian-
Danish	 1342
Icelandic	 69
Norwegian	 2,027
Swedish	 1681
Serbian	 '2g6
8Iovak	 2,996
Spanish	 gg
Spanish-American	 q
Syrian., Turkish
Total	 147,660


Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	Has the government of Canada paid a subsidy to steamship companies for carrying immigrants since March, 1930?
2.	If so, to what companies, and what was the amount paid to each?
3.	Has the government of Canada paid a subsidy to railway companies for carrying immigrants since March, 1930?
4.	If so, to what companies, and what was the amount paid to each?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1 to 4. No.


HERVAY CHEMICAL COMPANY
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	What amount of money did the Hervay Chemical Company of St. Basile, Portneuf county, province of Quebec, owe to the dominion government for sales tax when it became bankrupt in the spring of 1931?
2.	What amount has the government received in respect to its claim from such time to date?
3.	Prior to the bankruptcy of such company, who made the audits of this business for the government, determining the amount of sales tax owing ?
4.	Were the audit reports of the business of such company with respect to sales tax made prior to the bankruptcy always accurate?
5.	If such reports were inaccurate what was the nature of the inaccuracies?
6.	Did the government suffer any loss by reason of the inaccuracy of such reports and what did such loss amount to?
7.	What position does the author of such reports now occupy in the civil service?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	$21,079.62.
2.	$5,227.65.
3.	J. S. deBilly, Albert Allaire.
4.	The reports were acurate from the records produced to the auditors.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Answered by No. 4.
7.	J. S. deBilly now collector of customs and excise, port of Quebec; Albert Allaire, excise tax auditor. Resignation requested by department effective March 16, 1934. Resignation passed by order in council March 31, 1934.


HON. NEWTON W. ROWELL
Mr. SYLVESTRE:: 1.	How much has Hon. Newton W. Rowell received each year since 1922 from all governments for legal fees and travelling expenses?
2.	What were the conditions and the amount of fees of the solicitors who recently argued the social legislation cases before the supreme court ?


Walter Edward Foster: Dropped.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PARENT (Quebec AVest and South!:
1.	Has the dominion government made any advances to the Canadian Pacific Railway in the last five years?
2.	If so (1) under what authority; (2) what amounts have been advanced; (3) at what rate of interest; (4) has any security been given to the dominion government for said advances, and, if so, what is this security; (5) has any period been determined for the reimbursement of said advances; (6) have any reimbursements been made for said advances?
Charles Avery Dunning: Return tabled herewith.

Saskatchewan Oats Purchases


SASKATCHEWAN OATS PURCHASES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (QuAppelle):: Before the orders of the day are called, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct two or three questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). The questions are based on a report in the western press of March 26 and 30, covering questions asked at the session of the provincial legislature as to oats futures and cash oats purchased by the provincial government during the winter of 1934-35. The report is to the effect that the government of the province held both through the summer of 1935, and at the latter date a large quantity of oats was sold to the Quaker Oats Milling Company at a considerable loss. The answer to those questions by the provincial government with respect to the losses sustained on option and cash oats purchases was that it was a matter of negotiation between the federal and provincial governments. My questions are: (1) Has the federal government any knowledge of these transactions, and at what stage are negotiations between the two governments at the present time? (2) Will the minister table all letters, telegrams and other documents between the federal and provincial governments from October 15 to the present date that deal with these transactions? (3) Has the dominion government any liability or does it intend to assume liability for losses occasioned by optional purchases and cash grain purchases by the Department of Agriculture of the province of Saskatchewan?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I know my hon. friend had absolutely no thought that I could possibly answer on the orders of the day, without any previous notice, a question as complicated as the one he has just put. I shall of course look at Hansard and see whether there is any possibility of answering my hon. friend outright, but I doubt it.


Ernest Edward Perley: If the hon. gentleman desires I will put it on the order paper.


Walter Edward Foster: Questions such as this should be placed on the order paper.


CANADIAN AVIATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. A. McNIVEN (Regina):: I wish to ask the government a series of questions. The first is based upon a statement made by 12739-1094
Colonel V. I. Smart, deputy minister of railways and canals, on December 3 last, following the empire aviation discussions at Ottawa. The statement is as follows:
Full realization that Canada has lagged far behind the world in commercial aviation and stands in danger of forfeiting vital opportunities unless development is expedited in the coming year, was evident, following the conclusion of empire aviation discussions at Ottawa Monday night.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: I think the hon. gentleman will admit that on the orders of the day only such questions should be put as can be answered at the time by the minister. The question the hon. gentleman is now asking is such that it should be placed on the order paper so that the minister of the department concerned may be able to read it and answer it properly.


TREE PLANTING CAR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. 0. B. ELLIOTT (Kindersley): Before the orders of the day are taken up I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Crerar) with regard to the tree planting car in the western provinces this year. This car has been going throughout the western provinces during the last fifteen or twenty years instructing the farmers regarding tree planting. There appears in the estimates a sum of $1,620, which is not considered to be sufficient-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: This question also is one that should be put on the order paper.


EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 1, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Rogers for the second reading of Bill No. 14, respecting the establishment of a national employment commission.
Angus MacInnis: In rising to say a few words on the second reading of this bill I wish first to extend my congratulations to the minister upon the very comprehensive information he gave us in his speech of Monday last, and. also upon the very reasonable and reasoned way in which he dealt with this question. It is essential if we are to find a solution for a problem of this kind, one which is of such
1710	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Maclnnis
great importance in this country to-day, that we approach it in a reasonable and dispassionate manner. I quite understand that it is not easy for everyone to do that, especially those who are suffering from the effects of unemployment, but I think we who are here can do it in that way if we try. I hope the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) will not consider this a weakening of my moral fibre, because I am not going to congratulate the minister on this measure. I can congratulate him neither on the bill nor on the social philosophy which he expounded to the house when speaking to the bill.
I quite understand that on the second reading of a bill we can deal only with its general principle. The principle of the bill is the appointment of a national commission on employment. The minister stated that the long continued unemployment which we have had for the last five or six years is a challenge to our political intelligence. I quite agree with him in that, but I do not see that the bill in its present form can or will do much to provide a solution of the problem. The main function of the national employment commission will be the gathering of statistics. Other functions will be to recommend certain things to the minister and to promote cooperation between the various agencies that deal with relief. So far as that goes I am quite in agreement with it; I believe it is a necessary beginning. But I do not believe that this bill will in any way satisfy the people of Canada who voted for this government in order that the problem of unemployment should be solved. The speech from the throne stated that unemployment was Canada's most urgent national problem. This bill is a very inadequate measure to deal with that most urgent national problem.
As I have said, the main function of the national employment commission to be created by this bill will be the gathering of information in regard to unemployment. If unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem I believe we should have delegated to this or to some other commission the function of trying to ascertain the cause of unemployment. Unemployment in itself is not a cause; it is an effect; and it does not make very much difference how many statistics we gather in regard to it, they are not going to get us very far in determining the cause. My opinion is that we can no more find the cause of unemployment by collecting statistics as to numbers, sex, age, occupation, vocation and so on of those unemployed than we can determine

the cause of cyclones by examining the wreckage they leave in their wake. The unemployed are the wreckage left as a result of certain economic conditions, and to examine the victims and tabulate them is not to find the solution for unemployment.
We were told that when the new government took office we would have a new policy for this great national problem. It seems to me that the policy of the present government differs very little from the policy of the last government. Possibly we are going to have more statistics, but whether or not these statistics will give a greater measure of relief for those who are unemployed, and give them more of the advantages of society than they now have, I am not prepared to say. I do not know whether anyone else is prepared to make a statement on that point. There is one danger however that I should like to point out in connection with the creation of the commission, and that is the potential danger of its coming between the people and the government. I do not know whether that condition will arise, but I should like to know to what extent the commission will have that effect. I am disturbed on the point, because I 'believe it has been greatly to the advantage of the unemployed during the last five years to be in a position where they could confront various governments with their problems. But if now they are to be compelled to go to the commission, a commission over whom they have no control, I am afraid conditions will become serious.
I note that when the mayors' conference met certain members of the cabinet a few days ago the Minister of Labour made this statement: as reported in the Vancouver Province of March 26: "If the commission had been in existence the conference of mayors would have been referred to it." Is that the situation we are to have when we approach the government on matters affecting the unemployed? Will the government refer us to the commission? If so, I do not believe that that will be satisfactory. I say we should still be in a position where we can approach those who are responsible for the administration of the affairs of the dominion.
When we were debating the resolution, before the bill was introduced, I pointed out that the measure contains no policy to deal with unemployment. The commission is supposed only, or at least to a great extent, to gather statistics. The only indication we have had of the government's policy has been in the speech of the Minister of Labour in moving the second reading of the bill.
One peculiar circumstance is that while the bill is submitted by a government which

Employment Commission-Mr. Maclnnis
believes in private ownership and private operation of industry, in the twenty-four lines of preamble the word "cooperate" or one of its derivatives appears five times. I have no objection to cooperation; as a matter of fact I am in favour of it. I favour a society based on cooperation, but the minister favours one based on competition. How does he expect to get cooperation in a society which must live, if it is going to live at all, by different sections of it competing with and taking advantage of each other? It seems to me that this constitutes a contradiction. As matters stand now, in order that some of us may work we must find ways and means of putting others out of work. That was -brought forcibly to my attention in an article written by Chapin Hoskins, managing editor of Forbes magazine, appearing in the November issue of Canadian Business. Dealing with the improvement in office equipment since the depression he states:
Two things, you see, have been happening during the depression. One is that businesses everywhere have been under the absolute necessity, since 1930, of cutting, cutting, cutting their costs, and particularly their overhead costs.
That is true not only of one business but of all kinds of business; in order to exist in a competitive world they must cut, cut, cut costs; and in order to cut costs they must displace labour with machinery. And let us remember that machinery does not consume or buy goods.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: But the people who make the machines do.


Angus MacInnis: Quite so; the people who make the machines do. But if machines would not displace labour and reduce costs they would not be made. While I am on this point I should like to say that although I am not a prophet I can tell those in industry to-day how long they will remain employed. Under the present system they will remain employed until a machine is made wnich will do the work cheaper than they are doing it. When it is made they will find themselves out on the street, looking in at the machine. The development of machinery is continuing.
I should like to quote briefly from the minister's speech, because it is only by reading his speech that we can have any understanding of its underlying philosophy. The minister is reported at page 1591 as follows:
I have suggested that a sufficiency of food and shelter, clothing and medical attention must be provided for those in need. That is not in dispute.
I agree that that is not in dispute, but the measure in which it is given is in dispute. We have not yet decided what is a sufficiency. The minister continues:
In making this provision, however, there is equally an obligation upon governments to see that the arrangements for relief do not encourage the acceptance of voluntary idleness by relief recipients, or permit employers of labour to transfer to the state their obligation to pay a living wage and to conduct their operations with a due sense of social responsibility. I mention that here because some cases have been brought to my attention of employees of labour who have taken advantage of the existing situation and have paid wages upon so low a scale that those receiving those wages were receiving less than they would obtain if they were on relief.
That is not a new situation. It has been before this country for almost two years now, I think. The price spreads investigation, both the committee and the commission, brought out very definite and voluminous evidence on that very situation, nevertheless it would seem that as yet nothing has been done about it.
Someone was good enough to send me a few days ago a copy of the Evening Times-Globe, of Saint John, New Brunswick. I find in its issue of February 19, 1936, statements made by Chief Inspector McLeese, the County Treasurer, and another official named George H. Simpson. The news comment on the situation in Saint John is as follows:
A pitiful picture of unemployment conditions in certain Saint John industrial plants, a picture of sweat shop wages, of veteran employees being replaced by youths at apprentices' pay, and of full time workers earning so little that they are forced to seek direct relief, was given by Chief Inspector McLeese.
The statement goes on:
"Children have died this winter for no other reason in the world than that they were undernourished," the inspector declared. At the same time W. A. Ross, county treasurer and relief director, told of stores that had slashed wages of younger employees to such an extent that they were no longer able to help their parents by paying board. "Unemployment conditions in Saint John," declared Warden Simpson, "are rotten to the core."
I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the conditions referred to in the city of Saint John are any worse than those in any other city, but the fact remains that it was brought to the attention of this parliament a year and a half ago that these conditions existed in every part of Canada, and yet nothing has been done about it.
What does the minister suggest that we should do to-day? He says-I am quoting from the same page of Hansard:
It does seem to me that if on investigation we find an employer of labour who is taking
1712	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Maclnnis
advantage of this situation, we as a government are entitled to use the weapon of publicity to the fullest possible extent in order to brand that policy as high treason to the state in a time of great emergency.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I ever heard that publicity was the penalty for high treason. I do not know very much law, but my impression is that sedition is a less grave offence than high treason, and yet we have our statute books full of penalties for those who are guilty of sedition. The minister suggests publicity for those who are guilty of the offence of high treason, but we provide section 98 for the unemployed. And then somebody will tell me that we have not class government in this country!
I should like to quote further from this Saint John paper to show how we deal with the unemployed in this country. It says:
"People," said Inspector McLeese, "don't realize what conditions are."
He told of the constant inspections the police were making-dropping in unexpectedly on families receiving relief. Picturing the extreme poverty existing in many cases, he described how a woman got a chance to go to work, but the prospective employer required that she be vaccinated. She spent three days trying to make arrangements to be vaccinated before, in despair, she appealed to the police, who were able to get her looked after.
Another man, with a bad tooth, his jaw all swollen on one side, and suffering extremely, appealed for help. He told the inspector he had been to the hospital, where he was informed that if he called again Wednesday, clinic day, he would be given an examination, and his tooth would be pulled the following Wednesday.
If he lived that long. And yet we get a bill such as the one now before us to deal with a situation like that! If you accept the principles of capitalism, is there really anything particularly wrong in an employer taking advantage of the situation that exists because of unemployment? Let us consider it in this way, the way it really is:	In order
to live, each one of us must have something to sell. The only thing which the worker has to sell is his labour power. All of us, when we buy the things we want, buy according to the way the goods are sold on the market. We buy bacon by the pound, cotton by the yard, wheat by the bushel, electric energy by the horsepower, and when we buy human energy, which is the only thing the worker has to sell, we buy it by the hour, the day or the month, as the case may be. In buying these things, how many of us ask how the product that we are buying was made. Did the labour that went into that product receive its just reward, its just remuneration? Of course we do not ask those
rMr. Maclnnis.]
questions. If the minister, for instance, were going to buy a house, and he saw one that suited him, and found that the price was very low because the man who owned it had to sell at a sacrifice price in order to save something out of it', would the minister or anyone else refuse to buy it on that account? Of course not. Do we not crowd the stores on bargain days in order to take advantage of someone's necessity to sell? And the question I would put, Mr. Speaker, is this: Where is the moral issue in this matter, provided again that you accept the principles of capitalism? There is none whatsoever.
Somewhere in his speech the minister made the statement that we needed statistics in order to get a more scientific approach to the question of unemployment. I may not agree with the minister but I do contend that the condition of unemployment itself affects people because it is a condition that comes between the people and their means of subsistence, and in my view you can approach the question scientifically only when you study unemployment in its relation to the means of production. But the commission is not asked to do that. What is that relation now? How do we get access to the means of production? A few own, but the great mass of the people, all of those who are unemployed, can get access to the means of production only by approaching someone who has the tools and the means by which they can work. Fortunately or unfortunately, employers of labour will employ labour only when they can profitably use it, and that is only when they can employ it at a profit to themselves.
We should also like to know-we should know-what this social relationship is going to be like as the years go on and technological improvements and further concentration of ownership continues. The minister very adroitly sidestepped this matter of technological development. The member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) asked the minister whether he believed that private industy would be able to absorb all the unemployed who are employable. The minister replied by making a long quotation from Thomas Carlyle. The member for Peace River then said: "Modern machinery makes it that much worse to-day." and the minister replied with another quotation from Carlyle. Then the member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) asked this question:	"Do the
statistics referred to give any indication as to what are termed respectively cyclical and technological unemployment? The minister's answer was, "I am not sure that we

Employment Commission-Mr. Maclnnis
can obtain that type of information, but I shall be glad to look into the possibility." In my opinion that is the crux of the question in dealing with unemployment. Unless we know to what extent people are to become unemployed or to get employment, unless we are to know to what extent the technological development of industry is going to affect employment in the days and the years to come, we can get no real idea of the implications of the factor of unemployment itself.
When some of us press for a better deal for the unemployed we are sometimes met with the statement that we are asking the government to do too much. The minister said that no government unaided could deal with this matter. Yet the question could be very well asked, what should be the function of government? Before answering that question we should possibly first ask, what is government? Should it not be an instrument of the people to do for the people collectively what they are unable to do for themselves? The function of governments in the past, and apparently their function at the present time, may be described as the maintenance of sufficient force to prevent the great masses of people who are deprived of access to the means of production from committing overt acts. In my opinion that is not the proper function of government. In a country like this, possessing enormous natural resources, great and efficient machinery of production, willing workers, and the technical skill and management necessary to run industry, the function of a government should be to bring these things together in order to create the essentials of a full life- not merely the means of subsistence, food, clothing and shelter, but everything that properly enters into the lives of the people. The minister made the statement:
I have suggested that a sufficiency of food and shelter, clothing and medical attention must be provided for those in need.
As I said before, we have not decided what 'sufficiency" means. We have come to a conclusion as to what is a balanced ration for horses, hogs, cattle and poultry, but we have not come to a conclusion as to what is a balanced diet for children. We have not yet come to a conclusion as to how much food and what kind is required so that they will not lose their teeth before they get out of their teens. The minister goes on:
The greatest resource of any country consists of its workers with hand and brain.
That is a very capitalistic statement-"the greatest resource of any country is its

workers." To my mind the workers are part of the country.
The greatest resource of any country consists of its workers with hand and brain. This in the ultimate analysis is the true wealth of nations. Upon its labouring population the state depends for its productivity and its real income in terms of goods and services.
And again:
It is to the interest of the state, quite apart from the question of obligation, to preserve the health and vigour of its people and as far as possible to prevent the impairment of the technical skill and efficiency of its workers.
To my mind that seems almost callous. It speaks of the workers in the same way as we would speak of our cattle and our machinery. It is necessary to preserve them, it is necessary to build shelters to keep them from the elements in order that when we need them we shall have them unimpaired. That, as I say, is not my idea of the function of government.
I agree with the minister, and I am glad we have it from him, that labour produces all wealth. But I would go a step further and say that when an owning class or a ruling class loses control of its labour it has lost everything it ever had, no matter how great its wealth, because without that control of the working class, no matter how great the employers' possessions, the owning class would have to go out and moil and toil in order to produce its own food. We have heard the minister, in this callous way, say that the duty of the government is to give the workers a sufficiency so that when we need them tomorrow in any capacity they will be available.
As far as the bill relates to the gathering of statistics, I have no objection to the measure. But it is certainly inadequate; it certainly falls short of what the people of this country expected at this time. In my opinion there is nothing sadder than to see a young and otherwise brilliant mind clinging to the shibboleths and traditions of the past, when these once useful traditions have lost their validity.
Sometimes I too, like the Minister of Labour, "for moral discipline and mental exercise," turn to the pages of Carlyle. Of all his striking passages the one which I am about to quote seems to me to explain most clearly the cause of the conditions facing society today. This is taken from the first volume of the French Revolution:
The widow is gathering nettles for her
children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, has an alchemy whereby he will extract from her the third nettle and name it rent and law. Such an arrangement must end.
1714	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. McGeer
I was hoping that we could have the assistance of the Minister of Labour; I was hoping that he would be a material improvement over the late Minister of Labour, and as a matter of fact I am willing to go so far as to say he is. But I was hoping that he could go much further. My hon. friend from Broadview, I think it was, twitted him for being a professor. I regret that my acquaintance with professors has been rather meagre; I wish it had been greater; but from the little acquaintance I have had with them, I think we could do with more professors and fewer lawyers in parliament, and I hope that some time that situation will come about.
What was the arrangement which Carlyle said must come to an end? The arrangement by which the producers are exploited by the non-producers, the arrangement by which the producers create the wealth of the world and for creating it get a mere subsistence that keeps them from day to day. That situation is not worth continuing and it must come to an end.
Mr. G. G. McGEER (Vancouver-Burrard); I rise to speak to this bill solely with a desire to extend the very splendid presentation of facts which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) placed before the house the other day. I know that this is not a time for careless speaking but a time when all should be prepared to extend to those charged with the heavy responsibilities of the day that measure of cooperation which they think will contribute to the success of a work that seems at last to be undertaken upon a sound and safe basis.
The bill before the house is, I believe, an attempt to deal through a national commission with the nation's gravest national problem. I may just for a moment summarize the information that was contained in the luminous statistics which the minister filed. On relief to-day there are, in round figures,
1.250.000	souls. They are divided into employables, including farmers, of 400,000, who carry, I believe, 750,000 dependents; there is an unemployable number of 50,000, carrying
100.000	dependents. The fact that there are
750.000	wives and children now dependent upon 400,000 employable Canadians who are out of work should not leave any doubt in the mind of anyone as to the nature of this problem. It is a national one. I should like, however, to approach that aspect of the issue from another angle. The men and women now unemployed constitutes a serious economic loss to the nation.
In normal times the 400,000 people out of work and now idle and on relief would be earning, on the low average of $2 a day,

working 250 days a year, some $200,000,000. That represents a wage loss per year of that amount. If we multiply that by five we find that it is a wage loss over a period of five years of one thousand million dollars. Such wages going into circulation have a turnover of at least ten times a year, so that the actual loss to the business of Canada in a five year period would be somewhere in the vicinity of ten billions of dollars. I know there is a tendency on the part of men who do not make much of a study of the general situation to think that these are large and incomprehensible figures. But when you realize that in 1929 the total volume of monetary transactions during the year measured in terms of bank cheque transactions totalled forty-eight thousand million dollars, and that in 1930 this total fell to thirty-seven thousand million, and fell again in 1935 to thirty-one thousand million, you can appreciate the fact that the loss of many billions of dollars to the trade of the Dominion of Canada must continue as long as unemployment continues.
There are other statistics that are more than significant as to the persistent downward trend of the depression. I would call the attention of the house to the fact that in 1930 the savings bank accounts of the people totalled $1,427,000,000 and the current accounts totalled $622,000,000, or a total of $2,049,000,000. In 1936, as at February, the amount of our savings accounts has increased slightly, up to $1,517,000,000, but unfortunately our current account, which is our real working account, has fallen from $622,000,000 to $533,000,000, and there is a substantial decline in the total amount of our Canadian bank deposits. These figures, which I hope are somewhat interpretative of the statistics which the minister placed before us indicate that we are far from recovery and confirm succinctly the statement made not only by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) but also by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), that the unemployment situation is a truly national problem.
In 1930, on June 13, the leader of the opposition, speaking in public, said;
I propose that parliament shall formulate a definite plan for permanent relief and that parliament as representing the people shall deal with this national problem and provide amelioration for the condition in order that next winter the Canadian people may not be facing the crisis that is upon us without having a remedy at hand.... The dominion must deal with this problem that is no longer local or provincial but affects the life of the men and women of Canada and affects the civilization of this country.... The broad problem of unemployment must be grappled with in this young country before it assumes the vast proportions that it has in England and Germany.

Employment Commission-Mr. McGeer
There should be work for every man and woman in this country. Why is there not? It is a new country, not an old country. The conditions that bring it about are entirely different to what brings it about in other countries. A new country, a vast estate, a great capital being realized.
They say the problem is a problem of the city, let the city look after it. Another says it is the province, and let the province look after them, and someone is saying the federal power should look after them....
I say to you, my fellow citizens, my fellow Canadians, speaking to the larger audiences, I am convinced this problem has now ceased to be local and provincial, and has become national in its importance. It has reached far beyond the narrow confines of Calgary or Alberta and is now stretching into the broad confines of our dominion.
Yes, and the right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) on August 6, 1935, boldly acknowledged his responsibility in these words:
Unemployment of First Concern
The Liberal party believes unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem.
Now I should like to present some facts which I believe emphasize the necessity of the national parliament assuming what both leaders have recognized is a national responsibility. That is all the more so in view of the tragedy that took place yesterday in the great province of Alberta when the government of that province was forced to acknowledge that it could not meet its obligations to bondholders because it had no money available. Addressing the annual meeting of Barclay's bank, Sir Robert Borden said:
In 1931, according to the figures recently compiled by the national committee in public finance, working under the auspices of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the total amount of income assessed by the dominion against individuals for purposes of the income tax was $815,714,684, and this was the greatest amount assessed in any year. Exemptions under the act were $3,000 for married persons and $1,500 for single persons. In 1931 the ordinary expenditure of the governments of the country, federal, provincial and municipal, totalled $920,000,000. In other words, if the governments had taken every dollar of income in excess of the moderate exemptions mentioned above, they would still be $100,000,000 short of enough money to pay their bills.
When taxation rises to the point where income is exhausted, then government is threatened with the disaster which must come from financial impotency. Let me direct the attention of the house to the fact that this condition came about under a system of so-called sound money. It developed under a system of orthodox finance; it grew into being under the defunct economy that came to us during the nineteenth century, and which will not serve to-day.
Now I want to refer to one figure that was given by the minister indicating the extent to which the national government has assumed the cost of this great problem. The dominion government had contributed 8199,000,000 since 1930. According to that statement the contribution of the dominion government was roughly $200,000,000. But that did not cover all the expenditures or obligations of the dominion government, nor did it include any of the expenditures of municipal or provincial governments. The total amount expended by way of actual expenditures and guarantees is not $200,000,000, Mr. Speaker, but something over $700,000,000. Of the amount paid out for direct relief the. dominion government has contributed about two-fifths and the municipalities and provinces about three-fifths, and the fact I want to emphasize more than anything else is that to-day from one end of the dominion to the other the municipal governments or the provincial governments, or both combined, cannot continue to carry the proportion of the burden that has been borne by the taxpayers of the junior branches of government.
I should like to read into the record a short statement given me by one of the officials of the relief section of the dominion department of labour. It is a fairly accurate estimate of the financial record of the total cost of the depression to date to the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
Paid out on direct relief, including
grants in aid	$296,174,000
Provincial and municipal public
works	 152,477,000
Provincial care of single homeless
man	 6,434,000
Dried out areas of the prairie
provinces	 18,838,000
Federal expenditures for various departments and expenditures made by railways on which interest was paid	 58,578,000
Relief land settlement	 2,267,000
That makes a total of $534,768,000, to which should be added loans and advances to the provinces, amounting to approximately $120,000,000, and) loans to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company of approximately $2,400,000. In addition certain expenditures have been made by other departments, as follows: the Public Works Construction Act, under which as far as I have been able to find out, according to the latest figures, we have expended somewhere in the vicinity of $39,000,000. There has been also an act with regard to the wheat bonus under which we have paid out between $12,000,000 and $13,000,000. The Department of Pensions and National Health has expended $9,000,000.
1716	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. McGeer
In addition to the expenditures there are certain guarantees, as follows:
Algoma Steel Corporation, to the Bank of Montreal, respecting repayment of an amount of $660,000 for the production of 30,000 tons of steel rolled for the Canadian National Railways.
Guarantee to certain chartered banks respecting repayment of an amount up to $1,100,000 advanced to the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation.
Guarantee on June 13 of interest and principal on British Columbia treasury bills to the amount of $262,000.	_
Guarantee of interest and principal of treasury bills of the province of Manitoba to the extent of $5,894,000.
Guarantee to chartered banks in Winnipeg against loss due to assumption of liabilities of province of Manitoba savings office, $8,341,000.
Guarantee of repayment to certain chartered banks of an advance of $625,000, with interest, to Newfoundland.
Guarantee of repayment of advances of chartered banks to marketing agencies in connection with wheat crop, amount unknown.
Guarantee of repayment of Canadian Pacific Railway loans of $60,000,000, with interest at 5 per cent.
These are figures which indicate the magnitude of this national problem that confronted the government in 1930, and I venture the suggestion that the problem is more acute now and is going to call for even greater efforts on the part of this government during the next five years than were made by the government under the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) during the last five years. Let me confirm that conclusion by pointing out to you the situation that now exists in the provinces and municipalities throughout the dominion. The minister of labour for British Columbia writes me as follows:
For the fiscal year 1934-35 the gross expenditure in connection with direct relief including administration and health and other non-eontributable expenditures was $8,191,307.94, the dominion share being $2,300,196.07.... I wish to point out that during the fiscal year the dominion government paid 33 per cent of the cost in municipalities and 50 per cent in unorganized territory, from April 1 to July 31, 1934, and thereafter on a straight grant in aid basis of, $150,000 per month. It will be noted from the figures quoted for January, 1936, that the federal grant in aid is now $262,500, and also that the municipal share has been cut in half.
I asked the British Columbia provincial minister of municipal affairs to state the position of the municipalities in that province. He says that after deducting sinking fund reserves there are approximately $96,000,000 of municipal debts, with sundry other debts totalling $13,000,000. The number of municipalities that have defaulted to date is five. The amount of municipal bonds in default is

small, but the shortage in sinking funds, excluding the city of Vancouver, now totals over $15,000,000. The situation in British Columbia is no less serious than is the plight of 'Ontario. The premier of that province writes me as follows:
The last month for which complete figures are available is December, and it might be well to mention that the lists have been somewhat reduced since that time.
The total number on relief in Ontario in that month was 366,987. We estimate it at 330,000 at the present time.
The total cost of relief in December was $3,027,481, the dominion contributing, $1,050,000, the provincial government, $1,352,899, and the municipalities, $624,582. The amount of municipal debts in Ontario in 1934 was $483,934,000, or $147 per capita. The number of municipalities in default is thirty-four, and municipal debentures in default now total over $11,000,000.
In the province of Quebec the situation is much the same, with 353,000 people on relief, carrying a gross municipal debt of $578,000,000. Municipalities in that province to the number of fifty-seven are now under the direct supervision of the Quebec municipal commission.
In the province of Saskatchewan the situation is even more serious. There the total number on relief is 176,000 and the number of municipalities in default is 157.
I should like to read to the house an impartial review of the conditions which now exist. In Toronto Saturday Night of March 21 last we are told:
It is one of the paradoxes of public finance that the centres of the greatest wealth should suffer the greatest municipal poverty. Of course it is true that the largest of our cities to default (thus far) is Windsor, which stands eleventh in population in the dominion, while well over one hundred of the smaller municipalities have defaulted. Yet when we analyze the facts we find that the finances of our largest cities are in a shocking state.
But in our large cities the depression was not faced as a fact to be reckoned with. It has been consistently evaded. Toronto began in 1933 to meet its relief bill by five year loans, affording a very temporary relief to its own tax rate, which now feels the cumulative effect of three years' borrowings.
Speaking before the Canadian Club in Toronto in February, Alderman John B. Laidlaw . . . said, " Last year the chickens of the relief loans began to come home to roost to the tune of one million dollars, and they are back this year to the amount of two millions, and next year will return to the amount of nearly three millions, for we have piled up a debt of nine millions for relief payments and about wiped out our margin of borrowing powers thereby." Thus borrowing for a self-sustaining debt, or even for a productive new service, may be sound, but for a straight current expense which creates no asset, it only makes trouble.

Employment Commission-Mr. McGeer
The city of Montreal is in an even worse plight. I wish now to place before you, Mr. Speaker, a very sound report which was made by Professor Goldenberg of McGill university to the mayors' conference which recently met in Ottawa. I may also add that the figures that came to this house through the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) were first compiled by provincial governments at the request of the mayors' conference in 1935 acting under the direction of Professor Marsh, also of McGill university, which has made a substantial contribution to our better understanding of this problem by indicating the need for the compilation of these facts. Professor Goldenberg's report has been very succinctly summarized by the editor of the Ottawa .Citizen and I should like to put a part of that summary on record:
Three important points were established by Professor II. Carl Goldenberg of McGill in his survey of municipal finances for the dominion conference of mayors, tabled on the opening day of that gathering. They were (1) that in the last five years there has been a great decline in the assessed and market value of real property which is the main source of municipal revenue, (2) that this decline in value had been accompanied by a general increase in civic tax rates, but (3) that the increase in the tax rate has not necessarily increased revenue while it has heavily increased tax arrears.
With respect to taxable assessment, Professor Goldenberg produced figures showing that it had dropped by $259,000,000 in Quebec municipalities, $115,000,000 in Ontario municipalities, and by corresponding amounts in other provinces.
And cryptically, but with clear and final definiteness, he said that unless some wholesale measure of relief is extended to municipal government throughout the Dominion of Canada, many of our Canadian municipalities cannot escape bankruptcy.
Let me say that municipal taxation constitutes the most definite repudiation of obligations representing the investment of Canadian wealth in real estate subject to the taxation powers of municipal government. We have wiped out accumulative wealth having an assessed value of $8,500,000,000. Holdings of improved property in the majority of Canadian cities have changed from an asset to a liability. We cannot go on with this disastrous imposition of taxation without meeting disaster. Let me indicate what the city council is doing in a desperate and impossible attempt to meet the situation in Montreal. Montreal's gross funded debt amounts to $268,842,000, and its annual tax levy to $34,000,000, more than half of which, $16,778,000, goes to pay debt charges. These terrifying taxes are now threatened: a $5 tax on all automobiles in the city; from $75 to
$250 a year on trucks; $10 on every dance held elsewhere than in a licensed dance hall or private home; $10 a year for each "no parking" sign; $25 a year for every parking ground; $200 a year on every building or lot used for the sale or exchange of automobiles; $100 a year on '.very person conducting a trucking business and $10 a year on each employee; $2 on every employee of a butcher, baker, pastry baker or grocer; 25 cents on every new piece of plumbing installed in every building, the certificate of inspection to be issued only after payment of the tax. Then there is a special tax, the amount of which has yet to be decided, on every hotel and boarding house in the city; a $200 annual tax on laundries, private hospitals and second hand stores; a special tax of $200 on all solicitors for the sale of goods, and a $100 tax on all jobbers. There is a tax of $500 on theatres and concert halls, plus 85 cents for each seat; $500 tax on dance halls; $50 tax on museums or other amusement halls; $1,000 tax on night clubs, cafes concerts, cafes dansants, and so on; $200 tax on every one canvassing for orders for photographs or doing photographic business elsewhere than in a regular business establishment; a tax of SI per square inch on advertising placards and posters, whether on private property or not. Then, there is a tax on automobile licences not exceeding one-third of the cost of such licence. This resort to desperate taxation methods shows that municipal governments cannot even with provincial governments carry three-fifths of what is acknowledged to be a national responsibility.
Let me now give some information as to the actual revenue position of a city with which I am conversant. The report I have in my hand was made by a group of business men the most responsible I could gather together in the city of Vancouver. Their report to our city council in part was as follows:
The situation is growing more and more acute owing to present methods of taxation. If we are ever to meet our obligations we must work out a more just and equitable distribution of the cost of municipal government, in order to restore property values.
In support of the contention that the present system of assessment and taxes is inequitable and confiscatory, and that it thoroughly destroys property values and the taxpayers' equity, an economic analysis was made of a large number of properties in the business section of the city. This survey, covering 111 properties, disclosed the following facts:
1.	That the taxes had increased between the years 1928 and 1934 by 42-6 per cent.
2.	That the gross revenue had decreased by 44-8 per cent.
1718	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. McGeer
And, that the value of property, measured in terms of income, had fallen by 92-1 per cent.
The province of British Columbia cannot help the city of Vancouver because its troubles are just as grave and acute as is the other's. In Alberta, with default now a fact, its provincial debt of $179,000,000, and the municipal debt is proportionately large, is now in jeopardy. In the province of British Columbia municipal and provincial debts together amount to over $425,000,000, to-day neither British Columbia nor Alberta can relieve the municipalities of their obligations, because the sources of revenue available and left by the national parliament to the provinces are not sufficient to permit the financing and maintenance of peace, order and good government in the provinces.
May I for a moment refer to the observation of others who have considered it the responsibility of this parliament to maintain a taxation and financial system that will permit provincial and municipal governments to carry on upon that issue. Hon. A. T. Galt during the confederation debates said:
The 80 cents per head which it is proposed to allow the local government out of the general exchequer for the purpose of meeting their local expenditures, these local expenditures include such items as the administration of justice, the support of education, grants to literary and scientific societies, hospitals and charities, and such other matters as cannot be regarded as devolving upon the general government. The fact that it is contemplated to give a subsidy of 80 cents per head to each of the provinces, in transferring to the general government all the larger sources of revenue, and placing in their hands, with a single exception-that of direct taxation-all the amounts whereby the expenditure of the people may be made to contribute to the wants of the state, it must be evident to every one that some portion of the resources thus placed at the disposal of the general government must in some form or other be available to supply the hiatus that otherwise takes place between the sources of local revenue and the demands of local expenditure.
Then, Sir Charles Tupper in the House of Commons on June 11, 1869, acknowledged the same thing in somewhat wider terms when he said that after confederation had been accomplished it was intended to have provincial and federal commissions set up to make an exhaustive inquiry into the needs of the provinces. After this inquiry had been completed it was intended to make a just and final settlement. Dealing with the power to alter the settlement of 1867 and to change the British North America Act he said he did not think that the house was prepared to assert the principle, under any circumstances, that it was not in a position to give any fair

consideration which any province ought to receive, or to extend it any relief beyond what the Union Act provided.
_ Sir Thomas White, in dealing with the question of the right of the federal parliament to invade the field of direct taxation with an income tax, said:
The dominion government under the provisions of the North America Act is empowered to raise revenue by any mode or form of taxation, whether direct or indirect; on the contrary, the provinces, and by consequence the municipalities which derive their taxation power from the provinces, are confined in the raising of revenues to the measures of direct taxation. For this reason, since the outbreak of the war, I have hesitated to bring down a measure of federal income taxation, and I have not regarded it as expedient, except in case of manifest public necessity, such as I believe exists at the present time, that the dominion should invade the field to which the provinces are solely confined for the raising of their revenue.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not indifferent to this great issue. Speaking in the House of Commons in 1907 he said:
Lower Canada would not have entered confederation if as a consequence she had been obliged to resort to direct taxation to levy the revenues necessary to carry on her domestic affairs.... It is not to be wondered at that when the provinces represented at that conference agreed to surrender to the central government the exclusive right of taxation in way of customs and excise they should at the same time have stipulated as a condition precedent that a certain portion of the revenue that is collected should be returned to them, and a portion sufficient to permit them without having recourse to direct taxation to carry on their provincial affairs. This is the reason of the enactment which we have before us in the sixty-fourth resolution of the Quebec conference. It was one of the many promises which had to be made in order to render confederation possible, and without which possibly confederation would have remained a dream.
Those words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier echo strangely in this house-that the federal parliament had no right to exhaust sources of revenue necessary to maintain provincial and municipal government. The guiding wisdom of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, sir, is available to us to-day and we should follow it without delay.
I should like to answer from another authority a statement which I think has been too often made with carelessness, and indifference to the truth. It is that the Dominion of Canada has weathered the storm as well as any other nation. This is not the conclusion of competent and unbiased authority. On January 18 of this year the Economist of London published one of the most complete reviews of the Dominion of Canada, its resources and its future possibilities, I have ever had the privilege of reading. Summariz-

Employment Commission-Mr. McGeer
ing our present plight it makes this statement :
The political experts do not concede any future for the reconstruction party as a separate unit, and the impression prevails that within four years the disillusioned voters of Alberta will be ready to turn and rend Mr. Aberhart and his lieutenants. The chances are that the reconstructionists and the social credit voters will drift into the C.C.F. camp.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. McGEER:: It continues:
In the new parliament the C.C.F. will only have eight representatives-
My friends groan now, but if that takes place they may groan even louder. I continue :
*-but if they can develop some debating strength, and if the government's plans for solving the unemployment and other problems go awry, their case for a wholesale reconstruction of Canada's economy will get a hearing in the country.
Within the ranks of the C.C.F. are a large number of the younger intelligentsia of Canada, some of whom have just produced a very interesting book entitled Social Planning for Canada, which exposes in succinct and forceful style the weaknesses of the present economic system and propounds a concrete plan for its reformation on socialist lines. Some of their proposals are beyond the range of practical politics in Canada for many a long day, but at least their party puts before the electorate a definite program. In a country where there are still a million and quarter people on public relief, and where a large element of the farming community is in sore straits, with debt burdens pressing heavily upon it, such a program will have an increasing appeal unless the Liberal ministry can open the road to recovery of real and permanent prosperity. The question many people in Canada are asking to-day is why the economic life of a country, which has such vast and varied resources, cannot be so organized as to provide a reasonable sustenance for 101 millions of people, when Sweden, another country in northern latitudes with a much smaller area and little first-class land, manages to support 7,000,000 people without condemning any large proportion of them to serious privation.
It is a reflection upon the government of this nation that the Economist of London, viewing Sweden on the one hand and Canada on the other, can offer such a reflection, and it does not confirm the conclusion that we have weathered the depression better than other countries. The Economist then goes on to say:
The social, political and economic problems facing the new Liberal government of Mr. Mackenzie King are scarcely less acute or less preemptory than those facing President Roosevelt. What are these immediate problems?
The urban population of the dominion is now greater, though not much greater, than the rural; but some of the western wheat provinces are, in Mr. Bennett's words, "bankrupt."
There are grave Canadian social problems. The drift of agricultural unemployed to the towns (which may account for some of the "rise" in the urban populations); the entirely separate enclave of French Canadians, with their own language, religion, law and education system, and with their differentially higher rate of natural increase; the return of former Canadian emigrants from the United States; the stabilization of the population by damping down fresh immigration; the political and social evidences of something approaching despair in the western provinces; all these problems have to be tackled, and the revelations of the price spreads commission that "trade abuses" existed on a very large scale in Canada are likely to provide plenty of opportunities to reformers for some time to come.
Finally, there is the entire complex of financial problems; the bankruptcy of the western provinces; the piling up of new debt by the federal government; the delay in attaching the rate of interest on these debts; the problem of the two railway systems and their deficits; the absence of organized nation wide unemployment relief (there were 1,100,000 persons dependent on some form of public relief last November, out of just over 10 millions); and the problematical cost of the measures to help farmers.
All these problems must be attacked and solved to bring this dominion back to prosperity. But we have this word of hope from the same survey:
The new brooms with which Canada's new premier has surrounded himself may soon be seen sweeping away much of the debris left by the impact of world wide depression upon an ill prepared dominion. Meanwhile, the special review of Canada which we offer to our readers this week should help them to gauge the significance of Canada's problems, as well as the magnitude of her possibilities. For, if the many articles contributed by Canadian and English authorities to that survey reveal one thing more clearly than any other, it is that Canada's opportunities far surpass her immediate problems. It is no belittlement of her development hitherto if we say that she remains a land rather of promise than of achievement. All those who read our review will realize how fair is that promise; and they will wish her well.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we can and should charge the deplorable conditions in the Dominion of Canada to bad government and to nothing else. There is nothing wrong with our people; there is nothing wrong with the vast heritage of wealth that is ours. There is no reason why we cannot do far more than we are doing, and moreover, we need in the government not supermen but just men who will use the rules of plain reason and common sense.
I should like now to submit a short summary on which I appealed to the electorate in Vancouver.


Walter Edward Foster: I am sorry, but the hon. gentleman's time has expired.
1720	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. McGeer


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Have I leave to go on, Mr. Speaker?


Walter Edward Foster: I am in the hands of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Walter Edward Foster: By unanimous consent, yes.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: This is the summary, Mr. Speaker.
We are far from secure, and whether or not our western civilization can survive the present depression is still open to question. We are at the parting of the ways. The day has arrived when progress through exploitation must give way to progress through order, sustained by government control and regulation. This great change must be brought about by constitutional reform, or we are bound to suffer the chaos of revolution which will end in dictatorship with little or no benefit to the masses.
We are at the parting of the ways in the course we must take.
Humanity must have a better deal than the private money system has provided.
Real wealth must be created and distributed to satisfy the needs of human progress and individual contentment.
The desire for interest and profit must not be allowed to prevent available and realizable supply from satisfying the demands of humanity for the necessities, comforts and conveniences of life.
The wages of men must be placed above the wages of money.
Consumers and taxpayers must be supplied with the means of buying the goods and services available and of paying taxes that are levied.
Unemployment due to technological advancements must be balanced by employment in public works and the advancement of social service. Seasonal unemployment must be guarded against.
The standard of living in agricultural community and city, of those employed in public and private activity and of those engaged in domestic and foreign trade, must be balanced. Destitution must be eliminated and consumers' buying power must be sustained. Highways, railways, airways and communication facilities, buildings for administration, national defence, law enforcement, education, health, entertainment and other public service, and the improvement of the appearance of both city and country, must be undertaken. Parks and playgrounds must be developed, and natural resources must be conserved.
Children denied the right of work under child labour laws must be cared for. Proper pensions, superannuation and other allowances must be provided for mothers, for the sick, the injured, the veterans, and those who, through the passing years, are no longer able to sustain themselves; and age in years should not be the arbitrary governing factor.

The taxpayer must be relieved from the existing unpayable debt load.
The advancement of education, health, law enforcement and good government must be carried on.
How can this be accomplished? Not under the old financial structure, Mr. Speaker, but through a commission such as this bill contemplates, examining the whole problem in all its phases, and helping to bring about a spirit of cooperation between the government and finance and industry and commerce, with the people at large willing to cooperate and help this country move forward as we ought to be able to move if we all work together, creating for each other's use, distributing for each other's benefit, and making the life of every Canadian what it should be under the blessed heritage that we enjoy in every part of this great and broad dominion.
I congratulate the minister upon his presentation of the bill and his conception of the work, and the government upon the undertaking, and my hope is that when it comes to the supplementary estimates the Minister of Finance will be as broad and liberal in his conception of what is to be done as the Minister of Labour has been.


Mr. E. J. POOLE (Red Deer):: In rising to discuss the proposed commission set-up, I want first of all to commend the Minister of Labour (Mr.-Rogers) upon the broad way he travelled and the area that he covered. I recognize that he, like the party in power, is faced with a gigantic task in endeavouring to solve the problem of unemployment that has persisted so long in Canada. I feel, however, that this problem does not belong to the labour department or to any one particular department. As I understand the bill, it is to provide for a commission whose duties shall be to provide for a national registration and classification in cooperation with the provinces, to determine the conditions to be complied with by any province obtaining grants for relief from the government of Canada, to investigate relief abuses, and so forth.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is the duty of the government to find employment. I do believe, however, it is the duty of the government entirely to eliminate poverty, but as I recognize that we are in a transitional period, we have to move more or less along orthodox lines and say that the only way that our people can live is to provide employment for them so that they may receive wages. I think one of the greatest parts if not the greatest part of

Employment Commission-Mr. Poole
our problem is that affecting the youth of this country. In the past few years we have seen many interesting experiments in this connection, not so much in Canada as in Great Britain and the United States. I have here a copy of a statement dealing with the work of the National Youth Administration in the United States:
The National Youth Administration admits that it is all but appalled before the problems of unoccupied youth. Of the $50,000,000 set aside by the federal government about one-half is being used to help 300,000 college and high school students to continue their studies, 31,000 of these being in New York state. The question is how to help the remaining 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 unemployed young persons, particularly the half million between 16 and 25 who have finished school and never yet have had a job that paid them wages. Aubrey Williams, executive director of the National Youth Administration, gives his findings in a startling statement-"Millions of young persons seem to be denied the right to work and earn their own food."
Mr. Williams and his assistants hopefully set out to find jobs for young Americans, but halted before the discovery that there were not jobs enough to serve even the men with families.
Only yesterday one hon. member on the government benches told us of 400 applicants for seventeen jobs. The only way in which we differ from the United States is in degree, but we can see all around us evidence that ours is an identical problem. I continue:
There was hopeful talk of developing apprenticeships, but when a trade was selected for a beginning, it was found 60 per cent of the qualified operatives in that trade were unemployed. Again, an unhappy halt. Then came the forced conclusion that at no time now in sight would private industry be able to absorb these willing young would-be workers. The work survey turns reluctantly to some kind of public project, something for cultural expansion and increasing of natural resources-What kind of a generation is this that says it cannot absorb its young?
Director Williams wonders whether society will have to be made over for the accommodation of youth. His group studies the possi-bilties of gymnasiums and church and school auditoriums being used for some general program to occupy youth's time. But this would not meet the real need. It would not afford youth its sublime right to hardships and victories. The nation must face its grave duty of saving youth by putting it to work, seasoning it, testing it unto full development. More spiritual insight is required in discovering the surely right way. This generation not merely needs its youth; it cannot move forward without the help of its youth. To cry that the country has no actual need of its youth would be the admission of utter calamity-It would be a false claim that the nation has no to-morrow.
I believe that those words, discussing the National Youth Administration in the United States, somehow measure the difficulty which
our own Minister of Labour will meet in trying to carry out his program.
Again, it has been clearly indicated by the government, and particularly by the Minister of Labour, that the government cannot continue to spend money, that we must look to cooperation from private industry. It will be a wonderful day if and when we get cooperation from private industry. We look at the report of the price spreads commission and find that even here, in the capital city of Canada, major industries are being subsidized by local governments, industries that have as many as twenty-five salesmen on their staff who are not paid a nickel beyond commissions and are forced to knock at the door of the relief offices of this city to get a living. That state of things is true not only of this city but of western Canada, in connection with industries that have assets to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Though the leaders of these industries sometimes parade their faith in Canada, industry of this kind can best be described as business without a soul, big business chisellers, people who care nothing for the future of this country. It is these people who are always pressing the municipalities for reduced assessments to throw the burden on small property owners.
Turning for a moment to the address given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), I understand the difficulties he faces, and I agree with him in many things. He said:
There is another consideration which musl also be kept in mind as we approach the problem of unemployment and relief in its social aspect. I have suggested that a sufficiency of food and shelter, clothing and medical attention must be provided for those in need.
That is true. There is no person in this house, no person in this dominion who could put forward an intelligent argument why the people of Canada should not receive not only the bare necessities of life but life in abundance. We have the physical goods; our low standard of living to-day exists only because there is something else lacking-not goods, but finances.
I was struck yesterday by the remark of an hon. member that governments should not interfere with business. Others say the trouble is that we have too much machinery, that by its use we are depriving people of employment, the inference, being, of course, that we should not use so much of it. But I turn to the front page of the Ottawa Citizen to-day and I find this-and it is the act of a government that is trying to find employment:
Finance department work in the branch of the comptroller of the treasury performed by thirty-one employees and seven business machines on rental at $810 per month would require 65 persons without machines, Hon.

Employment Commission-Mr. Poole
C. A. Dunning, finance minister, informed Ralph Maybank, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, in the House of Commons yesterday.
It was explained that since 1933 the finance department has rented three punching machines, two tabulators, one sorter and one reproducing punch from a Toronto business machine company. The machines are installed at the central pay office and are used in the preparation of the payrolls and the writing of cheques for 35,000 government employees and for the annuitants under the Government Annuities Act, approximately 54,000 cheques being issued monthly.
This is the point I am trying to make. While the government persistently refuses to realize that it is due to the advancement of science that we have so many unemployed in the country, the administration is endeavouring to find employment for our people and at the same time displacing man power, and of course wages, by the introduction of machines into departments. What is true in that instance is true in connection with all industry in this country. Many people in Canada and in the House of Commons cry to high heaven because we have so many unemployed, and they take the number of the unemployed as the measure of our national poverty. But to the man who has given any serious consideration to the science of production and distribution and to the purpose of an economic system it must surely be evident that every unemployed man in the country is a measure of our scientific advancement. The purpose of an economic system is to reduce toil, to produce more goods and to distribute them, and the problem in Canada to-day is therefore not one of employment. Employment is but a means to an end, not an end in itself. The difficulty lies in the fact that we recognize only one means by which people can live, and that is through the system of wages, and the system of wages has broken down because our financial structure will not permit the people to receive the means whereby we can distribute the goods.
The Minister of Labour tells us that it would ' cost between 1300,000,000 and $400,000,000 to put to work the employables in Canada. In other words, the only way in which in this dominion we can feed, clothe and shelter our own people is by going into debt, placing a chattel mortgage on the future, and increasing the burden of debt on Canadian generations yet unborn. But perhaps there is something that we have overlooked-I must not forget that-because the Minister of Labour quoted an authority of 1842, Thomas Carlyle. He told us yesterday that Carlyle said there was very little hope; he struck quite a pessimistic note.

I would remind the minister that the conditions under which people lived in 1842 were vastly different from the conditions under which we live to-day. At that time the world was expanding; world capitalism was building up and there was a place for surplus products. But to-day we have reached the stage where we can expand no more, where every nation is indulging in economic nationalism, endeavouring to produce its own goods independently of other nations. For evidence of that we have only to turn to a statement made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). The basic industry of the country is agriculture, and this is what the leader of the opposition has said, as reported at page 1611 of Hansard. He quotes first what he said in the house in 1935:
Mr. Bennett: The hon. member will see as I proceed. The average production of Europe (ex Russia) for the period 1923-24 to 1927-28 was 1,240,000,000 bushels. The average importations by importing countries for the same period were 601,000,000 bushels. The average consumption by European countries was
1.841.000.	000 bushels. It will be observed that you have an average consumption during that period of 1,841,000,000 bushels. It has been stated that there has been a diminution in consumption but I give these figures to show that such is not the case. For the period 1929-30 to 1933-34-these are the crop years ending July 31-the average production of Europe (ex Russia) was 1,496,000,000 bushels. The average imports by importing countries for the same period had fallen from 601,000,000 bushels to 469,000,000 bushels while the average consumption had risen to 1,965,000,000 from
1.841.000.	000 bushels. I come now to the last crop year, 1933-34. The European production for that year was 1,749,000,000 bushels while for this year the imports had fallen to
374.000.	000 bushels. I ask the house to note that the average imports for 1923-24 to 1927-28 were 601,000,000 bushels and these had fallen to 469,000,000 bushels for the period 1929-30 to 1933-34, there being a further decrease to
374.000.	000 bushels for the last crop year. In this last year the total consumption had risen to the largest figure in history, 2,123,000,000 bushels.
Then he makes this comment:
I stated then, as I state now, that there was an erroneous opinion abroad and in many sections of our country as well, that the people were consuming less wheat. The figures issued from Rome, and the figures issued as well by the wheat committee to which I shall presently refer, indicate that that was not the case and that consumption rose to the highest figure we have record of in history, namely,
2.123.000.	000 bushels by the countries to which I referred last year.
This is the point. If we are depending upon absorbing our unemployed into industry by means of the export of wheat to the nations of the world on the basis on which we did this in days gone by, then there

Employment Commission-Mr. Poole
is little hope. Surely the figures are a good enough measuring stick, and if there is no hope from that source what then has the government to offer? The commission which has been suggested might give better administration, but it cannot feed more people; that requires something different from anything we have been given. I believe I can call in evidence Premier Bracken of Manitoba, who has estimated that during the first four years of the depression the purchasing power of the western farmers was reduced by an average of $450,000,000 a year. Hon. members know only too well how that has contributed to the unemployment of industrial workers in eastern Canada.
The problem that faces the people of Canada to-day is not one of unemployment but one of finance, and that is where we must focus our attention. It can be best described as a financial stone wall against which governments, business, agriculture and labour forces are running their deluded heads in an attempt to end the depression.
Before a commission or anyone else can deal with the problem that confronts this countiy, we must rid ourselves of many of the misconceptions which we have inherited from the middle ages. In the first place, we have heard for five years that there is a depression. I do not know what is meant by that, but the implication is that we are short of something, and yet I do not know of anything that we are short of, anything that we could not produce. If there is anything that we have not, we have the available man power to produce it. It is quite true that we had depressions in 1842, when we could not produce enough, but to-day, in 1936, with approximately a million Canadians enjoying a standard of living that can be compared only with that of a Chinese coolie, the only excuse is that we can produce so much; that the wage system has broken down and that machines have taken the places of these men. Again, they tell us that we cannot produce enough; I remember quite clearly that this was another statement made by members of the Liberal party in the last provincial election campaign in Alberta. When you asked them why there were so many unemployed, they could not reconcile the two statements. Every man in this country is potential wealth, available man power to process the natural resources of Canada so that the people may use them. So this commission is faced with this impossible task of trying to end unemployment with foreign markets gone. They have been obliterated; they can be obtained no longer, unless of course a state of war should be declared in Europe.
There are only two proposals that can be made by this commission. If they wish to find employment for the employables they can do so only by increasing taxation and at the same time reducing the standard of living of others or by borrowing more money, in other words increasing our national debt. I do not want to discuss money too much, because the last time I did so one hon. member took exception, but I want to say this: The hon. member for Yancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) suggested that the people of Alberta would tear the premier of that province to pieces because of the promises he had made and had not fulfilled. I want to say that I believe the wish was father to the thought. In my opinion we in that province have the only solution that is before the Canadian people to-day. If anyone else has another solution we are still waiting to heai it. We do know you will not solve the problem by going into debt. We know you wil. not solve it through a loan council, by centralizing the powers of finance. We know you will never increase the prosperity of Canada or of its people if you depend upon the exportation of Canadian goods. We shall export goods from this country in any great volume only when we use our wheat as purchasing power instead of going into the markets of the world to sell.
We must concentrate our attention upon the real problem that confronts Canada, instead of always suggesting palliatives, commissions, committees, unemployment relief programs and so on. We may well criticize big business because of the crimes it has committed against the Canadian public, who were awakened to the situation only through the evidence given before the price spreads commission last year, but there is another business whose crimes will never be known. I refer to finance, the people who have the power to make money, the people who control prices, the people whom, so far, this government has refused to touch. I had some hope that the government would bring about some monetary reform, but after listening to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) digging himself in and imposing certain conditions upon provinces before they could obtain a dominion guarantee, it seems to me that the minister is looking forward to many years during which we shall have to keep on borrowing. If the government were sincere in their program of monetary reform we would not need a loan council, because we would strip the financial monopoly of the power they have and return it to the people. But do not touch them; criticize anyone else,



Employment Commission

Mr. Poole
chisel on the blind people of Canada, the exservice men, the incapacitated and the widows, but do not touch the bankers. I am firmly convinced that the people of Canada should understand that this money game is the biggest racket that was ever perpetrated upon any people; that money is just made, that it is based upon something belonging to the Canadian people, not to the bankers, and that the man who controls it controls the economic life and destiny of every man, woman and child within the borders of this dominion. It is useless for us to discuss setting up commissions or trying to find employment by cooperating with industry; this is all so much ballyhoo. That will be so until such time as we obtain the key that opens the door to prosperity, until we say to the bankers: You have ruled long enough; the time has come when you may no longer indulge in usury. That will be so until we take over the control of finance and issue it, first to the consumer, recognizing as we do that the purpose of our economic society is to increase the standard of living of the individual by increasing production and making these goods available.
I do not know what the near future may hold, but I do know that future generations in Canada will look upon us with rather mixed feelings when they see the five years that have been lost by one generation; when they see that we sacrificed everything, education, ambition, initiative, even our public buildings and highways, because we refused to do the one thing that was necessary, because we were afraid to attack the citadel of finance for fear of political suicide. But I say, that before we can have one jot of prosperity of any kind we must take over the control of finance and change our policy. We must make money available to production for the purposes of production. You have to make available to the consumer a national dividend. The purpose of that national dividend is to monetize the goods which are piled up to-day and which cannot be bought because of the difference between cost and price. Of course that cannot be done yet because we have not so far recognized that the only purpose of the machine is to produce goods, and the only value of those gods is ultimate consumption. So many things could be said, so much evidence could be piled up against this foolish system under which we are living that one could deal with the question for forty-eight hours and still leave many things unsaid. But there is one interesting thing I have noticed this session. I have been waiting very patiently for someone to defend the present financial system and I have yet to hear

this done. I have yet to hear anyone suggest how we can put our people to work without increasing our debt. I have yet to hear anyone tell us how we can increase our exports of goods in a wTorld in which each nation is trying to become self-sufficient.
So, to sum up, we are to have a commission created, and the best it will have accomplished five years from now-and I say this not to criticize the Minister of Labour because I am quite convinced of his ability and sincerity but I know he has a gigantic task ahead of him-will be possibly a better and more efficient administration of relief. There is one point I am afraid of in regard to the commission. At the present time in the municipalities and the provinces the relief recipient has an opportunity to go directly to the local authorities and plead his case if he things he is not getting justice.^ Now, a commission is to be set up which will take away that opportunity and make it very hard for the' mass of the people to place their case before those in control, because a commission is so unapproachable. I trust that when this commission is set up it will not take away from the municipalities the right to fix the scale of relief, or interfere with them in any way whatsoever.
It seems that we are going to wait for another year to find out what effect the policy of the present government will have on unemployment in this country. I believe it is the wish of this little group in this corner not to put any obstacle in the way of the government but to help and cooperate with them to have this legislation passed as expeditiously as possible so that the Canadian people may have an opportunity at an early date to see that what is required to bring about prosperity in Canada, is not commissions, not export markets, not an extensive scheme of public works which will increase our national debt, but a major operation, nothing short of changing our financial policy, taking it from the control of a monopoly and making available to the people at all times sufficient purchasing power to enable them to purchase the total price values. We must recognize that the purpose of an economic system is to produce the maximum of goods with the minimum of effort, and the purpose of the machine, which is an inheritance left to us by generations long since gone, is to make available to mankind in abundance the natural resources of the world, to make life more abundant. It was created for that purpose. We bemoan as a national calamity the fact that we have the machine. Surely it must be evident to any schoolboy that the purpose of a machine system and of science is to de-

Employment Commission-Mr. MacNicol
prive men of employment. I do not mean by that that men will be idle in the total sense of the word; I mean the removal from society of wage slavery, compelling men to go into factories and workshops to do jobs that they absolutely hate.
I am convinced that the only obstacles in our way are those people who have the traditional view that if work is not found for people they will be demoralized. The surprising thing is the acceptance of the statement that men will always have to work. I hope that in a short time they will cease to work long hours in factories and in industry. There are all kinds of creative work that men will always find to do, because man is a creative creature, but the fact that we have machines that * will produce so much is no reason why the people of Canada, the youth of Canada, should be sacrificed in order to leave intact one portion of our mediaeval system which is of no use in the modern age. It has to be removed. I make this prophecy. I speak of something that I utterly believe. I was not elected to the House of Commons because I belonged to a party; I think one of the curses of our modern society is partyism, but I have for some three years lectured on this subject, and given some years of study to analyzing our present system, and I say this, that we are in a rapidly moving age, the most rapid movement of any period in the world's history, and we are on the threshhold of something. We are living in a day when we must make decisions, not decisions that will affect us for only a day or a month or a year, but decisions that will affect the national life of this country and affect world policy.
I believe that this government will solve this problem when they focus their attention on money, remembering always that the banker bases his credit, that with which we do ninety-five per cent of the business of Canada, upon the ability of the people of Canada to make available the natural resources of the country for the needs of the people. It is on this basis that we should issue our national credit, for the purpose of controlling prices, because it is a well known fact that the man who controls the volume of money, controls prices, and the man who controls prices controls the economic life of the people.
What chance has the farmer? In 1928 he thought he was living.in a day of prosperity. He was living in a period of inflation, that is all, when the bankers made bank credit available for production. People were working then; this epidemic of laziness had not struck us; people at that time thought they were part of the nation. In 1929 the crash came.
Nothing happened really, only that the bankers reversed their policy and began to deflate. Listen to Premier Bracken again. This is a Liberal speaking:
Premier Bracken of Manitoba has estimated that during the first four years of the depression the purchasing power of western farmers was reduced by an average of $450,000,000 per year.
There is the trouble-lack of purchasing power. You have goods up here and purchasing power down here. Of course we get exactly the same thing as they got in the United States. In that country they carried on an experiment under which they began to reduce the volume of goods and to equate existing purchasing power, while 18,000,000 people rambled through their streets. We can do exactly the same thing, and the results would be identical, or we can do something else. We could increase the volume of purchasing power so that it would equal the volume or height of price values. Of course I know the cry that will go up; people will say that we should have inflation. First, we should have reflation-


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Fafard):: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, after a careful rereading of Bill No. 14, which, I admit frankly, was prepared with the best hopes of providing employment for the unemployed, and after rereading the minister's speech on moving second reading I regret that I find very little, if anything, which could give reasonably prompt realization to the hopes of thousands of unemployed looking for jobs. I am afraid the unemployed have looked for too much from the academic experience of the minister. Theories are all right, perhaps, when propounded behind the ivy clad walls of some scholastic hall, but a problem such as this requires much more than theories. It requires a lot of vigour, action and practical knowledge to take care of employment, in times such as these.
The needs of the unemployed are so great that I only wish I could say something to encourage the minister in the belief that his proposal to form a commission will be a panacea for the difficulties of the unemployed. I regret that I cannot do this. For a few moments I should like to deal with a few of the statements made by other hon. members, but unless time permits I shall confine my observations to some statements of the minister.
The minister's speech made some days ago I have boiled down to four main statements: (a) that the lowest index of unemployment was at March 1, 1933, when it stood at 76-9 per
1726	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. MacNicol
cent as compared with the 1926 index, taken at 100; (b) that improvement from March 1, 1933, to March 1, 1936, rose to 98 per cent plus, or an improvement of 28J per cent; (c) that the problem is still critical and acute, and (d) that a national employment commission is in the opinion of the minister, and perhaps in that of the government too, the way out of the impasse in which the country now finds itself.
I should like to divide (d) into four separate headings: (1) that through the commission it is expected that the originating of employment will take place by offering in a large measure advice and plans to industry; (2) the planning of long-range measures; (3) the registering and tabulation of unemployed, and (4) the elimination of certain companies or shops which give unfair and excessively low wages.
Dealing first with division (d), namely the hope that the commission, committee or council may do effective work, may I say that under this division we find nothing new. Many years ago Bismarck made the same suggestion, and when the present German constitution was framed at Weimar in 1919 a clause of the constitution enacts just that. It did not last long. They established a committee, council or commission of 326 members covering all classes of business, labour, financial and other classes of which the German nation is formed. But it was found unsatisfactory. The excessive cost, the duplication and the delay made it impossible of action.
Other European states followed in the path of Germany. Poland, Spain, Portugal and France all tried out similar plans and each one discarded the plan as top-heavy, costly, slow and ineffective. Under its referendum No. 58 the United States prepared a somewhat similar plan which has since been abandoned. Great Britain, however, did not adopt that procedure. Under its Department of Labour Great Britain was divided into seven employment districts, which in turn were divided into 1,128 subdistricts, and I believe through their plan they have accomplished something. At least they are in touch with the situation in all parts of the country, and have been making an honest effort to transfer unwanted labour in one part of the country to meet the labour requirements in another. May I tell the minister and through him the government that to-day we have heard a lot about industry. I was connected with industry for many years, but I shall not attempt to reply to the statements which have been made. After all, in many respects it is like other vocations. If you are going to be a medical practitioner you must know something about

medical practice. If you are going to be a lawyer you must know something about law. There are too many who think they know all about industry, but who actually know little whatever about it. To-day industry has been throttled and crucified by the overwhelming cost of government in Canada. What have we? We have one federal government, nine provincial governments, four thousand municipal governments and twenty-four thousand boards of education. Each one inflicts taxation upon industry, and upon everything else which goes to make up business in Canada.
In addition to this tremendous and terrific overhead of cost it is proposed to add another commission. To what? To the fifty-eight commissions which we already have. The other day when on the introduction of the bill I said that the country was being commissioned to death, and overgoverned to death, I received many letters from all parts of the country asking me when I spoke again to give the list of commissions, and I now propose to do that. Although some of these may not amount to much, there are at present thirteen federal commissions as follows:
International Joint Commission,
Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, Board of Grain Commissioners,
National Research Council,
Federal District Commission,
Canadian Farm Loan Board,
Tariff Board,
Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, Dominion Marketing Board,
The Canadian Wheat Board,
The Civil Service Commission,
The War Graves Commission,
Historic Monuments Commission.
At the present session the government proposes, I believe, several additional commissions. Then, the commissions in the provinces are as follows:
Alberta
Public Utilities Commission,
Workmen's Compensation Board,
Minimum Wage Board.
British Columbia Board of Industrial Relations,
Workmen's Compensation Board.
Manitoba
Workmen's Compensation Commission, Minimum W7age Board,
Manitoba Liquor Commission,
Municipal and Public Utility Board, Industrial Development Board of Manitoba, Law Enforcement Copamission.
New Brunswick
New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, New Brunswick Public Utilities Commission,	_
New Brunswick Workmen's Compensation Board,
Liquor Control Board,
New Brunswick Fire Prevention Board.

Employment Commission-Mr. MacNicol
Nova Scotia
Nova Scotia Power Commission.
Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities, Nova Scotia Liquor Commission.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I point out to the
hon. member-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the hon. member ask his question later.


Abraham Albert Heaps: -that some of those are
private boards.


John Ritchie MacNicol: 
Mr. MOORE:: I am extremely interested in what the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) is saying, and very largely in agreement with him, but I am just wondering, when he gave us the list of commissions that had been formed, why he did not include the marketing board.


Ernest Edward Perley: He did.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If I did not it was an oversight. I thought I did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did. He mentioned it.


William Henry Moore: May I ask the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) whether he is in favour of the marketing board?


John Ritchie MacNicol: 
Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this bill in the hope that some good will come of it. It is said that unemployment is Canada's greatest problem, but I submit that our greatest problem is the abolition of poverty, and that is mainly a question of finance. Control of credit means control of money; control of money means control of prices; the control of prices means control of profits and profits control wages and salaries. To abolish poverty we need to consume to the limits of our desires or our powers to produce. Is this financially possible? I submit that it is, because it was possible during the war. If it was possible during the war it is possible in times of peace.
Is it financially desirable? I submit that that is a question for the people of Canada to decide. The people demand an end to the scandal of poverty in the midst of plenty. If the financier will do his part the people will do theirs; if the financier will not do his part, or if he says he cannot, then he must be replaced by those who can and will. That is the duty of the government of Canada.
Mr. A. J. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Ma-tane); Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in English before continuing in French, on the first occasion that I have an opportunity to speak in this house. As a
1732	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Lapointe (Matane)
new member I realize it takes courage to address this chamber, but as I have been told that the experienced members are very indulgent to newcomers, I feel more at ease.
First, I wish to commend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) for the great speech he made the other day in moving the second reading of the bill to create a national employment commission. Although I quite agree that already we have too many commissions, I sincerely believe that this commission will be of great benefit to our country.
We have often been told in this house that the Canadian people placed great confidence in the Liberal party at the last general election. This is true; we quite realize it, and we want to prove that we are worthy of such confidence, to show that we are ready and willing to face the situation, difficult as it is, and to do our utmost to bring back prosperity and happiness in the numerous homes darkened so long with the shadow of unemployment, suffering and distress. I know that the task is not an easy one, but we must show that the faith of our country in this government is going to be justified during the next five years.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, I now wish to contiue my observations in the French language.
More than six years ago, at a time when the present crisis began to sap the economical structure of the world, no one could have foreseen that to-day we would still be confronted with the same difficulties and endeavouring to solve the same vexing problems. It is obvious that the situation remains most uncertain. After more than six years of waiting, thousands and thousands of men still go out in search of employment only to return, disappointed, weary and almost desperate, to homes without food and children half naked.
I do not propose to indulge in mere declamation. I know full well that I am repeating what others have often said before me in this house, but if I emphasize the point it is because I realize the heavy responsibility weighing on the shoulders of every member of the house, and in particular, of every member of the government.
Such a sad state of affairs should not be allowed to last indefinitely. The time is past for groping policies or palliatives. The Canadian people are looking to us; in the last election, they entrusted us with a duty to fulfill, a duty which calls for firm action on our part. This reminds me of the words of a great philosopher and saint: "In order to remain honest and to be virtuous man must enjoy a certain degree of comfort and con-

tentment. . ." Then, how can one refrain from anxiety and alarm at the sight of the large number of unfortunate people who are denied even the necessaries of life.
Mr. Speaker, only a few months ago, I was simply a village stationmaster. When I was about to enter the political arena, my employer-who incidentally is well known by the right honourable Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)-intimated that I had to choose between my position and politics. I am the father of six children, but I chose what I deemed to be my duty. I was dismissed, and had I not been elected in my constituency, I would now be one of the unemployed.
I have always led the simple life of the common people, whose hardships and whose sentiments I know well. I know that, even now as I am speaking, thousands of my constituents are suffering in silence and expecting this government to do something to alleviate the distress they have suffered too long. I feel that I would be remiss in my duty, that I would be neglecting to fulfill the mandate entrusted to me by my electors if I did not call the government's attention to the sad plight of my constituency.
The population which it is my privilege to represent in this house is largely made up of farmers, settlers, fishermen and workmen. Their distress is worse than is generally believed. Direct relief is practically non existent there; the municipalities being too poor to bear the cost of relief, the destitute must be content with public charity.
Numerous farmers, after clearing their lands and toiling arduously in the hope of leaving their farm some day to their children and peacefully ending their days with them are now threatened with bankruptcy. Farm produce, which in recent years was abundant, could not find a market. Potatoes have sold as low as 8 or 10 cents a bushel, And yet, this was the commodity on which the farmer depended to pay his taxes and his chief expenses. This year, prices are slightly higher, but the crop is short.
Many farmers have applied to the Canadian Farm Loan Board for a loan that might have saved them from ruin, but in nearly every case, the application was refused without any valid reason. I know that in many cases the applicant was too much of a Liberal in the eyes of the appraiser who himself happened to be a staunch Tory, However to-day, with the board constituted as it is, I am confident that they will be actuated by fairness rather than by political considerations.

Employment Commission-Mr. Lapointe (Matane)
Conditions among our workers, are not any brighter. Lumbering is the main industry in my constituency. In too many cases the men are at the mercy of their employers. I could cite a number of instances. Before action was taken by the provincial government, these unfortunate people had to toil from five o'clock in the morning to seven in the evening at a most arduous task for wages ranging from 40 cents to 80 cents a day.
Although conditions fiave somewhat improved since, they are still far from satisfactory. The employees of a certain sawmill, having made an attempt at organizing themselves into a trade union, were dismissed. I admit that they were reinstated, but the result was that such action dampened their enthusiasm and caused them to be on their guard. Well, Mr. Speaker, I must protest, with all my might, against such methods on the part of employers who, taking advantage of the distress prevailing among their men, are dealing with them in a most unfair manner and assuming the part of dictators.
I also wish to taire the opportunity, in my first address to this house, to register my protest against high salaries. At a time when so many people are starving, at a time when distress prevails in so many homes, I can scarcely conceive why some companies should pay to their favoured officials salaries altogether out of proportion with the meagre wages paid to their lower employees. I can still less imagine why employers should reduce the wages of their men in order to make it possible to pay fabulous salaries to themselves. Such tactics can only result in creating discontent and hatred among the working classes and paving the way to communism in this country.
I have no intention whatever of discussing communism in the course of this address; I simply wish to draw the attention of the government to the vile campaign carried on by the communists in this country. I know that the main objective of that campaign is to make this country a godless one. I shall have an opportunity of referring again to that question of communism, possibly in the course of the present session.
It being the duty of the state to extend equal protection to all classes of the population, I feel confident that our governments, both federal and provincial, will take the necessary steps to suppress such injustices practiced against our workers.
I also wish to join with those speakers who drew the attention of the government to the serious problem of youth, of our eager and vigourous young people who seek the opportunity to put their energy to work, but must perforce remain inactive. They lose all hope
as they see the best years of their life wasted away, years which they had intended to be so fruitful in achievement.
If I may be permitted, I shall submit to the government a suggestion which, if adopted, would largely solve the unemployment problem, especially in connection with the youth of my district. I have in mind the opening up to colonization of the vast plateau in the Gaspe peninsula, covering an area of over 10,000 square miles. Not only is it rich in minerals, but it is also covered with virgin forest and a soil of great richness. This splendid region is dotted with beautiful lakes and watered by magnificent rivers; in short it is a real paradise. Yet, the district is closed to settlement, owing to the lack of means of communication. The building of a railway was planned many years ago; why has the project not been carried out? The reason lies in the fact that it is intended to set that area aside as a reserve to be handed at a later date, as a gift to some outside concern which would hold our own people in a mercenary state while the best positions would go to their friends, as unfortunately it has been too often the case in our province.
Some may say that it is idle to think of building new railway lines, when the existing lines have become too great a burden. It may be so, but why? Too many lines have been built in certain districts and certain provinces and not enough in others. According to my information, had the province of Quebec been given the same consideration as was given to certain other provinces, it would now have over $500,000,000 worth of additional railway facilities. Therefore, I trust this government will not be deterred by a sense of false economy but will give their most serious consideration to the paramount question of developing the Gaspe region, the first soil trodden by the great discoverer, Jacques Cartier. This vast region only awaits the building of a railway to absorb the surplus of our population and the young people referred to a moment ago. Our young men would find there a splendid field of action in which to display their energy and put to useful work their strong arms which have remained so long inactive.
In my opinion, if the late government, instead of spending large sums of money in direct relief, wasting millions of dollars to no purpose, and spoiling our people in accustoming them to rely on the state for a livelihood, had undertaken such work as the building of the Gaspe railway, they would have achieved something useful and really worked in the best interest of the country.
1734	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Lapointe (Matane)
At a time when the back-to-the-land movement is advocated throughout the country as the best means of alleviating unemployment; when in Italy Mussolini has expended billions in draining marshes and irrigating vast plains in order to compel his people to take up farming and thereby solve to a large extent the unemployment problem, why should not our government, in cooperation with the provincial governments, shape their policy so as to facilitate a sound back-to-the-land movement. We cannot hope for an improvement of present conditions if we constantly apply the same remedies for the ills from which we are suffering. After having so long proclaimed that Canada is one of the world's richest countries in natural resources, the time has come, I think, to develop these vast and rich resources.
We are passing through a most tragic period. In spite of our unlimited resources, in spite of recent scientific discoveries, which could be so useful to us, our lot has never been worse. The reason is that we are living in an age of selfishness, conceit and envy, and I believe that so long as justice and Christian charity shall not have reassumed their proper place in the world, we cannot expect order, peace and happiness to reign.
In concluding, Sir, may I state that I have full confidence in the Liberal party. I firmly believe in the sense of fairness and justice of its leaders; I have great faith in the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who, I know, is endowed with the great qualities that make for real statesmanship. The other day, as he was conversing with me in a simple and friendly way, I could not but feel impressed. It recalled to my mind certain incidents in my last electoral campaign, which was perhaps one of the most hardest and worst contests waged in the country, considering my meagre resources as compared with those of my opponents, and at the same time I could hardly help being amused when recalling some of their statements. "What can you expect a little fellow like Lapointe to do in parliament at Ottawa? He surely would be relegated in some corner I" Well, why did I come to this parliament? I came here to discharge my duty and serve my country to the best of my ability. Instead of being relegated in an out-of-the-way place, I was given a seat close to you, Mr. Speaker, while at my side, sir, two gallant soldiers who defeated two ministers in the last electoral contest. I wish to thank sincerely those to whom I owe such an honour.

In closing my remarks, I also wish to express my appreciation to this house for the kind attention and sympathy extended to a recruit undergoing his baptism of fire.
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) : Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention tonight to deal at length with the bill before the house, but I do desire to make a few specific references. I believe there is no necessity to go into statistical detail so ably covered this afternoon by the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer). In a comprehensive manner he reviewed the statistical effect that the unemployment condition has had on Canada as a nation. Hon. members will recall that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) tabled information which should convince the house of the necessity for the government to deal with the relief situation in a most effective manner.
A few days ago considerable time was spent reviewing subsidies granted steamship companies on the Pacific coast. All hon. members listened with interest to the careful and comprehensive review of the situation. Large sums of money were awarded, and the matter was dealt with effectively. Then we passed on to a discussion of legislation providing ways and means to assist western wheat producers and to stabilize prices for the 1930 crop. Again millions of dollars were involved, and possibly for a very good cause.
To-day, however, we pass on to a definite consideration of something which in my opinion is vastly more important than a discussion of any o<f our basic commodities. To-day more or less we are bartering the lives of those Canadian citizens who have helped Canada become what she is to-day. We have before us a vague bill which has for its purpose the setting up of a national employment commission, a worthy purpose were it not for the dire necessity facing Canadian people at the present time. What is the commission to do? It is further to review what is to be done to preserve the lives and ideals of Canadian citizens.
May I refer briefly to a situation which developed in Canada during the regime of the Liberal party when it held office prior to 1930. During that time there developed one of the greatest financial crashes Canada has ever experienced; we all remember the effects of it. Out of those days came many serious complications. Hon. members who sat in the government of that day must be fully cognizant of all the circumstances leading up to that time. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was then in office, and

Employment Commission-Mr. Lockhart
had much to do with events that led up to that calamity. Following 1930 the Liberal party were in opposition for five years, and during that period observed and criticized the efforts of the Conservative government of that day. During that time they must have kept pace with all the trying conditions that the Conservative government was faced with during the five years it held office. The Liberal opposition must have observed that there was a slow but apparent improvement in general economic conditions in Canada.
Then, last October the Liberal party was again swept into power. Those of us who were engaged in the campaign do not forget the many slogans displayed throughout the length and breadth of the land, and on more than one occasion reference has been made to them in this chamber. We remember one which read:	"Vote Liberal and- do away
with unemployment." Surely the Liberal party w'ere sincere when they invited the Canadian people to support their claims to end unemployment. I want to refer particularly to one or two groups of Canadians to whom this appeal was made. It was made to a vast number of our middle-aged and older Canadian citizens, with many of whom I had personal contact. No doubt other hon. members experienced this same contact with people who were in dire difficulties. We saw the younger men and women who, as their positions became increasingly alarming, became desperate. They were disillusioned by the promise made by the Liberal party and they now find their problems are to be referred to a commission with powers to investigate.


Mr. GOLDING:: That was the promise.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Such is the proposal before this chamber. There are two groups of people to whom I might specifically refer, who have suffered as much as any people in Canada. I am referring to a large number of home owners, and the younger generation who have been fostered by those home owners. Fathers and mothers have felt a definite responsibility for this younger generation. Those of us who served in municipal office know that in the urban centres, where we are told over fifty per cent of the people have accumulated, mortgages carrying seven per cent interest were drawn. We know how homes have been partly paid for, and how in many instances, these homes more than half paid for, have slipped out of the hands of the original owners. That has been the experience of men who have had close contact with municipal life for the last few years.
We have spoken much about the sanctity of the home. The pens of illustrious writers have long portrayed the fact that Canada has stood foremost in the sanctity of its homes. Our nation as a whole has accepted this as one of our high ideals. The younger generation, the young men and young women have had this idea instilled into their minds in the home, in the day school, in the Sunday school and on every side. How often have we heard men boasting of the growth of their municipality and pointing with pride to the number of homes individually owned in their community? With what pride have they pointed to that accomplishment in urban centres particularly! How long is it going to take the present government to realize that thousands and thousands of these homes are daily passing out of the hands of their present owners? How long is it going to be before they realize the valiant struggles that these home owners, these fathers and mothers have made to hold their homes together to take care of the young people for whom they are responsible? Who will dispute the logic of the appeal made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) a day or so ago in this house? The government, in reply to his resolution on behalf of the youth of Canada, consented to study the situation of youth, and possibly the question will be referred for study to the commission that is to be appointed under this bill. But how much longer, I ask, are Canadians going to be satisfied simply with having these matters studied further? The question to-day is: When are w'e going to get any action in this matter? To appoint a commission is merely to defer any definite action, and to have instead a continued review of conditions that are so apparent to everyone in this country and that have been for so many years.
I wonder how many members of this house have sensed the mental attitude of the thousands of our people who are being dispossessed of their property, and trying through it all to maintain their high ideals as Canadian citizens. I wonder how many in this house have noticed the morale and the mental attitude of the younger generation living within those homes, scarcely knowing when work will be coming to them and watching their fathers and mothers trying to struggle through their great difficulties. I ask this house in all sincerity: Have we not already had sufficient evidence of this tragedy in the last few years without making a further study of the situation? Surely the government today must be convinced of the facts.
On every side in political life we hear: Appoint a commission for this; appoint a
1736	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Lockhart
commission for that. Surely Canada has had about enough commissions delving into many problems. We have all observed, and particularly in the last year or so, the results of investigating committees and commissions. Where have they all led? What have they meant to the taxpayer? What have they meant to the struggling home owners who are trying to hold on to their homes? Whose are the pockets that are bulging with the money derived from these investigations and commissions? I pause to think for a moment of some that we have had in the city of Toronto just recently. With all the opportunities that the present government have had in the long years they were in power before 1930, with the observations they were able to make when out of power, and again since they came into power in October, 1935, and with all the information that is already in the hands of the Minister of Labour, surely we do not need at this time to appoint another commission to impress upon us conditions as they exist in 1936. Of course the government know the facts, but yet this legislation is presented to the house to-day, and for what purpose? Further investigation, I repeat, to intensify the present mental attitude of those groups to whom I have referred, the mental attitude of the struggling men and women and of our despairing youth, the nation of tomorrow. They are getting desperate and will become still more so in the months that must elapse before this commission can do anything to relieve even their mental anxiety. More commissions will spend more money, and will obtain probably just a little more information than what the government already have at their disposal.
Did this government when appealing to the people on October 14 last say to those home owners and to that vast horde of unemployed: Elect us and we will appoint a commission further to investigate your difficulties? No. They said: Vote Liberal and end unemployment. That is the trust that has been passed on to this government by the people of Canada, and I challenge the government to shoulder their responsibility and not shelve it on to a commission, to review again what has already been reviewed over and over again. I urge the government to accept the responsibility for which they asked. The people have appealed to them in their desperation. Why try to get out from under at this time?
It was very interesting to hear the Minister of Labour quote Carlyle and his theories in the house a day or so ago, but Carlyle and his theories will not help the suffering people in Canada in 1936. Some hon. member remarked

that Carlyle was dead. Yes, Carlyle is dead and gone, and his theories have gone with him. They do not apply in 1936. This government must wake up and realize the situation that confronts us to-day, now, not a year from now. Two months of this parliament have already elapsed without action being taken on the unemployment problem, and now we are asked by this bill to appoint another commission. I say: No, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to appointing a commission to deal with this vital question. I lay the whole problem on the doorstep of the government who, I repeat, asked for this responsibility on election day last year. They have had plenty of time to take action long before this. They have had plenty of opportunity to know what the people need. They need more work and fair pay. That is what the people are asking for, and it does not require an investigating commission to find that out. I again challenge the government to meet this responsibility to-day, not to delay this problem any longer, not to pass the responsibility on to somebody else whom they may be able to hide behind and who will consume months to find out what the government must know now. I challenge them to accept this responsibility. They asked for it, and it has been entrusted to them by the people of Canada. I appeal to the government at once to move to protect the high ideals of Canadian home owners, Canadian youth and Canadian citizenship as we have built up a standard second to none in the world to-day.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of this house are indebted to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) for his very clear and comprehensive presentation of this problem in all its dimensions. None of us would question the obvious sincerity of his desire to grapple with this problem and relieve in some degree the distress of those now suffering from unemployment. For that very reason it is to be regretted that, apparently in a desire to conform to the general policy of the government, he did not follow through, for in his presentation of this bill he did not disclose any reference to a plan that might adequately meet the pressing and immediate requirements of the situation. Many of us have been anxiously awaiting since the opening of parliament an announcement of the government's policy with reference to this great problem. We agree with the minister that it is of paramount importance, and I assume that in the legislation now before the house we have a more or less accurate outline of government policy; I refer to the present bill, the companion bill, and the

Employment Commission[DOT]-Mr. MacNeil
Canada-United States trade agreement. I submit that all these bills add up to exactly nothing in the way of definite and decisive action to relieve the present distress of those now unemployed and on relief.
The legislation of itself is commendable. It is necessary to have a scientific survey of the unemployment problem in Canada. There can be no doubt that it should be scientifically dealt with; it should be, as the minister has stated, resolved into its elements. We must have a continuation of certain measures, such as are proposed in the companion bill, designed to relieve people unemployed through no fault of their own. I could not possibly oppose the Canada-United States trade agreement, because in freer trade there may be some possibility of stimulus of our national industrial activity. But surely the most incurable optimist would not suggest that the trade recovery that may be accomplished as a result of our trade agreement will in any appreciable degree reduce unemployment. We know from experience that industrial recovery as accomplished under conditions today does not spell any effective decrease in unemployment, largely because of technological displacement of labour in industry. I say that all these bills-the entire policy-add up to exactly nothing in the way of relieving immediately the distress of those now unemployed.
The minister developed the scientific or engineering approach to this question. This is necessary at the present time. But he developed nothing but an approach, and it is clear to many of us that more than an approach is imperatively necessary now. I think the responsibility rests definitely upon the government at this time to take a bold and courageous course of action that will ease the burden resting upon so many of our people. The minister, in the position he has taken, resembles an engineer who proposes to deal with an emergency by means of a brand new engineering plan but who forgets that such a plan may be utterly useless at the same time immediate steps are taken to repair or stop the social dykes that are being carried away or threatened. Flood control engineers first repair the dykes and then proceed with the long-range plans that are necessary, and as matters stand to-day social dykes are being carried away or threatened because of the tragic consequences of unemployment in the proportions known in our country.
The minister proved, I think clearly and definitely, that past methods have failed. It is therefore all the more to be regretted
that he proposes to continue with these methods until a complete survey has been made. Such a survey will take time. I admit that it is necessary, but if it is done thoroughly it will take considerable time. He has proven also that unemployment has persistent characteristics; that in Canada it is now assuming a more or less permanent character. We have what might be described as residual unemployment, which will not readily yield to the methods that have hitherto been applied. The minister also asserted that in matters of public expenditure parliamentary control must be reasserted. All of these three features-the fact that a survey will take time; the fact that unemployment, as statistics will bear out, is persistent and is not decreasing in any appreciable degree, and the fact that the government intends that parliament shall exercise direct supervision over any major expenditure-inevitably spell delay. I submit that the pronouncement of policy as made by the minister the other day condemns those now on relief to the sentence of at least another year on relief, a sentence that I am sure will be received by the unemployed with bitter disappointment and black despair.
In his remarks the minister brushed aside the idea of any fundamental social change. I assume he meant by that that nothing should be done to molest private enterprise or unrestricted competition for profit. He said that no magic formula, no simple formula will work out a solution of this problem. I am inclined to agree. I would never argue that the problem may yield to any simple or magic formula. Carlyle was quoted in justification. I know his quotation has been referred to several times, but may I ask who was it that told in memorable language the fate of those who laughed at the man who wrote the Social Contract? He said that the second edition of that work was bound in the hides of those who laughed at its author. If I remember correctly, Carlyle also questioned the outcome of the industrial revolution in its early days unless we make the machine our servant instead of our master. And since he has referred us to the lessons of history, we may find many striking warnings as to the outlook that should be acquired with respect to our policies for problems of this kind.
Chesterfield said a generation before the French revolution:
I find here in the French nation all the symptoms that history has taught me precede great social upheavals.
And he was laughed to scorn in his day. Another eminent philosopher said, and his
1738	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. MacNeil
saying is apt, in the consideration of the minister's political philosophy:
Justice is a power, and if it cannot create it will destroy. So that the question for the future is not, shall there be a revolution, but shall it be beneficent or disastrous?
That applies, I think, definitely to the situation confronting us to-day. If any lesson is to be learned from history it is surely this, that we should learn to adapt our social and economic policies to meet the changing and imperative requirements of a changing material environment.
There is one test which, I think, should be applied to the unemployment policy as outlined by the minister. If we could assemble in one audience all those who are unemployed and on relief in Canada to-day, and arrange for that audience to hear the minister's remarks, I am quite certain that the unemployed would not be satisfied, and would not find any reassurance or comfort in the statement made by him the other day, for the reason that it does not indicate any immediate alleviation of their distress. They already know the gravity of the situation; they know that it ruins their lives, wrecks their homes, destroys their future; and they desire above everything else those conditions that will establish for them without delay independence and security, and the chance to maintain their homes and their health.
Some may argue: Why should any attempt be made to satisfy the unemployed? Some contend that the unemployed are merely the misfits, the weaklings, those who have been unable to survive the strenuous competition of our day. I repeat: the misfortunes of unemployment have overtaken people in all walks of life-those in the professions as well as those in the skilled trades, clerical as well as manual workers-and these misfortunes have overtaken them in spite of industry and thrift. Sometimes when these remarks are made I think of many instances with which I am personally acquainted of men whose record of industry and thrift cannot be questioned and who, in spite of their industry and thrift in the past, now find their all being swept away under present conditions.
A striking case was brought to my attention of a man who served in the Australian forces in the great war. He was encouraged to settle in Canada under the empire settlement scheme and he came with his family and the savings of a lifetime amounting to $5,000. Under the auspices of the land settlement board he attempted to .establish himself in British Columbia. Years went by and he was unable to retain his foothold and in a desperate effort he sent his family to relatives in Aus-

tralia and attempted to carry on alone, but finally he was compelled to abandon his holding, to return it to the board and to seek employment. His lifetime savings had been swept away. He was a man accustomed to pioneering conditions, anxious to work under pioneering conditions, a man of exemplary thrift and industry. He tried work in logging camps; he did chores for his board; he did everything possible, and finally the only answer given him when he sought aid from the authorities was that he must go to a relief camp. This is one of countless instances that demonstrate that the unemployed are not merely the misfits. The great majority are people with excellent work records; thousands of them have led exemplary lives of industry and thrift. They are not merely the misfits and the weaklings. As I say, misfortune has overtaken them through no fault of their own, and industry and thrift have been no protection in the circumstances of the present crisis. The unemployed on relief, though fenced off in a separate world, are definitely a cross-section of the working community, and this cross-section includes important and skilled labour power now scrapped though urgently required for necessary development work in the country.
The minister defined what in his opinion was the function of the state. He said that it is the function of the state to promote the welfare of all its members. I think he could have carried his definition a step further. The government is not the state but exercises the authority of the state within certain defined limits. The state is the sum of all those within it, and that includes the unemployed on relief; it includes all those who in their way of living conform to the rules of social behaviour, as defined, in order to achieve the purposes of the state. Men accept the state not merely because it is the state, but because of the satisfactions they hope to secure from life through common cooperation as expressed by the state. To its citizens the state is what it does. They are mainly concerned with the consequences or results of policies enforced by the state. They are not so much concerned with intentions. Good intentions alone will not make for good statesmanship; and largely because of this feature, the unemployed, assembled in that audience which I suggest, would not find any comfort in the policy outlined by the minister in introducing the bill. I suggest that the function of the state is to fulfil to the maximum possible the desires of all its citizens and to accomplish this with the greatest measure of equality attainable. If there is inequality, as we find there is to-day, or if any large section is

Employment Commission-Mr. MacNeil
denied the satisfactions it has a right to expect as a result of the processes of the state, such must be justified by rational argument. It is the accepted theory of government that such inequality must be justified on the ground that it is in the interests of the state as a whole, of the entire people ; otherwise the action of the state is biased; it operates in favour of one section and discriminates against another.
The unemployed, in conforming to the rules of behaviour prescribed by the state, are at present denied the satisfactions they have a right to expect from the way of living which we determine. They are now asked to continue enduring the miseries of unemployment, and this is done in the name of the state and presumably on the ground that it is for the stability of the state that they should acquiesce in this continuance of their misery. Otherwise, if they question this argument, if they protest, being unconvinced, we may expect that the coercive authority of the state may be exercised to repress their discontent or any disorder arising therefrom. Under the theory of government advanced by the minister, inasmuch as he expressed opposition to any fundamental change in the rules of social behaviour, the responsibility rests upon him to demonstrate that his policy is in the interests of the stability of our society as a whole. Failing this, he must either force acceptance of the dictum of the government or admit the inevitability of changes in the direction of a greater measure of equality.
In my opinion the action of the government on this occasion is biased and does not make for stability, because it deals with the security of some and not of all. It cannot be shown that failure to deal promptly and decisively with the problem of unemployment contributes in any degree to the general security. Temporary security of the few is of very little value in the face of the insecurity of the many.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I attach some significance to the fact that in the main estimates now before the house there is a definite increase in the appropriations for the Department of National Defence, an increase amounting to, I think, something like $1,700,000 including the cost of construction of armouries. A statement has been made by a former Minister of National Defence- and we have had no announcement from the present administration repudiating the view then expressed-to the effect that this military establishment is necessary in Canada to cope with the possibility of civil disturbance. This is confirmed by the remarks made recently, on frequent occasions, by one of the 12739-ill
district officers commanding, Brigadier-General Alexander. Since he has made similar statements frequently, I think we may assume that they are countenanced in some degree at least by the government. Speaking in Len-noxville on March 26, he said:
That communism constituted a menace to Canada and that it was spreading so rapidly and assuming such serious proportions that military assistance might be needed soon by civil authorities in many parts of Canada to cope with the situation was the contention of Brigadier-General R. O. Alexander, D.S.O., officer commanding M.D. No. i.
Again he said:
"We must not blind ourselves, however, to the serious situation arising in Canada where the insidious forces of communism are at work spreading their revolutionary propaganda and converting thousands to the gospel of Karl Marx." Concluding, he deplored the activity of pacifist organizations actively at work in universities and elsewhere. Many such organizations, he maintained, were directly or indirectly connected and affiliated with communism in order to weaken tile internal peace-time defense of constituted civil authority.
The government now says to the unemployed on relief: You can take it and like it; you must wait your turn, until other interests are served; if you do not like it; if you attempt to protest, we have the means of dealing sternly and effectively with such protests. Taking all these features into consideration as outlining the general policy of the government in dealing with these menacing features of the situation, I think it is only fair to say that this policy envisages the idea of sternly repressing discontent arising from conditions of unemployment, at the same time failing to deal with the causes of that discontent which might be expected to lead to disorder. That, I submit, is a policy which does not make for the stability of the existing framework of society, as described by the minister; it makes definitely for instability. It cannot be demonstrated that it is in the interests of Canada that we should wait patiently for the miseries of unemployment to dissolve themselves. I think past experience has proven that we are paying a higher price for inaction than we would pay for any decisive action or any definite remedial plan at this time. This price is set forth very clearly in a study recently published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, reviewing unemployment as an international problem. They have made a very careful analysis of the social cost of unemployment, suggesting that this may be considered from various angles. I quote:
There is loss in production and national wealth; there is deterioration in the skill,

1740	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. MacNeil
physique, and morale of the labour force itself; there are the evil consequences of poverty or, in countries where social services do no more than touch the fringe of the question, destitution; there is the charge on governments and local authorities for the provision of relief, and the strains placed on corporate and family life in impoverished communities.
It is suggested here that one of the grave losses is the loss of wealth which might have been produced, and a United States estimate puts the average, for 1930 and lO^l, in lost salaries and wages due to unemployment, not including wage cuts, at S10,000,000,000 a year. I quote again:
The existence of a large mass of unemployed persons tends to depress wages, and therefore employed persons also suffer reductions in income. An estimate of the total loss to the wage-earning classes should include cuts in the wages of those who remain in employment.
The minister has stated that some 332,000 employable persons are now receiving direct relief. It would be safe to assume that if these persons were placed in gainful occupations they might produce wealth to the exent of at least SI,000 per annum per man. Right there we have a loss in wealth production of something like $332,000,000 a year. There is also the further consideration of the loss to wage-earners and consumers. If these 332,000 people were receiving incomes only $500 in excess of the relief they are now receiving, that would certainly increase the consuming power of the masses by a very large amount.
Another feature of the price we are paying is the cost of services for the unemployed. It was stated in the house this afternoon that already the cost to this country has exceeded $700,000,000, and for that reason I think it is high time for us to consider steps to capitalize on anticipated payments in this regard and devise some effective plan that, as I say, would repair the social dyke that is being torn away. This report also deals with the loss of efficiency, a feature which, I think, is frequently overlooked in Canada. I quote again:
There is the damage done to the working force itself in those trades and areas where there is much long continued enforced idleness, accompanied by poverty even where unemployment benefits are reasonably adequate, and by want where they are not. In these cases there is physical and moral deterioration in the long run, except in the case of men and women endowed with exceptional strength of _ character and physique. The deterioration in the skill of the labour force is a national loss.
Again it points out the loss due to lack of apprentices or learners, which is common knowledge to many of us in contact with the trades in Canada to-day, particularly the closed trades, to which no apprentices have been admitted during this depression. The study

also speaks of the efficiency loss through hopelessness, and it quotes a statement of Doctor Temple, Archibishop of York, appearing in the London Times of February 5, 1935:
To an extent which is very hard to estimate but is certainly not negligible, the character and atmosphere of industrial life as at present ordered are affected by the fact and character of "unemployment." Over a great multitude of employed men hangs the menace of that hideous possibility. Through no fault of his own a man may, at a week's notice, be "out of work." Then, unless he is fortunate enough quickly to find work again, he loses his skill; he loses the activity which has become the stimulus to his mental processes; he loses his familiar social intercourse; he is cut off from his friends; he becomes desperate and discontented; even in his home perhaps an unwelcome intruder, outside it an unwanted idler.
Another important loss is the effect upon young people. This study goes on to state:
The effect of idleness or of intermittency of work on young people is universally recognized to be one of the most serious aspects of the unemployment problem. A considerable number of the youthful working population in industrial countries are growing up without acquiring the habits of regular work necessary if they are to become useful members of the community. In many cases unemployed young people suffer enduring physical damage on account of the lack of sufficient food, clothing and shelter at an age when these are of the greatest importance.
Here it speaks of the loss due to the effects on public health:
The fact that there is no rise in the mortality rates does not necessarily mean that the results of widespread unemployment on the national health are not serious. An unemployed man who spends much time in sleep requires less food than when he is fully employed. On the other hand, the wife is bound' to suffer. "The reduction in the family budget often means that she must work harder . .. and the woman probably suffers greater privation than the other members of the family, because she often stints herself for the sake of her husband and children."
These statements apply with considerable force to the conditions which we acknowledge in Canada.
Again we have the effect of malnutrition upon children. This report gives a vivid picture of these conditions throughout the world. Statistics produced in Canada to-day show that serious effects resulting from malnutrition are observed by school nurses and health officers throughout the country. It is definitely shown that the long term results on health and physique are very serious. Therefore we are paying a high price for unemployment. For these reasons we should not hesitate to acknowledge by some definite, decisive course of action whatever expenditure may be involved. The minister suggested that, many projects proposed during

Employment Commission-Mr. MacNeil
this present session would be prohibitive in cost. I suggest that no project yet suggested would be more costly than a continuation of the situation which I have outlined.
One disappointing feature of this bill is that it does not suggest the assumption of national responsibility, and therefore denies any possibility of a national plan. I fail to understand how this grave emergency can be dealt with effectively unless we have a national plan. The bill suggests increased efficiency and improved coordination with the provincial governments, but all efforts to achieve this efficiency and coordination in the past have failed because there has been no centralization of direction and authority. The bill does not propose any definite, central direction of measures to cope with a grave national emergency. The problem is of such magnitude that in my opinion it will not yield to any solution except that devised under a national or federal plan.
The minister places great reliance upon the possibility of cooperation by private enterprise. I think he is over-optimistic on that score. I have a distinct recollection of the activities launched under the Employment Offices Coordination Act of 1919. A council was established at that time for purposes similar to those set forth in this bill, a council, or commission if you like, representative of all the organized interests in the nation, organized agriculture, organized labour, organized ex-service men, organized women, organized manufacturers and so on. It was clearly the intention of the Minister of Labour of that day to achieve exactly the same coordination of effort that the minister proposes to achieve through the employment commission. That effort failed; it failed largely because too great reliance was placed upon the cooperation of private enterprise. I have a distinct recollection of attending sessions of that council and advocating measures, moderate measures, such as are now being considered by the minister, such as to dovetail seasonal unemployment, to take up the slack, as expressed then, to synchronize more closely the purchasing on the part of federal, provincial and municipal governments with our productive activities. That effort at cooperation failed because at that time private enterprise in this country was not willing to share responsibility. It also failed-and we find to-day the wreck of the employment service which was originally outlined-largely because of lack of cooperation by the provincial governments. It was intended at that time to set up in Canada an efficient labour exchange or 12739- mi
employment service similar to that of Great Britain. It failed, although the federal government of the day spent considerable money on the scheme, because the provincial offices were manned under the provincial patronage systems; no attempt was made to secure expert vocational placement in industry or to make a scientific analysis of the problem. It is one more demonstration that division of authority does not result in effective coordination in the face of a situation demanding decisive action.
I am surprised that the minister also expects this cooperation from private enterprise, when he is well aware of prevailing conditions in the business world. Business now can operate only on a profit basis. The desire of those in charge of our economic enterprises is to conduct business so as to make profits. To make profits under competition they must lower production costs, and they cannot successfully assume any share of this burden and forego profits; otherwise business as conducted at the present time would face disaster. Surely, in view of the evidence disclosed before the price spreads and mass buying commission, there is no reason to place any confidence in important business interests, which at that time were shown to have most cruelly and viciously exploited the working class of this dominion.
I also suggest that the results to be obtained from the survey may be largely useless unless they are accompanied at the same time by remedial measures. Conditions are changing very rapidly to-day. The rate of increase of unemployability accelerates as time goes on. Unemployment is rapidly cumulative in effect. By the time the results of the survey are compiled we may be facing an entirely new set of circumstances. We should proceed by a process of trial and error, and I suggest that unemployability cannot be properly determined unless at the same time employment placement is at least attempted. I hardly expect that the minister intends lo have medical examination for unemployed persons. I cannot conceive of the commission attempting to relate correctly each individual person to the employment for which he or she has definite aptitude. I cannot see how the survey will have any definite value unless at the same time the test of vocational placement is applied. There is in the bill no suggestion that simultaneously an effort will be made to open up opportunities of employment while this survey is under way. For this reason I fear that the results of the survey may be largely useless.
The progress made in Sweden was referred to this afternoon. I see no reason why wo
1742	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. MacKenzie
should be so reluctant to learn from the experience gained in other countries. Sweden is a country of similar characteristics to Canada, with about the same population and character of industry. Whatever may be said about Sweden, these three facts stand out clearly: that throughout the depression they maintained their living standards; that those standards were not lowered as they have been in Canada; that they have reduced unemployment to a negligible degree, and they are very definitely on the way to trade recovery. The index of production has reached a point not yet reached in Canada. In the report to which I have already referred, quoting a report of the international labour office, an important statement is made with regard to Sweden:
The reversal of the tendency towards cutting down public expenditure during the depression was especially noteworthy in Sweden, where capital expenditure was increased in 1933-4 and 1934-5 with the express intention of combating crisis conditions.
In the financial year 1933-4 the budget allocation for public works was doubled. The Prime Minister stated that the main preoccupation of the government was to find an effective way for dealing with unemployment, and that they were seeking it in the stimulating of private enterprise which an increase in government spending might be expected to give. Further extension of this policy continued in 1934-5. In January of that year the Prime Minister stated that government policy was to bring money into circulation, and by increasing the purchasing power of the people to effect a moderate rise in the level of prices. In January, 1935, however, the policy was discontinued, the financing of public works by loans ceased, having served its purpose. Borowing henceforward was only to be resorted to for jjroductive purposes.
I was glad to hear the minister state that he was definitely opposed to any exploitation of the unemployed by private interests. I sincerely hope he maintains that attitude. May I draw his attention to the fact that [DOT] an equally vicious exploitation-


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Howden):: The hon. member has spoken forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Finish the sentence.
Mr. MacNEIL-occurs under the policy of enforcing work for relief. If those on relief are required to work for their allowances, proper working conditions should be established so that they would not suffer undue hardships.


Mr. F. D. MacKENZIE (Neepawa):: Mr Speaker, in rising to speak in this chamber for the first time I believe one should do so with becoming modesty. In olden times it was held that modesty was an outstanding
(Mr. MacNeil.]
maidenly virtue. One's maiden speech, then, should show this virtue, and therefore may I be modest by being brief.
It seems to me that Bill No. 14 represents one of the most important pieces of legislation to be brought before us this session, in that it proposes to create a national employment commission. It is true that the next number on the order paper, No. 20, deals with Bill No. 19, to assist in the relief of unemployment, but we should be careful to differentiate between these two measures, namely Bill No. 14, now under discussion and Bill No. 19.
Bill No. 14, with which we are now dealing, has to do with setting up a commission on employment; that is to say it is to study employment not only for the present or for the present year, but also for the future. Therein it differs from Bill No. 19, which ij to deal with the relief of unemployment, more immediate in its needs and implications. I think, if we take the two bills together, this should go far to reassure the speaker who has just taken his seat. And the very significant feature about the present bill is that it admits at last, and emphatically stresses the fact that the problem of unemployment in all its phases is not a temporary one, or one that will be gone to-morrow, as so many believe. But it may be-I say it may be-a permanent feature of human life on this earth. The bill implies that at least a long-time view must be taken, and it is on that score that I feel it is one of the most important measures before us at the present session. At last we are facing the issue in perspective, and that is the way in which it should be faced.
During the last few days I have had the privilege, if it may be so described, of looking through that section of the parliamentary library which deals with unemployment. In that section I found many books on the subject, and it was curious and interesting to note that a large percentage of the books had a striking similarity of titles. For example we find Unemployment, Its Cause and Cure. That title occurred many times. Again, Unemployment, The Way Out, was another title occurring many times. The curious and significant point to me was that when I looked for the dates of these publications I found that the books with the titles indicating a cause and cure were invariably published in 1930 or 1931 and in some few cases in 1932. The so-called experts of those d'ays in most cases appeared to treat the problem as only a temporary one, and had no hesitation in stating that their special nostrums would effect a cure in a short time. But what of the later texts, later editorials and articles now appearing in the press? Well, people who seem to

Employment Commission-Mr. Gray don
speak with authority in these days are not so sure of themselves, and treat unemployment if not as a permanent matter, then as one which must be considered from a long-term viewpoint. From that standpoint, and keeping that fact in mind, it seems to me that the bill to establish an employment commission is of the highest importance.
If the bill is passed, it at once puts the house on a'ecord as believing that this whole problem must be considered in perspective, and that in its solution the long-term viewpoint must be accepted. The carefully prepared tables of figures placed on Hansard by the Minister of Labour, in which the situation to date in Canada is outlined, bear out the contention I have indicated, and the figures given by the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) have a similar effect. It would seem, therefore that there is pressing need for machinery such as this bill would set up.
May I say a word concerning the problem of youth, for whom the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) showed such commendable zeal. May I here and now offer a word of appreciation of the observations of the hon. member and may I assure him that I speak as one who is greatly concerned in the problem of youth, and in a practical way. In my opinion this bill seems to offer the only real solution to the problem confronting youth to-day. May I tell hon. members why? The hon. member for Greenwood said that the reference to youth was tucked away in this bill. It is. And why not? Where else should it be if not in this bill which has to do with the establishment of a commission that has as its main objective a search for the solution of our greatest problem? The problem of youth is a part of that problem. It is wrapped up in that greater problem. It arises out of that problem. So why should it not be there? Anyone who knows anything about the problems of youth knows that. They are, if you will, a byproduct of that greater problem. Conversely, if you cure unemployment, if you solve that problem, automatically you solve the very serious economic problems that youth is facing to-day.
I sometimes feel, sir, that I do know something about youth and its problems, and I say that in all humility. All my life I have been more or less closely associated with youth, in work and in play, academically and in the practical work of life, even, if I may say so, in peace and in more than four years of rotten warfare, and I want to tell the house and this country that I have a great respect, yes, a great admiration for the young Canadian of to-day. Generally,-I say generally-they are
playing the game, and doing so when the going has been very, very heavy. The young people of to-day are not looking for a handout, but they do ask, and some of us are here asking for them, simply that they get a square deal, an even break, so that they may be able to help themselves in the battle of life. That is what they want, to be able to help themselves in the battle of life, and that help I believe will be forthcoming if the larger problem, which embraces the pressing problems of youth, is successfully attacked by this employment commission. With the passing of Bill No. 14, I do look for much from the establishment of this commission on employment.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to preface my remarks this evening with reference to this bill to create a national employment commission by saying that the constituency of Peel which I represent has felt in common with the other parts of this dominion, yes, in common with almost the entire civilized world, in no small degree the severity of the present economic disturbance. The farmers of my county-and there are no better farmers in the dominion- have also felt the severity of the disturbance,, and although they have been prudent, economical, and industrious, they could not escape the effects of lowering prices upon their purchasing power and their means of livelihood. In so far as the worker in that county is concerned, may I say that many of those in my county, who are engaged in industrial and horticultural pursuits, which are perhaps two of the most important pursuits of the workers of that constituency, no longer feel that sense of security which they should properly have. This has been badly shaken in thousands of instances, not only among those who have been thrown out of work, but among those also who have experienced a gradual lowering of the scale of wages which has taken place there as in every other part of this dominion. In the midst of the general problem of unemployment is also the problem of youth, which has been dealt with in masterly fashion by some other members of the house who have spoken previously. May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if in a constituency such as I come from, where the people have had their roots in the soil and in industrial activities for many years, they are feeling the effects of the depression, I can quite understand, -even though I have not seen them at firsthand, the difficulties which other parts of Canada not perhaps in some respects so fortunately situated are experiencing.
Many members who have already spoken have given detailed facts and figures in regard to the unemployment problem, but I shall not
1744	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Graydon
take up the time of the house with that. I believe that the men. who are feeling the effects of this economic disturbance, those who have felt the "squeeze" of conditions, if I may put it in that way, want action rather than words in this House of Commons and in the Dominion of Canada to-day. Satisfies with reference to unemployment are, of course, very necessary, and I have no quarrel whatsoever with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) or the government in seeing to it that we lay a good foundation upon which to work, but I would suggest that when statsitics are being gathered as to the number of men out of work, an inventory should also be taken of another important class of our people who perhaps have not been forgotten by the minister, but of whom it might not be out of place for me to remind him, and that is those who are working for less than a living wage in different parts of this country. I refer to that class because they are just as important in many respects as those who are actually out of work and on relief.
May I speak for a moment of the town from which I come, and which I have mentioned once or twice before in the debates of this house? I hope I shall be pardoned for referring to it so often, but if a man does not think, much of his own town and county he does not think much of the dominion at large, and that will be my reason, if any is needed, for bringing my town into the debates once more.
I come from the town of Brampton. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) will be kind to us in that town when the budget comes down and will see to it that the tariff on flowers is once more raised to the proper level, so that unemployment will not reach a climax of seriousness by virtue of the recent change. In that town of 5,500 people there are, according to the statement I received for the month of February, 312 people drawing municipal assistance by way of relief, which is less than six per cent. So I say that when we are determining the various factors relating to this unemployment situation we must see to it that the whole picture is before us, because in my own town, which I use as an example for my argument, those figures d:o not display the whole story. I happen to live in a part of the municipality which is practically in the working class district. I am proud ' to be able to say that on the floor of this house, because, next to the farmers whence I came, I do not think you can get better neighbours than the men who labour day by day on a small wage or salary. In that regard I believe I can speak from first-hand knowledge. I know that in many cases-and I am not specially blaming industrialists, because there is no use

in carelessly placing blame here and there- in scores of cases men are not drawing enough wages in two weeks to pay their monthly rent, let alone to provide for clothing, fuel and the necessary food for their families.
So I think I may be pardoned for bringing to the attention of the house not only the plight of the unemployed of my riding, but also the plight of those men who are drawing returns almost as small as those allowed in some municipalities to persons drawing direct relief.
Another point I wish to draw to the attention of the minister has reference to the commission itself. We should not minimize the matter of the appointments that are to be made, because, to my mind at least, they have a very important relation to the whole problem with which we are faced. I say with all kindness to the minister that the personnel of the commission is going to mean life or death to the measure now before parliament for ratification. I must confess to having an inquiring mind with reference to commissions. In the short time that I have been in public life I have had some opportunity of studying commissions. Not all of them-putting it very charitably-have carried out satisfactorily the functions assigned to them by the legislative bodies by which they were created. On the other hand, I may cite particularly to the house the success of one commission in Ontario, whose work for the common people has been outstanding; I refer to the great hydro electric power commission, a public utility of which the people of Ontario have had every right to be proud. The achievement of that commission have, I think, a very direct relation to the matter under consideration by the house in Bill No. 14, because I am confident that the success of that great hydro electric commission in its undertaking must be largely credited to one man who gave almost his entire life to the success of the enterprise, who threw into it his ability and his capacity in the latter half of his life; I .. refer to the late Sir Adam Beck, a man whose name will always be emblazoned on the pages of public utilities history and the general history of the dominion and the province.
So, with reference to the commission which is about to operate under the terms of this measure, it would be well to see to it that the man who heads it, and the six commissioners associated with him, are persons of the right type and calibre, possessed of the ambition and the desire not only to draw their salaries but to go out and make a thorough job of the undertaking which this house is giving into their hands. So far in these debates I have not touched upon questions of partisan politics. I think the people are not

Employment Commission-Mr. Graydon
especially anxious just now about such things; they are more concerned about bread and butter, and I do not blame them. When the men and women who are to comprise the commission are appointed, it would be well for the minister, for the sake, not only of the government and parliament but of the whole dominion, to see to it that not the slightest suspicion of partisan politics enters into any one appointment. That seems to be most important. If I may refer again to the Ontario hydro electric power commission, partisan politics were kept out of that commission during the regime of Sir Adam Beck, to his everlasting credit and glory. It was a tremendous success by virtue of the fact that it had the supreme confidence of all in the province who were the people behind it.
If this commission which is now about to be appointed is to have a good even chance of success-and I hope that it will have every success, because what is good in this instance for the government is good for everyone else in so far as the solution of unemployment and low wage troubles in Canada are concerned-let the government see to it that the personnel appointed is all that the people of Canada have a right to expect. I suggest that there are, among others I might mention, three types of people whom the minister might take into consideration in selecting commissioners. One of them, I suggest, should be a farmer. I think that is important, although what I might like to see will not, perhaps, influence the government very much. The farmer should be a real farmer, not one who goes round with a white collar on, not one who farms in a swivel chair or looks through an office window, but one who knows intimately the conditions in rural Canada. The second man, I suggest, should be a working man, a man who knows something about the working man's problems right down in the shop itself, a man who has not forgotten how to put on a pair of overalls and who is proud that he can wear them with the dignity that overalls give to the man who is a real Canadian. In addition, we should have on the commission a young man or young woman, I do not care which-one is as good as the other-not one who is simply a technical person with a knowledge of problems from a long distance angle, but someone equipped with the actual experience that will enable him or her properly to carry out the job which has to be performed on behalf of the youth of this country.
In conclusion I will say something further to the government and especially to the Minister of Labour. I do not like to hark
back to the last election campaign because these things are old now, and perhaps from the Conservative standpoint it is more pleasant to forget them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: I see some hon. members on the other side laughing, but it is a long lane that has no turning. In the last election campaign a number of factors entered into the great success of the Liberal party throughout Canada. I have heard a good many hon. members, including members of the cabinet, making statements to explain why the election was won, and I suppose that everyone is entitled to his own views. My opinion is this: It was the registration of a protest by the people of Canada, not against the Conservative party or any other party but against conditions that existed al over the world, which were wearing down the energies of people everywhere and impairing their morale. These are facts of which we should not lose sight. But when the Liberal party went into power in October they went in under wonderful auspices, for they had been given a mandate in all the provinces except one. That province has caused some trouble to them since. Certainly they were given a mandate such as, to my knowledge at any rate, no party in this country which has asked for the support of the electorate, has ever received. With that overwhelming mandate and with an almost united front, which the Liberal party asked for in order to carry to a favourable conclusion their endeavours to solve the problems of the dominion, I say that the people of Canada have a right to demand of the Minister of Labour and of the government that they do something to relieve the conditions that exist throughout Canada to-day under which our farmers, industrial workers and other Canadian citizens are labouring. When they are considering the unemployment problem I would suggest- and I say this in all seriousness-that they do not pay too much attention to the free traders in Canada. The hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman), I see, is smiling, but he may change his views. At any rate I am one of those who still believe that the problem which faces Canada to-day is one that cannot be solved unless we first of all provide some measure of protection for our industrial workers and secure a home market for our farmers. The government and this commission which it is proposed to appoint will also have to enlist to their fullest extent the best brains and energy and the activities
1746	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Woodsworth
of our citizens at large if they are to solve this momentous problem through the agency proposed in this bill.
I have some sympathy with the Minister of Labour, for I know in part the vast problem that faces him; and in the bill he has brought down, together with the supplementary bill which will come later, I sincerely hope as a good Canadian that something will result which will place Canada once more in the forefront of the nations of the world, so that we as members of parliament and all the people of Canada may be able to look the world in the face and say that this country was the first to solve the so-called insoluble unemployment and low wage problem.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: It seems to me that the
speech delivered by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) was very high in tone and excellent in spirit. In pointing out that the problem before us was by no means a simple one, he quoted a passage from Carlyle's Past and Present. I really do not think it was his intention, but the inference might be left, that Carlyle to some extent condoned inactivity on the part of government. The minister shakes his head. I do not think he intended to leave that impression but I was afraid that some one might gather it. Carlyle was a philosopher and he was pointing out that of course no one thing would solve the problem. But he did go on in another passage in the same book to say:
To whom, then, is this wealth of England wealth?.... We have more riches than any nation ever had before; we have less good of them than any nation ever had before. Our successful industry is hitherto unsuccessful; a strange success, if we stop here! In the midst of plethoric plenty, the people perish.
That anticipates by a good many years the claims of some members in this corner. Carlyle goes on:
The laws of laissez-faire, O Westminster, the laws of industrial captain and industrial soldier, how much more of idle captain and industrial soldier, will need to be remodelled, and modified, and rectified in a hundred and a hundred ways,-and not in the sliding scale direction, but in the totally opposite one! With two million industrial soldiers already sitting in bastilles, and five million pining on potatoes, methinks Westminster cannot begin too soon:-A man has other obligations laid on him, in God's Universe, than the payment of cash: these also Westminster, if it will continue to exist and have board-wages, must contrive to take some charge of:-by Westminster or by another, they must and will be taken charge of; be, with whatever difficulty, got articulated, got enforced, and to a certain approximate extent, put in practice. And, as I say, it cannot be too soon:	For mammonism,
'Mr. Graydon.l
left to itself, has become Midas-eared; and with all its gold mountains sits starving for want of bread.
The minister asks that we sanction the apopintment of a national employment commission to assist the government. I find it very difficult to refuse a request of that kind, but I do ask the minister why we should continue to multiply machinery. It is all very well to have some body to assist the government, but where will this sort of thing end? There is the danger of our building up such a mass of machinery as to make it impossible for us to place responsibility.
The minister recognizes the obligations of the state, but he went back to the old question of the British North America Act. I was sorry, because we hear that act dragged in on every possible occasion. It would seem as if a national problem should be dealt with by a national body. The government has got to the place where it recognizes that this is a national problem. Then why should we not accept the inference that it is wise that this national problem should be dealt with by a national body? As it is we are told that primarily unemployment should be dealt with by the provinces and the municipalities. I wonder when the government will come to face the facts. The facts are that a large number of our municipalities are bankrupt or on the very verge of bankruptcy. It was only yesterday that one of our western provinces had to become bankrupt, and it will not be the last of the provinces, at least of the western provinces, that will become bankrupt.
What are we to do, in practice, with the vast amount of unemployment which does not seem to lessen materially in quantity? What are we going to do with it? It is all very well to say that we will turn over a part of this responsibility to the provinces and municipalities, but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if this is really a national emergency this government cannot escape the responsibility for dealing with the question. The country expected that this government would deal with the question. It is all very well to have more careful study. I quite sympathize with the minister's desire to get as full statistics as possible, to get as complete an analysis of the situation as possible, but after all we have reached the stage where what we require is not so much study as money. That must be remembered; we require money. The provinces and municipalities have not the money with which to deal with this question, either by instituting schemes of public works or by giving relief. The existing situation cannot continue very

Employment Commission-Mr. Woodsworth
much longer. It seems to me very, very disappointing that at this stage we should be told that we must begin to study the problem more carefully.
I was glad to hear the minister express his condemnation of those employers who pay less than a living wage. It is high time that someone with authority took that attitude. The minister stated that the government should use the weapon of publicity to brand that policy as high treason. Well, I hope we will use the weapon of publicity, but let me point out that this is not the way wre deal with high treason. We go a great deal further than publicity and, if employers are guilty of high treason they should be dealt with like anyone else guilty of high treason. There is no doubt about that. As some of us have urged before in this house we should have legislation that would make it criminal for people to pay less than a living wage. Exposing the situation is not sufficient, though that may do something. We had it exposed by the price spreads committee report, but what has come out of that? In addition to exposure we should have definite legislation; if we punish a man for stealing we should punish a man for ruining human lives and breaking up homes. So I submit that we have to go further than merely to suggest that we should deal with this matter by publicity.
What about the low wages that are being paid on every side? I could read from the price spreads report page after page of statements regarding low wages paid throughout Canada. It wTas only a few days ago that I was told by a social worker in this city of the abominably low wages paid by no less an institution than the. Chateau Laurier, and of people coming again and again from that institution begging to be taken on relief, with the relief agencies having to turn them down because they were supposed to be earning a living. Here is an institution patronized by a great many members of this house, an institution that is part of the great railway system that is supposed to be a national system, but what can we do about the matter? If I should bring it to the attention of the government they will say:	Oh well,
the hotel system does not come directly under us; it is under the railways. Then if I should bring the matter to the attention of the railways, before some board or other, they say: We cannot interfere; it is under a commission. If I go a little bit further they say: It is a matter of wages; that is under the provincial government, and we cannot do anything about it. The result is that nothing is done. We condone the refusal of corporations of this kind to permit unions through which the people might retain a high standard of living. I have nothing in particular against the Chateau Laurier; only it is right under our noses and we do nothing about matters of that kind.
Take another matter which came before us within the last few days, the refusal of the big textile companies even to tolerate unions. We have done that all over the country; it is not a new thing, though a good deal of the effectiveness of the legislation passed last year depends upon the establishment of unions. Only to-day, I think, in one of the committees we had a suggestion that a certain industry was highly organized and thus its wmrkers were protected. We have nothing of that kind in the greater part of the industries across Canada.
I have often wondered what could be done, and I have come to the government. Years ago I came to the Liberal government, and later I came to the Conservative government, or some members of it. I asked; How can we ensure that workers have their right to form their own unions and their right to a living wage? What answer did I get? They said that it was not in accordance with the genius of British legislation that we should have declarations of rights. I submit that if the common law, as it has developed in England through the ages, is to-day insufficient to secure the workers in their right to organize and their right to demand a living wage, then the government itself should take this matter into consideration. I submit to the minister that he must go a great deal further than merely using the weapon of publicity in order to deal with high treason. I like that phrase; in the future I shall take the opportunity from time to time of reminding the minister of it. I ask that he implement that phrase by definite action.
The minister also said we should approach the whole matter in a more scientific and, he thought, more sensible way. I quite agree with him. But let me suggest that while it is all very well to classify the unemployed as employable and unemployable, to classify them according to age, vocation and so on, it may not be fully scientific to stop there. Is it not scientific to go forward and ask the cause of unemployment? How can we cure unemployment if we are going to stop merely with a classification of those now unemployed? Surely there has been sufficient experience the world over to carry us a little bit further forward than that. It is only to-day that we have been told something of how they have reduced unemployment in Sweden to
1748	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Woodsworth
a minimum. Why cannot the minister send a commission, if he likes, to Sweden, to come back and tell us how to do this? But the commission does not need to go to Sweden-


Mr. ROGERS:: Is my hon. friend aware that in Sweden for some years past the whqle organization with respect to unemployment has been under the direction of a national employment commission very largely of the character set out in this bill?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, but I suggest to the minister that the national employment commission in Sweden is vastly different from what is provided for in these bills.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, yes, but it grew.


James Shaver Woodsworth: All right, but my
point is that since a million and a third people are on relief we must begin to take definite and prompt action.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I agree that it would have
been better to have had this five years ago.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But do we now
have to wait? Why not benefit by Sweden's experience? Surely the lines of action which there have proved effective might offer some suggestions as to the policy we should follow. I submit that we are past the stage when we can merely discuss this matter and deal with it in an academic way. We want action. There are certain countries which have taken definite action, not along the lines contemplated by the minister and the government, but along radically different lines, and that action apparently has brought results.
There is one country which, I suppose in the opinion of some, I should not mention in this house, Russia. I have recently met people who have just returned from Russia who say that to-day the unemployment that existed there a few years ago has been practically eliminated; that everyone has a chance. It is not material what one may think of that country or the way in which they attained their present position; we are not here discussing that. But if methods have been adopted there which have largely eliminated unemployment, cannot we learn from their success? They have their plan, a definite plan, by which they have brought the productive machinery of the country to bear upon their great natural resources, and through that planning they have been able to accomplish results. H we are simply going to have a commission for study where shall we get? Several years ago some of us were advocating an economic planning commission to deal with our problems, not in an academic way but with power to act, to mobilize our resources

in order that everyone should be given a chance. It is along such lines, mobilizing the country's resources, industrial, commercial and financial, that beneficial results have been attained in other countries.
The minister speaks of a "long-range policy," but I was not able to ascertain precisely what he meant by that phrase. Apparently it is the general policy of the government that relies upon the securing of wider markets. Well, I do not want to discuss that big question now. I wish the government would tell us exactly where those wider markets are to be found. Again and again from this comer we have tried to show that the days of expanding capitalism are about over. We have tried to show that conditions have changed greatly from the time when it was easy to obtain markets; that almost every country is in the game of seeking wider markets, many of them having better facilities than Canada, and some of them not having the burden of overhead that Canada has. Wider markets are desirable, of course, but where are they to be found? In the meantime I ask: What about this generation of Canadians; what are we going to do for them? That question this legislation now before us does not answer. When we advocate anything along socialist lines the minister of course Says that the electorate of Canada is not yet prepared to accept a socialist state. Well, probably they are not. If they had been-I quite concede it-they would not have put the Liberals in power. But let me ask the minister whether he really believes that unemployment is going to be cured under the present system. I think even he would admit that if it cannot be solved it means the end of the capitalist system. The minister has offered no solution; all he can say is: We should give the most careful study to the problem. The people of Canada expect more than that. The minister says that it will take 8300,000,000 to
8400.000.	000 to put the employable at work, and he shrinks, as the government shrinks, from any such expenditure. I do not wonder. But let me ask: Does he expect that private industry is going to spend $300,000,000 or
1400.000.	000 in putting these people at work?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Quite possibly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I hope it will be to the minister according to his faith.


Mr. GRAY:: What is the hon. member's
solution?


James Shaver Woodsworth: 
Norman McLeod Rogers: I think it has been stated on several occasions that the government proposes to bring down special supplementary estimates which will reveal quite fully the direction in which the money will be expended in connection with relief during the coming fiscal year.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We shall be glad to get the information in the estimates. But what I am getting at is this: We are here today facing two bills brought down by the government with respect to unemployment. Proposals in broad terms are placed before us, and I suggest that it is not enough at this stage simply to be told that one part of the program is to give assistance to the provinces. We ought to have set before us a great deal more clearly, in general terms at least, the kind of assistance that is going to be given and something as to the extent of such assistance, that is if we are to be in a position intelligently to discuss this program.
Further, we are told that assistance is to be given to corporations. Well, if it is a vicious principle to give assistance to the provinces, according to my judgment it would be tenfold more vicious to assist corporations. Already, under the last government, we had a little too much of that. Is the Liberal government now to subsidize certain corporations and private industry? Surely, if under the great and glorious system of free trade we have come to the point at which we have to subsidize corporations, we might as well come over to socialism, right away. Why not get. the advantages of public ownership, and at the same time escape from the disadvantages of subsidizing industry?
What particular schemes are we going to have? Incidentally the minister has told us that he is giving up the camp idea for single men, and that a certain number of these men are going to be placed on the railways. That may be all very well for ten thousand men for the next few months, but what about the tens of thousands of young men who cannot be thus absorbed? Further, what about this ten thousand who do go on the railways?

What is going to happen to them in the course of four or five months after they come off the railways? This we have not been told. We have been told that a certain number are going on the farms, but immediately farmer members rise in their places and tell us that the farmers cannot afford to keep these men. Again the government is only shifting the problem, and has no permanent solution in sight. I suggest that at the present time these temporary palliatives are not sufficient, and that the house might well have expected something better by way of a general plan from the government.
When the Liberal party was sitting on this side of the house I sometimes joined in giving them support in speaking against the use of what came to be known as the "blank cheque." I never felt quite as strongly as they did about that type of legislation, because it seemed to me that a good deal of discretion had to be left with the government. But let me ask this: Is the legislation before us to-day so very much different from that of the blank cheque? It is true that the amount is to be filled in by parliament, but I suggest that the name of the payee is to be left blank. We are to be asked to vote a certain sum of money, but we do not know to whom these sums are to go. Even under the Conservative government a maximum was fixed beyond which they could not go. Under the proposals of these bills, however, we do not know how the money is to be expended. We are to vote certain sums, but it is to be left to some one, possibly the commission, or some other body, to decide how the money is to be spent.
I am afraid we shall have to vote for the setting up of the commission, because if the government can get any help from such a commission I suppose they ought to be given every facility for carrying on their work. But what I am really afraid of in the commission is that it may simply lead to confusion worse confounded. What are the functions of the commission? So far as I can learn they seem to be twofold. On the one hand they are to advise the government; that is, movement travels in one direction. On the other hand they are to have certain administrative functions none of which is clearly defined under this. It seems to me that movement travels almost in the opposite direction. Is the government to be supreme? I think so. Then, what is the function of the commission? Is it simply to offer a little advice to the government, and then is the government to turn round and tell the commission what to do? From my point of view that seems to be a curious arrangement. If the commission is to

Employment Commission-Mr. Woodsworth
be an advisory body, let it be advisory; if it is to be an administrative body, let it be administrative.
Just look at the line-up as it is to-day, or as it will be if the legislation is adopted. First of all we have the national commission; then we have the Minister of Labour; then we have the provinces; then we have the interprovincial conferences; then we have the municipalities; then we have the national advisory commission which, in turn, is supposed to represent industrial, occupational, philanthropic and social service organizations; then we have the women's employment committee; then we have the youth employment committee; then we have a special committee on pensioners, concerning whom a resolution was introduced by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) a few days ago. In addition we are to have honorary local advisory committees, and we are also to have some sort of liaison arrangements with commercial and industrial groups. We are simply putting into this bag all the institutions we have ever heard of, and they are to be stirred up or concatenated-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Coordinated is the word.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Very well, but just how we are going to coordinate them, I do not knowr. There has been difficulty in the last few years in placing responsibility. Are wre going to place it upon Ottawa, upon the provinces or upon the municipalities? And in the meantime the poor unemployed have been kicked backwards and forwards from one to the other. Now, under this legislation we are not going to be able to place the responsibility anywhere. We will go to the commission, and they will refer us to the government. The government will refer us to an interprovincial conference, and they will send us somew'here else, and so on, and so on and so on. It does seem to me that the arrangement is almost hopeless.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Hope and pray.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think the time for hoping and praying is past; now we need to have some sort of business arrangement. If we are going to have a commission, let it be organized as an administrative body to deal with the problem definitely, and let there be placed at its disposal considerable sums of money so that the commission can get somewhere and do something. The slogan in the election was: "Elect King and get action."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Hon. members say, "Hear, hear." I would suggest after two
months of this government that what we are finding it is, "Elect King and get commissions," commissions and yet more commissions.
I want to conclude by emphasizing, because there is no use in going into detail on this, and some of my colleagues have already very well stated the position, that the time has come for action, real action, to help the unemployed. I do not want to give any sob-stories or soul-harrowing recitals of the troubles we have all seen, for they are familiar to every member, but we need to have some way in which the people can be lifted out of the wretched conditions in which they are to-day and be given real work. Failing that real work, they should be given adequate maintenance, and at once. If all the resources at the disposal of the dominion government, the provincial governments, the municipalities, and private institutions in the last five or six years have not been able to find work for these people, the least we can do is to give them adequate maintenance-food, ample and varied, proper clothing, decent shelter, and not only that, but medical attendance and the opportunity to educate their children aright. I get tired of this business of going on year after year simply keeping body and soul together on a mere subsistence. What we want to do is to see that the unemployed have work, and if work cannot be found we should1 at once give them all that is necessary to maintain the status of a decent Canadian citizenship.
I feel quite sure that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour would be justified in carrying out a program of that kind, and as far as I can judge, members in every part of the house would back up the government in a program which would lift our people out of the position in which they are to-day. I do not think we can afford to wait. It is quite true, as my colleague from Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) said, that the government, even this Liberal government, is providing larger sums for the military. We have a huge establishment in the Canadian mounted police. I suppose it is possible with the splendid equipment at our disposal to shoot down or throw gas bombs on these unemployed people if they attempt to protest further, and yet I do not think for a minute-


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is an unwarranted suggestion. My hon. friend is interjecting something entirely irrelevant to the discussion.


An hon. MEMBER:: The old story.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not the old story. I am not suggesting that the minister
1752	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Betts
or the government has anything of the kind in mind, but I do say that if the program of the government is inadequate to meet the needs-and in my judgment it is-we cannot possibly go on without expecting that there will be disturbance in this country. The provinces are not equal to the task; the municipalities 'are not equal to the task. I remember a year or two ago-perhaps this is what the 'hon. member had in mind when he interjected " the old story ''-when those chaps began rioting in Vancouver I suggested that unless we dealt with the problem promptly there would be more serious riots, and somebody retorted, "You are only stirring up riots," but I submit, Mr. Sipeaker, that it is the duty of anyone who sees a storm coming to give warning of it.


Walter Edward Foster: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he has exhausted his time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: All I am trying to do to-night is to warn the government that w,e cannot hope that things will go on very much longer unless adequate measures are taken. I am not suggesting for a moment that the minister or the government has anything violent in mind any more than I have, but I do again assert that the sentiment across the country is such as to warrant very, very prompt and generous action on the part of the government.


Mr. F. C. BETTS (London):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make on this bill if they have not been contaminated or coordinated by the remarks of the previous speaker (Mr. Woodsworth).
I listened with great interest and admiration to the address of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) when he was explaining this bill at considerable length. Obviously his speech was based upon a very careful study of the problem that confronts him and this country. He showed that he is a man well qualified to deal with this problem which he and his party in the election campaign described, and quite correctly, as the major problem of Canlada, and the question that occurs to me, and to which I have heard no satisfactory answers, is: Why does he not proceed to deal with it? I do not think it can be because he lacks confidence in his own Department otf Labour, because anyone who is familiar with its operations and has had the privilege of working with its .officials will, I think, agree with me that they are a fully qualified and zealous body of men. They are at his beck and call. Their training and the facilities of the department are at his disposal. They are already costing this country

considerable sums of money, and I wonder why the minister does not avail himself of that department which was put there for dealing with just the sort of problem that we are asked to deal with here, instead of appointing a commission of seven men, who will all have to be paid, and who will gather around them a staff which will also have to be paid. I am sure it is not because the Minister of Labour lacks confidence in his leader, because his leader is one, who, on his own showing, has dealt with labour's problems in all of their phases; he has been deputy minister of labour, Minister of Labour, editor of the Labour Gazette, a pillar of the Rockefeller Foundation during the war, dealing with labour problems; so surely the Minister of Labour is not setting up this commission because he feels that he will not get the help and support that he should from his leader.
Can it be that he lacks confidence in the members of this house? My feeling is that those who have been elected by the votes of the people, sent down to this capital, housed in a particularly perfect office building with every facility to do good work, provided with stenographic service, messengers, and all the latest in the way of office equipment, have rertain duties to perform by way of earning the fairly substantial subsidy they draw down. And just exactly why they should be deprived of these duties and functions, and why these should be transferred to a non-elected irresponsible commission, is a question that occurs to me, and to which I have heard no sufficient answer.
I should like to refer quite briefly to some of the remarks of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), because in my humble opinion the appointment of this commission and the vesting in this irresponsible non-elective body of the power to advise on the expenditure of large sums of public money are not consistent with various remarks of the Prime Minister in his statement follow-the election, wherein he said, among other things:	.
The Liberal party has placed its trust in the people. The people to-day have reciprocated that trust in abundant measure. It will not be betrayed.
I submit that the transferring of the major national problem of this country to a nonelective irresponsible commission is a betrayal of that trust of the people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would my hon. friend do me the kindness of reading, a little further on in the same passage from which he has just read, the statement where I said that the election expressed the approval of

Employment Commission-Mr. Douglas
the people of the appointment of a national employment commission and that that step would be taken? I think he will find it there.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: I am sure that the Prime Minister will add whatever he thinks proper when I have finished. I will read from further on in this statement. He says:
To-day's victory is a victory for democracy.
I say that government by commission is the negation of democracy. Later on, he says again:
It is a direct response to the appeal for the maintenance of British parliamentary practice and procedure.
You, Mr. Speaker, will know better than I that the Chief Justice of England, Lord Hewart of Bury, one of the greatest parliamentarians and jurists in the world, has been carrying on for the past several years an intensive and successful warfare against government by commission. Furthermore, you will remember that the cudgels which he has been wielding so effectually on the heads of commissioners great and small have been taken up in this province and wielded with his customary vigour by a very great Liberal, none other than Sir William Mulock. I want to place on record a few observations from a recent judgment of Sir William on the habit of commission government which is becoming increasingly and dangerously prevalent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend would allow me, before he forgets the passage, may I just draw to his attention the one paragraph to which I refer. The paragraph I wish to direct to the attention of my hon. friend is this:
To-day's election discloses that the people share the view, which the Liberal party has all along maintained, that unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem. It is an endorsation of the Liberal proposal to deal with this question by means of a representative national commission, and by policies which will serve to revive industry and trade.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Oh, Mr. Speaker, anybody with ears heard this objectionable commission heralded long before to-night. There is nothing new in that. To quote, as I say, from what Sir William Mulock said about the commission habit; he deals with it in these words:
The method is always to brush aside everything which we have iearnt, and known to be workable, and to appoint some commissioner and proceed thus:
(a)	Get legislation passed in skeleton form.
There is your Bill No. 14. If there ever was
a skeleton, that thing is it.
(b)	Fill up the gaps with his own rules, orders and regulations.
I say that when we get these seven commissioners and they get their seven sisters,
cousins and aunts and their seven friends, we shall have a cocoon of rules, orders and regulations that will stifle anything the unfortunate unemployed are trying to get.
(e) Make it difficult or impossible for parliament to check the said rules, orders or regulations.
That will be done, and soon.
(d)	Secure for them the force of statute.
That is heralded already in the bill.
(e)	Make his own decision final.
That is what a great Liberal thinks about the commission form of government, ^ and although I do not often fall into the habit of commending statements by Liberals, I want to say that I endorse those views heartily, and further, that any government, any minister of labour, any prime minister and any party that turns over this, our most important national problem, to a non-elected, non-repre-. sentative commission, should apply to the College of Heralds and get leave to put beneath their coat of arms the words, "Let George do it."


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, along with others who have spoken to-day I wish to extend my congratulations to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). The address which he gave was impartial and had something of the objectivity of the social scientist. While there were many statements with which I did not agree, and many things left unsaid that I thought ought to have been said, I cannot but feel that speeches on this high plane in this house should be more frequent in the future, and would make for a much better form of government.
It has become a platitude in the house to talk about unemployment as Canada's most urgent national problem, just as it has become a platitude to talk about poverty in the midst of plenty and about unemployment in a world crying for labour. Yet these things are only platitudes because they are so glaringly true and because we find all about us evidences of the wreck that has been left in the wake of the economic crisis through which we are passing. Were unemployment confined only to this country we might face it more hopefully, but it is not. Unemployment has touched every one of the civilized nations or at least every one of the capitalist nations of the world in the last five or six years. It is a rather childish waste of time to go back and try to ascribe unemployment to this or that political party, to try to tie it up to this or that administration.
The actual facts are these: The economic debacle started in 1929 and the Liberal administration had been in power nine years. They were not capable of preventing the debacle, just as other governments in other
1754	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Douglas
parts of the world were unable to prevent it. The people of Canada turned to a Conservative administration who fought with the problem valiantly and at least aggressively, but at the end of five years the problem was still with us, and to-day, in 1936, it is with us yet. The extent of that problem can best be understood by reference to sessional paper 102, which gives unemployment statistics for Canada for the past year. These statistics are slightly involved and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you call it eleven o'clock.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Go on.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am prepared to go ahead. These are the figures: January, 1935, 1,351,789; February, 1,431,012; March, 1,266,326; April, 1,426,076; May, 1,341,888; June, 1,248,640; July, 1,188,858; August, 1,133,918; September, 969,745; October,988,804; November, 1,191,072; December. 1,206,429. And the minister gives, as the figure for February of this year, 1,310,423. I quote these figures to show that, despite the fact that there was a seasonal pick-up in the slack, the extent of unemployment has remained more or less permanent in the last fifteen months. It is now eleven o'clock and I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 3, 1936