[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance-for Mr. Ilsley) moved the first reading of Bill No. 97 (from the senate) respecting small loans.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Has a new postmaster been appointed at Harriston, Ontario?
2.	If so, what is his name?
3.	Upon whose recommendation was he appointed ?
4.	Is he a returned soldier?
5.	Were any of the other applicants returned men?
6.	If so, what are their names?


Mr. McLARTY:: Return tabled.


PURCHASE OF BOILERS FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	During the years 1937 and 1938, have any boilers been purchased by the Department of Pensions and National Health or the Department of Public Works?
2.	If so, were tenders called?
3.	From whom were such tenders received?
4.	What was the amount of each tender?
5.	Who was the successful tenderer?



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. II. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East): May I ask that the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) be directed to an order of the house with regard to certain correspondence, standing in my name, which was passed on March 22, in order that the bringing down of the return may be expedited if possible.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I shall be very glad to see that this is done.



DISTRIBUTION OF FREE BUTTER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) based upon a news item which appeared in this morning's Citizen, as follows:
Regina, April 18.-Thousands of pounds of butter, part of the huge surplus of 6,000,000 pounds in Canada, are expected to go out shortly to relief families and needy families not on relief.
Distribution of surplus butter in Saskatchewan is part of the scheme of the federal government, announced early in April by J. F. Singleton, ^ federal dairy commissioner at Ottawa. The dominion government is financing distribution.
I should like to ask whether any of this butter is to be distributed to relief recipients and people in need in other provinces; and, if so, in what quantities in each province.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: This question was up, I think, on two previous occasions, as to whether any such distribution was to be proceeded with. Arrangements have been entered into with the Red Cross to take charge of any distribution that may be made, and any such distribution will be made right across Canada.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) who, I understand, issued a statement this morning substantiating the report that a submarine had been seen in Halifax harbour. Would the minister care to enlighten the house regarding the matter?


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my hon. friend is somewhat in error with regard to the matter of the release to the press this morning. The facts are as follows. Reports were received by naval authorities at Halifax yesterday from a pilot vessel that officers of the vessel believed that a submarine had entered Halifax harbour early on Wednesday morning. Immediately a most thorough investigation was conducted by the officers of the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. At this time I may tell my hon. friend that the opinion of the officers is that the vessel in question was not a submarine. However, as soon as I have further reliable information I will give it immediately to the house.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
UNEMPLOYMENT AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS__

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 96, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St George):: Mr. Speaker, I had supposed the Minister of Labour intended to address the
2996	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
house, and I was waiting for him to speak.
I wish .to discuss certain matters on the motion for second reading, because I believe the observations I shall make are perhaps more appropriate on second reading than they would have been on the resolution which preceded the bill.
The national employment commission found in their report of January, 1938-which I think should be read and digested by all who are interested in the subject of unemployment in Canada-.that in addition to those in need of agricultural relief, there were in the month of September of the previous year, 450,000 persons in Canada in receipt of aid, assistance or relief, to which the dominion government contributed, of which 290,000 were classed as dependents, including babes in arms, mothers, grandmothers, grandfathers, who could not possibly work even if jobs were available; while 42,000, by reason of physical deficiences or mental frailties, were reported as unemployable, leaving 115,000 persons who were employable if work, suitable to their several capacities, had been made available. Certainly in the administration of relief measures these several categories must be considered separately, and the relief which is granted must be adequate to the necessities of the persons in the respective categories.
I have found in my own experience in dealing with many of those young men who apply to me, as a member of parliament, for advice and assistance, that when industry revives, openings are increasingly available for hundreds and even thousands who have such skill and training as qualify them for employment in industry, but that few of the unemployed have had manual training for industrial employment, which leads me to conclude that a considerable part of existing unemployment is not due-as so many recklessly assert- to the faults of the so-called capitalistic system, but rather to the abandonment of an adequate system of apprenticeship in the mechanical trades, which formerly prevailed, and to deficiencies which have arisen in our educational system, in so far as it fails to qualify our youth for available industrial employment. I must reserve any discussion of the subject of suitable preparation for employment, because to-day I wish merely to discuss certain constitutional aspects of the social problems.
During the past year the public press has borne witness to an insistent and increasing demand that the federal treasury shall assume entirely the costs of unemployment relief, and so relieve the provincial, civic and municipal treasuries of all expenditures which are

made for that purpose. This demand is made chiefly by	provincial,	civic	and	municipalauthorities,	who assert	that	their existingrevenues are inadequate to meet the demands made upon them, and tha/t the imposition of increased provincial, civic and municipal taxation, to increase their revenues for purposes of relief, would be resented by the people whom they . represent. They claim that they have already exhausted their financial resources and that an increase of the burdens of	provincial,	civic	and	municipaltaxation is	practically	impossible.
On the other hand, these burdens cannot be assumed by the federal treasury without a corresponding increase in federal taxation, and, in any case, an increased burden of federal taxation will fall heavily upon the same people, despite the fact that they may reside in different provinces, or in different cities or towns or rural municipalities.
As the municipalities, whether civic or rural, are creations of and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial governments and provincial legislatures, the question at once arises whether the dominion parliament or the provincial legislatures should assume the responsibility of imposing increased taxation for the relief of the unemployed and the indigent. This is a question for fair, full and frank public discussion.
It is our duty therefore to consider whether under the existing constitution of this country the parliament of Canada may lawfully impose federal * taxes and lawfully enact laws appropriating the revenues derived from federal taxation for the relief of the unemployed and the indigent. If it is decided that the permanent relief of the indigent and unemployed is the sole duty and responsibility of this parliament, then I sincerely believe that this parliament will not hesitate to resolve the problem, and that it is quite capable of so doing.
I have frequently discussed in this house and elsewhere the validity of dominion legislation, which has been proposed for the solution of the social problems which have beset this country. As a member of the late government of Canada and as a member of the parliament of Canada, I have voted in favour of the enactment of such measures as were proposed to assist in alleviating the distress and suffering resulting from poverty and unemployment, such as appropriations for old age pensions, appropriations for the relief of the indigent, and such legislation as the Weekly Rest in Industrial Undertakings Act of 1935, the Minimum Wage Act of 1935, and the Employment and Social Insurance Act of 1935, although on previous occasions, in view of outstanding decisions of the judicial

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
committee of the privy council, I had frankly expressed my personal doubts as to the constitutional validity of several of these proposed enactments. Several of these statutes were, in January, 1937, declared by the judicial committee of the privy council to be beyond the legislative jurisdiction of the dominion parliament and therefore illegal, invalid and of no effect.
It is, I think, generally admitted that in construing the terms of the British North America Act, the authority of the judicial committee has at times been perversely exercised, but nevertheless the decisions of the judicial committee in constitutional cases, must, under existing conditions, be regarded as having the same force and effect as if they were expressly incorporated into the terms of the British North America Act.
It is clear, therefore, that there are many things that the parliament and government of Canada may not lawfully do, and which, if attempted, are as unlawful and in fact as reprehensible as any attempt by private individuals to violate valid statutes which have been enacted by a competent parliament or by a competent legislature. In a recent decision the judicial committee has definitely declared that:
Assuming that the dominion has collected by means of taxation a fund, it by no means follows that any legislation which disposes of it is necessarily within dominion competence. It may be legislation affecting the classes of subjects enumerated in section 92 (of the British North America Act) and, if so, it would be ultra vires. In other words, dominion legislation, even though it deals with dominion property, may yet be so framed as to invade civil rights within the province or encroach upon the classes of subjects which are reserved to provincial competence. If on the true view of the legislation it is found that in reality in pith and substance the legislation invades civil rights within the province, or in respect of other classes of subjects otherwise encroaches upon the provincial field, the legislation is invalid.
The legislation referred to in that decision was legislation by this parliament appropriating its revenues for the purpose of unemployment insurance. That decision of the judicial committee has, in my opinion, raised grave doubts as to the validity of any enactments hitherto or hereafter made by the dominion parliament which purport to make appropriations of dominion funds for unemployment relief or for the support and care of the indigent in the several provinces of Canada. I respectfully suggest that it was the duty of the government to have procured within the past eighteen months definite opinions from the judicial committee as to the duty and responsibility of the dominion government and parliament in respect of these matters.
Week after week we read in the press official pronouncements of provincial and municipal governments that the British North America Act imposes upon the federal parliament the sole responsibility in these matters, and, as frequently, dominion ministers and officials reply in the negative. The supreme court of Canada and the judicial committee of the privy council should, in my opinion, long ere this have been requested to decide definitely for what social services or relief purposes the revenues which the dominion government obtains, by taxation of the people in one form or another, may be lawfully appropriated by parliament.
Section 102 of the British North America. Act, 1867, has enacted that "all duties and revenues" of Canada-
-shall form one consolidated revenue fund, to be appropriated for the public service of Canada in the manner and subject to the charges in this act provided.
Sections 103, 104 and 105 provide for certain specific charges upon the consolidated revenue fund. Section 106 enacts that "subject to the several payments by this act charged on the consolidated revenue fund of Canada," to which I have referred, "the same" that is, the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, "shall be appropriated by the parliament of Canada for the public service."
The British North America Act, 1867, therefore enacts as one of its fundamental provisions that the parliament of Canada shall make appropriations from its consolidated revenue fund only for the public service of Canada, and that act does not provide or even imply that the parliament of Canada may lawfully appropriate the revenues of Canada for any object or purpose other than the public service of Canada. On the other hand, section 126 of the British North America Act enacts that such duties and revenues:
-as are by this act reserved to the respective governments or legislatures of the provinces, and all duties and revenues raised by them in accordance with the special powers conferred upon them by this act, shall in each province form one consolidated revenue fund to be appropriated for the public service of the province.
The British North America Act, therefore, clearly distinguishes between the public service of Canada and the public service of the province. That act also distinguishes between the revenues of the dominion, which form the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, and the revenues which in each province form the consolidated revenue fund of that province. It also imperatively provides that the consolidated revenue fund of Canada shall be appropriated 'by the parliament of Canada for the public service of Canada, and that the
2998	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
consolidated revenue of each province shall be appropriated by the legislature of that province for the public service of that province. It would appear, therefore, that the British North America Act contains a clear implication that it is not lawful for the parliament of Canada to appropriate the revenues of Canada for the public services of the provinces, or for the legislature of a province to appropriate the revenues of that province for the public service of the Dominion of Canada.
I do not desire to argue the legal and constitutional issues to-day, but merely to indicate their nature and extent, as they appear to me.
But how may we ascertain what matters are included in the public service of Canada, and ivhat matters are included in the public service of the province? It is clear that no revenues of Canada may be lawfully appropriated except by a valid law enacted by the parliament of Canada, and that no revenues of the province may be lawfully appropriated except by a valid law enacted by the legislature of the province. Section 91 of the British North America Act enacts that it shall be lawful for the parliament of Canada:
-to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subject by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces;
During the last Conservative regime, the government of which I was a member annually asked parliament to appropriate large sums from the consolidated revenue fund of Canada for unemployment relief as extraordinary or emergency legislation under the " peace, order and good government " clause. The sums so voted were assumed by us to be valid federal appropriations under the " peace, order and good government" clause which I have just quoted, on the theory that the unemployment problem in Canada had reached such extraordinary dimensions as to become a threat to the body politic of the dominion, and was therefore a matter of peace, order and good government, properly to be dealt with by the dominion parliament. But the judicial committee of the privy council has summarily rejected this theory in a more recent decision.
I do not know, as it has not been definitely declared, on what basis our annual appropriations for relief and kindred social services are now made, or on what constitutional theories they are deemed to rest.
But, inasmuch as the provincial legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to the establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums, charities and eleemosy-

nary institutions for the care and relief of those who are poor or destitute of the means of comfortable subsistence, it is contended by some authorities that laws appropriating public funds for the maintenance and relief of the indigent, the aged and the unemployed in each province, are now exclusively within the legislative jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, and therefore beyond the powers of the parliament of Canada. If this contention is upheld by the courts, then this parliament has been exceeding its authority and has made and is continuing to make unlawful appropriations.
I am not endowed with the gift of prophecy, but I am disposed to think that whenever the issue arises in the courts, as it will undoubtedly be raised in due time-and, as I think, any individual taxpayer of the country, who is prepared to appropriate his own private funds for such litigation, may raise it at any time-the judicial committee will probably decide that any appropriations of dominion funds for the construction of roads, bridges, canals or other local works, which are wholly situate within the province, are unlawfully made and invalid.
Before attempting any radical change in the fundamental constitutional law of this country we must realize that our constitution is the stable basis of our existing political, civil and religious liberties, and that if these liberties are to be maintained, the law of the constitution must be respected and strictly obeyed, until, as I have said, it is amended and modified by judicial interpretation or by other lawful methods and with general public approval.
It is, I conceive, the duty of a member of parliament to contribute what he can to the public welfare by frankly speaking the thoughts which have matured in his own mind, and not merely what he thinks his constituents will approve. He is a representative of his electors, and not merely their delegate. The electors, in their turn, will, in due time, by the exercise of their electoral franchise, approve or disapprove of his political activities.
In the provinces of the middle west, especially in the province of Saskatchewan, the farmers have suffered from a prolonged drought, which, has obliged farmers and their dependents to the number of about 300,000 to seek financial aid from the government. Such aid to agricultural districts, to overcome the effects of drought, is as commendable as in any other case, where cyclones, earthquakes, floods or other exceptional natural disturbances have caused sudden death and suffer-

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
ing. Differences pf opinion may arise as to terms and conditions of appropriations made by parliament to aid agriculture. Differences of opinion arise with respect to the adoption and effect of any public policy. But it is my personal opinion that grants from the dominion treasury of agricultural aid to the western farmers, in times of dire distress, may lawfully be made, because section 95 of the British North America Act has declared that "the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to agriculture in all or any of the provinces."
So also, in the case of distress and suffering among those engaged in the fisheries of our sea coasts, the parliament of Canada may sometimes lawfully intervene; for our constitution declares that the parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction to make laws in relation to all matters coming within the class of subjects in the British North America Act described as "sea coast and inland fisheries."
I interject these opinions to indicate that 1 am not personally opposed to the making by this parliament of reasonable appropriations to assist either the farmers or the fishermen of Canada.
There can be no doubt that it is the duty of either the dominion or the provincial government to make due provision for indigent persons who are unable by reason of age, infirmity or physical or mental incapacity to provide for themselves. But as governmental authority is divided in Canada by the express terms of our constitution, grave doubt has arisen as to whether the federal parliament and the federal government have the responsibility and duty to make such provision. I, therefore, suggest that it is the duty of the government of this dominion to ensure that such doubts are resolved as speedily as possible, so that, by reason of existing constitutional difficulties and disputes, relief may not be withheld from those who are entitled to receive it.
I am clearly of opinion that, in order to resolve all existing doubts, the dominion government should speedily refer to the Supreme Court of Canada, subject to the ultimate review of the judicial committee, any constitutional issues which remain in doubt, so that it may be decided beyond dispute what, if any, remedial measures are within the legislative jurisdiction of the dominion parliament, and what remedial measures are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures.
Unless these doubts are now removed by definite decisions of the judicial committee, which may speedily be obtained, then the
present appropriations of dominion revenues for the maintenance of these social services should not be indefinitely renewed or continued beyond the time necessary to obtain final judicial decisions upon the issues involved. In the absence nf such decisions, the entire burden of their maintenance may not be lawfully assumed unless and until the parliament of the United Kingdom has enacted such amendments to the British North America Act as will clearly authorize the parliament of Canada to do so lawfully, and to this end the consent of the provincial governments is advisable, if not necessary.
The government and parliament of Canada may not, without mischievous results, continue to make unlawful appropriations for objects which the courts have already declared, or may reasonably be expected to declare, to be beyond the legislative jurisdiction of parliament. The governments, parliaments and legislatures of this dominion may not set the example to individual malefactors of disregarding and violating the fundamental law of the constitution which is now in force and which limits and controls their several actions.
My conclusion, therefore, is this, that those throughout Canada who are persuaded that the pressing social problems of the day may best be solved by the parliament of Canada taking over the duty of making appropriations of dominion revenues for such purposes- appropriations which may be lawfully and efficiently administered 'by the government of Canada and its proper agencies-are in duty bound to procure the cooperation and consent of provincial governments to the enactment of such amendments to the British North America Act as will clearly vest these matters in and under the legislative jurisdiction of parliament and the administrative jurisdiction of the government of Canada.
But, in the meantime, until such amendments to our constitution may be obtained by consent of the provinces, it is the duty of the government to obtain from the supreme court and from the judicial committee decisions as to the legislative authority of this parliament and the constitutional responsibility of this government.
It seems to me that it is nothing less than a public scandal that the provincial and municipal authorities should persistently declare in public utterances and in the press that it is the lawful duty of the dominion to assume the sole responsibility of providing financial relief for the unemployed and the indigent, and that the dominion authorities should as persistently deny these utterances. The issue should be judicially determined, and, until such issues are finally decided by
3000	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
the courts, the public mind will remain confused and uncertain in its judgments, and it will be impossible for either the dominion parliament or for the provincial legislatures to proceed intelligently and with resolution and energy, to effect the satisfactory solutions which are necessary to ensure our public welfare and our domestic safety.


Mr. SLAGHT:: I do not rise to continue the debate at this stage, but if the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Cahan) and who in my view has delivered a scholarly and closely reasoned contribution to the discussion, would permit me to ask a question, I should like to do so. Is it his view that the dominion government has not at this time power directly to appropriate and disburse money for unemployment relief? I take it that the affirmative correctly expresses his view, but lest I should be mistaken I ask him if he will tell me.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think this is an appropriate time to ask and answer questions on a subject of the kind; it would be better to do so in committee. But I do say this, that under the British North America Act as it was originally drafted and as it was interpreted for the first twenty or twenty-five /ears of confederation, it would be lawful for he dominion government to make appsopria-ions under the " peace, order and good government " clause for social purposes, including relief. Under the British North America Act as it is to-day construed and applied by the judicial committee of the privy council, I cannot see how it can be lawful for the dominion parliament to make such appropriations. Mind you, I make the distinction between what I believe to have been the clear intention and purpose of those who drafted the British North America Act, and the decisions which were subsequently made with respect to the " peace, order and good government " clause..


Mr. THORSON:: Mr. Speaker-


Walter Edward Foster: If the hon. member wishes to put a question, I think it would be better to wait until the house is in committee.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It seems to me that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has departed from his usual logical presentation of a problem. My recollection is that two years ago he castigated very severely the judicial committee of the privy council for its judgment in respect of the unemployment insurance case; he characterized it as being perverse and contrary to principle. If that is so, what logic is there in sub-(Mr. Cahan.]
mitting to the same tribunal the question which he now suggests? I agree with his latter suggestion, that if there is any doubt as to the right of this parliament to appropriate moneys for unemployment relief and for social purposes, such doubt should be resolved by appropriate amendments to the British North America Act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the hon. member
allow me to ask him a question?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Just a moment. We have appointed a royal commission to go into a number of matters, to review the fields of responsibility, sources of taxation, sources of revenue. Would it not be much more sensible to wait until they have brought down their report? Then, if there is any doubt as to the jurisdiction of the dominion parliament to appropriate moneys for unemployment relief or other social purposes, the whole thing could be discussed. To do this would be much more logical than to make an immediate reference to a court which the hon. member has already characterized as a perverse court.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, would you


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


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, may I be
allowed, by consent of the house, to make a few comments? I withdraw nothing I have said with regard to certain decisions of the judicial committee. But the fact is that those decisions are written into our law and to-day are as much a part of the British North America Act as if they had been expressly included in that act at the time it was enacted. But there is a further issue, and I will state my own experience. I go about the province of which I am one of the representatives, and I am met everywhere, on every hand, by the declarations, from the provincial premier and provincial ministers down to nearly every mayor and member of the municipal councils in that province, that they are instructed and believe that it is the duty of the dominion parliament and government to assume sole responsibility for these expenditures. I go into the province of Ontario, and although I am not so well acquainted there, I hear reports that members of the present provincial government in Ontario, and the mayors of some of these cities-important and intelligent men who exercise authority in municipal matters- declare that they regard it as the sole Responsibility of the dominion parliament to provide and distribute funds sufficient for relief purposes.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he will have an opportunity to discuss the matter more fully when the house is in committee.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: We have already discussed this matter on several occasions and I hesitate to speak once again, even though it be to present a certain aspect of it; but I feel that the problem is so important that I cannot very well avoid any opportunity of impressing upon this house and upon the government the seriousness of the situation which now confronts us.
I have a very high regard for the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), and his legal points may be well taken. He talks about the danger of our making unlawful appropriations; he doubts the legislative authority of this parliament; he suggests that the issue should be judicially determined. I quite admit that we have these great constitutional questions, but I do say that the needs, the appalling needs, of the people of the country transcend in importance the constitutional considerations which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has brought before the house.
It may very well be that this question ultimately should be decided by the courts; it may be that we shall have some light thrown upon it when the commission on dominion-provincial relations reports. In the meantime, however, we cannot disregard the pressing needs of tens of thousands of our fellow Canadians.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not suggested that you should.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not accusing my hon. friend of neglecting this aspect of the matter, but he has not suggested any alternative to some arrangement of the kind he proposes. It seems to me that until these questions are judicially settled-they should have been settled years ago

we have to go ahead in meeting pressing needs.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. member will read the verbatim report of what I have said he will see that I have so stated distinctly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is all right then, but I want to emphasize that we cannot allow ourselves in any way to be diverted by what are merely constitutional questions. I am not here to say that the dominion government is solely responsible, but I do say that, viewing the conditions that prevail in many of our provinces, in a very large number of our municipalities, this government is decidedly responsible, at least in part. The government has at its disposal resources that are beyond those under the control of some of our provinces at least, and of many of our municipalities.
Our papers have been filled with news of the preparations for the royal visit and of the expenditures connected therewith. I said, in the first speech I made in this house this session, that I thought we might give the royal visitors a dignified reception without engaging in any extravagances, but huge sums of money are being spent in connection with the forthcoming event. I do not think that we have any right to be generous, if you like, or lavish in that regard, while at the same time such large numbers of our people are in the condition I described last night as prevailing in certain quarters of the one town of Saint John, New Brunswick. I took that up simply because I had been asked to bring up the question. There are many municipalities in the same position,-worse if you like,- but these are the general outlines of the situation.
Only yesterday a mother asked me to bring before this house some of the facts that are related in a pamphlet published by the Canadian Welfare Council entitled, The Children Are Sorely Weary. I venture to crave the indulgence of the house for a few minutes while I state some of these facts.
We have been finding out something of the conditions of the families of the unemployed wage earners and their lack of steady remunerative employment. We have heard something, and we shall hear more, about dependent youth. I should like to bring to the attention of the house the situation with regard to the children in some homes, both private and institutional, simply because they have no one else to speak for them. There are very few women members in the house, and therefore I venture to accede to the request of this mother and give some of the facts. For this is a situation which this house must face. Let me say that the expense involved, or constitutional difficulties involved in this solution, fade into insignificance beside the actual pressing needs of the people. I quote:
Therefore, if, for any reason, the parents or parent of a child prove unable, unfit or unwilling properly to care for that child, the civilized state must be ready, through responsible channels, either to require that such proper parental care be accorded every child in need thereof, or to assume and discharge such responsibilities itself, or through its delegated cooperating agencies.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
That is a sound principle. Undoubtedly the natural parent is primarily responsible; undoubtedly there may be a question whether the municipality or the province or the dominion should assume the major part of the responsibility. But that is a matter of detail. The main considerations are two: (a) There are neglected children in the country; (b) what are we going to do about them? The fact is that in a great many instances, unless this parliament takes action, the neglect will continue. To proceed:
Of all our population of approximately 3,400,000 children, sixteen years of age or younger, in Canada, no less than 250,000-a number roughly equal to the population of Vancouver-are in homes receiving urban or farm relief.
If a great tidal flood wiped out half Vancouver from the map or if some great earthquake shook that city to its foundations. I am sure this parliament would not. hesitate to take action, in spite of constitutional difficulties or of lack of as large a revenue as one would like to see. Yet here a number of children, equal to the population of Vancouver, are in homes receiving urban or farm relief.
Another 12,000 are children of war pensioners, receiving similar aid.
To quote further:
Thus one child in every twelve in Canada is in a home where father, mother, brothers, sisters must look to the community for food, shelter, clothing and the other needs of life and tens of thousands of these younger children can barely remember any other state of affairs.
I am not saying whether that state of affairs arose under the Liberal government or the Conservative government. As we look into the eyes of a little child, how can we think of making political capital out of such a situation? Who cares about that? But as this Liberal government is at present in a responsible position, we must drive this home upon the Liberal government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has just made a distinction between the Liberal and Conservative governments. Would what he has said in that connection not apply equally as between the dominion government, provincial government and the municipality?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know there are
difficulties. I admit that there is no clear-cut distinction, and I suppose, generally speaking, apart from the parents, the municipality is more directly responsible, and then the provincial and then the federal government. But, as I said last night-and I do not want to take up the time of the house unduly, repeating it-I think it is conceded that the extent of unemployment to-day, the kind

of unemployment that exists, is altogether different from that of earlier days or from that contemplated under the British North America Act. A great many of our difficulties are due to lack of international trade and to difficulties in international relations. But the ordinary municipality has nothing to do with that, and even the responsibility of the province is limited in that respect. Thus it does seem to me that the larger portion of the responsibility, under these peculiar circumstances, rests upon the dominion government. What I do want to emphasize is that in the circumstances we must hold this government primarily responsible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Partly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As I said before
in this house, we must direct our plea not to the opposition parties in the house but to the government, which holds the purse strings and which so largely controls policies. Now let me continue reading:
No less than forty thousand children in six provinces are in homes, depending upon mothers' allowances. Because of death, or other disaster or misfortune, the home has been left fatherless and the community is seeking in part to compensate the young family for his loss.
And nine thousand children are born annually in Canada to unmarried mothers. The death rate of these infants is very high; many would never survive if services were not available to protect them before their birth and through all their early years.
To pause for a moment, let me state that this question of the increasing number of unmarried mothers is a very serious one. I feel that we should not be too censorious with regard to the unmarried mothers or even the unmarried father, because to-day we have a great army of transients who have practically no opportunity of setting up homes or living normal lives. I think those of us who have enjoyed the comforts of a home will have to be pretty careful if we speak in any censorious way about young people who naturally look to some closer relationship with one another than is legally or conventionally possible under the conditions in which they find themselves. It is a serious state of affairs, looked at from the point of view of the state itself.
What is the use of putting laws on the statute books making it criminal to do many of these things while at the same time we almost compel these young people to become criminals? Just take another matter, the question of theft. I do not see why we should condemn some young fellow to gaol for some petty theft. I do not want to have my pocket picked; I do not want to have my wife's puree snatched; I do not want to haw our

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress [DOT]
house entered and burglarized. None of us does, but that is not the question. The point is that to-day a great many young fellows are up against the proposition that they must either beg or steal or die. There may be some who are heroic enough to die, thus maintaining a high code of morality. But on the other hand, when they see all about them men who are stealing on the large scale, men who are taking fortunes out of the community without having given any adequate return, can you wonder that the old moral standards go by the board? I do not much wonder at it. Let me repeat: a great many young fellows to-day must either beg or steal or die. It is not fair to them that we should place them in that position. I continue reading:
Altogether 21,000 children across Canada are in children's homes, orphanages or similar benevolent institutions, because, for one reason or another, adequate care is nowhere else assured.
I think back to the time forty years ago when I was closely conneoted with a children's aid society; I think of the efforts we used to make then to try to get the affairs of one family straightened out, and I try to imagine all that is involved in the 21,000 children in these homes. This is one of the big problems of the country. A few weeks ago we spent some considerable time-I do not know that it was too long-discussing trade treaties. I recognize that there must be a material basis for prosperity, if it is indeed to come back to us; at the same time I do not think this parliament can escape consideration of these all important questions of the welfare of the men and women and the children, of whom I am speaking more particularly to-day. I continue reading:
Nearly as many, 16,000 in all, are in the care of our 84 children's aid societies. Their need of care and protection is so real and great that under the child protection legislation of the provinces the protective and guardianship powers, which only a children's aid society may exercise, must be extended to help them. They form a pitiable little army, these frightened, insecure children, many of whom have known real suffering, grave hardship, neglect, perhaps even downright cruelty.
Another group-9,000 to 10,000 annually, comprise our young delinquents and offenders; ninety per cent of these are boys, many of whom are more sinned against than sinning; in conflict with our customs and our laws, and headed for lives of lawlessness and crime, unless understanding and guidance are forthcoming.
I wish the house would pay attention to this next paragraph, which seems to me very reasonable:
The tragic total of these children in need of social care numbers 350,000, one in ten of all the children in our land. For their stumbling young feet, we ask that the way be made
less wearying. And yet these are only the larger groups of our threatened children; these are they whose need of help or protection has become so urgent as to break through and require the community to come to their rescue.
And mark this;
In addition, there are thousands of others whose parents may be desperately holding a last trench of destitution, of insecurity, or of need, in which ill health, uncertainty of employment, wretched shelter or environment, bad heredity, continuous malnourishment, and the ever present threat of family breakdown beat upon.sheer will power and strength of character in a constant pressure too great to be much longer borne. They, too, in unknown numbers and unrecorded places call out for life to be made less hazardous for them.
I skip a paragraph and continue:
And that is what we need, quite as much as more resources or more personnel-a more adequate mobilization of our resources; better procedures in administration; higher standards of care; the more effective application of the abounding good will and undoubted capacity of the average citizen and community to answer the children's call.
And the call goes out from this society for greater leadership and more funds to sustain its activities. I am not going into that phase of the matter. As I have said, I have presented these figures at the request of a mother in order to bring to the attention of this house a class that is not very often mentioned here, the children; not because we are not all interested in children, not because we would willingly neglect any little child, but simply because in the past we have taken it for granted that their parents would care for them or that in extreme eases local charities would come to their assistance. I believe that to-day, whatever may be the cause and whoever may bf to blame, we have entered upon an era when we as a state must make special provision for this class. When we are discussing the bill that is shortly to come before us I feel that we ought not to allow constitutional or financial difficulties or anything else to stand in the way of caring for each last man, woman and child in Canada.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Woodsworth) were very impressive indeed. I do not wish to occupy undue time. I believe I have a suggestion which might interest the minister, and after a few comments I shall offer it.
Yesterday for a few moments we had a discussion which I thought was one of the best we had had since I came to the house. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and several others engaged in some
3004	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
really earnest discussions of economic realities. I thought then that if that kind of discussion could have continued for several hours, it would have been greatly to the enlightenment of all hon. members and of the people throughout the country.
Upon one statement made or at least implied by the Minister of Labour I shall make some comment. He seems to feel that only by international trade can we hope materially to change conditions in Canada.


Mr. ROGERS:: Oh, no-"largely," "only."		not


John Horne Blackmore: I not?	I said "mainly,"	did


An hon. MEMBER:: You said "only."


John Horne Blackmore: 
Mr. POULIOT:: The thing then is not to lock the cupboard, but to unlock it.


John Horne Blackmore: It is the responsibility of the dominion government to unlock it, and I thank the hon. member for his illustration. It is the inescapable responsibility of the dominion government to attend to this matter. This government has control over the tariff. By a simple change in the tariff regulations this government can throw whole sections of any province in the Dominion of Canada into
poverty. By this simple device it can make it utterly impossible for a particular area to produce at a profit.


Mr. GRAY:: Does the hon. member advocate that?


John Horne Blackmore: What idiotic nonsense it is to ask whether I advocate that! What difference does it make? I am simply stating it is so. If we could only keep our minds on the track once in a while instead of rambling into the bushes, we might be able to get somewhere. I am astonished that the hon. member should ask such a question. I am discussing the policy of this government in locking the cupboard door. I say that if this government makes sufficient tariff changes it will lock the cupboard door to any province in Canada. It is impossible to see it in any other way, because this government has absolute control over the tariff. No province can have anything to do about it.
Then this dominion government can put on a sales tax of any size it wishes. The minute such a change in sales tax is made, it affects every hamlet in the Dominion of Canada and may render it impossible for the people to carry on where they could carry on before. A sufficient manipulation of the sales tax device can render it economically impossible for a certain area to survive.


Mr. ISNOR:: Would that affect one section more than another?


John Horne Blackmore: There is another foolhardy question. We are not talking about that. Cannot the hon. member keep his mind on a single track for a minute or two and think his way through? This dominion parliament, the parliament in which we are now sitting, has control of the prices of this country. The provinces have no control whatsoever. Fundamentally, the provinces may legislate regarding prices, but a move of the hand by this dominion can nullify every effort a province may make.
There is another power which this dominion possesses, something over which it is utterly impossible for the provinces to have any control. I refer to the banking policy. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that the more banks expand their loans, the higher prices tend to go. In other words, th( banking system can produce prosperity or, b>
a change of policy, produce adversity, poverty and despair. All this can be done by the decision of two or three men in the city of Ottawa. The only people in this dominion who have any control over those two or three men are the people who sit in this house.
This house has the sole decision concerning interest rates. This house has the sole*
3006	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
decision concerning the security which may be demanded for a loan. This house has the sole decision as to how long loans may be granted. Those three factors, the interest rate, the security and the loan period, determine the result of the banking policy of this country. It means that this government has complete control over prosperity and adversity throughout this dominion from end to end. Let it exercise or fail to exercise the powers I have mentioned and the provinces and municipalities are rendered utterly helpless.
This dominion has control over the excise tax. It has control over railway rates. These things alfect prices. It has control over the distribution of profits. This also affects prices. There are certain men in this dominion who are amassing huge profits while others are in poverty. The people who are largely responsible for setting up the conditions under which these men can make these great profits at the expense of others are undoubtedly the people who sit in this dominion parliament. This parliament has complete control over immigration. In other words, if parliament took the notion it could flood any one province with a body of immigrants of any kind it chose, it could put them wherever it wished, and the province would have nothing to say. Yet the province -would be responsible for relief, education, highways, social services and other things that cost so much. This dominion has the power to lock or unlock the cupboard, to turn on or turn off the tap.
This dominion has the power concerning war. One of the major causes of the difficulties faced by the municipalities and provinces throughout this dominion is the suffering and weakness that resulted from the last war. This parliament put this country into that war. The provinces did not do it, this government did it. There was no plebiscite or reference to the provincial legislatures as far as the last war was concerned.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was not this government.


John Horne Blackmore: It sat in this house. It sat in this same neighbourhood, anyway. It was called the dominion government, and it sat in Ottawa. There is no use in quibbling over the matter, the responsibility must inevitably rest upon this parliament. For us to talk about the provinces assuming responsibility for relief is to talk patent nonsense. All these matters pertain to unemployment.
Is there a solution? There must be a solution. Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) made a most excellent speech. As I see it, [DOT]the contention in this house of the old line

parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, hinges upon the question whether or not there will be more prosperity if you raise or lower the tariff. Let us grant that either raising or lowering the tariff will solve the problem. Well, will it? We shall never decide that in ten generations by sitting here and wrangling about it, and then running out all over the country and raising men's passions on the hustings about it. That will give us plenty of heat, but no light.
Are we to find a solution through government ownership, which seems to be the idea generally advocated by my hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation? Perhaps that is not their whole proposal, but cooperation and government ownership seem to be what they suggest. Will government ownership help this country to clear up unemployment? Suppose we say that we do not know. Is there not something that can be done? Are we to sit here forever and do nothing? Nothing can be done while we continue to wrangle with each other. Could we not get together somehow or other? There are many people who contend that we cannot solve the problem of unemployment in this country because of the British North America Act. Is that true? Perhaps the Rowell commission will help us to find that out, although I doubt it very much because the opinions presented varied so widely. There were so many recommendations of all sorts that it would tax the wisdom of a Philadelphia lawyer to find in such a diversity of opinion what was the truth. So I doubt whether we shall derive very much assistance from that source, even though the work of the commission may be admirably done.


Mr. MacNICOL:: If I may ask the hon. member a question, I endorse his suggestion that the production of Canadian sugar be increased to supply Canada's requirements and give employment, but would he dilate on that and tell us how the production of sugar in Canada can be increased?


John Horne Blackmore: I should be delighted to do it, and before very long I shall do so, if the hon. member will allow me now to keep to the thread of my thought. I mentioned sugar merely as an illustration.
There is a great deal of agitation throughout this country, which other hon. members have felt perhaps much more abundantly than I, that we should stop political wrangling; but we can never do it in this house unless, if the Minister of Labour does not mind entertaining a suggestion from me, we take steps to bring about a combination or union

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
of the best thought and ideas of all parties in the house. The little discussion we had yesterday illustrates what I have in mind. I recall to hon. members one of the fine things Mr. Bennett said last year, that he believed there was sufficient intelligence and ability right in this house to meet and solve the problems before this country. I believe that too.


Jean-François Pouliot: He realized it as soon as he was out of it.


John Horne Blackmore: Now, how can we bring that about? I think it would be possible, Mr. Speaker, speaking through you to the Minister of Labour, to choose a committee composed of the best thinkers and the best informed men in all quarters of the house, which might sit every day or every other day, and in a spirit of quiet, open-minded, earnest sincerity set to work to get together so far as possible on these questions on which there is now disagreement. I suggest as very good members for such a committee the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson). They would be fine representatives from this side of the house. From the other side, the minister would find no superior to himself in this dominion to sit on such a committee. I might also mention the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer), the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman), and the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). Let us get on the committee all the various types of thought in the house. The minister naturally knows his own party better than I do, and could easily select from it three or four other members of outstanding ability in economics. From the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party we might have such men as the hon. member for Wey-bum (Mr. Douglas), and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). We should be glad to contribute a member from our party, or as many more as might be desired for the purpose of forming a non-political committee. I do not know that such a thing has ever been done in the history of this house; it certainly has not been done since I have been here.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Why not include a member like the member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), who knows something about labour and is an employer of labour, instead of filling up the committee with men who have little to do with labour?


John Horne Blackmore: That is an excellent suggestion. Perhaps it would be best to turn the matter over to the whips to pick their very best men for such a committee, which might get together and spend as much time as was necessary to solve the problems before it. Men from outside who are considered authorities might also be called in by the committee.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: May I ask the hon. member kindly to read the resolution which stands in my name as No. 20 on the order paper? I think he will there find that his suggestion has already been expressed.


John Horne Blackmore: I hope the hon. member will not be offended because I repeat his suggestion. He might take it as a compliment, if he would take anything I suggest as a compliment. My idea is simply to have the thing done, and I think it would be a fine gesture on the part of the Minister of Labour.


Mr. MARTIN:: Would the hon. member include the member for Temiscouta (Mr. Pouliot) on the committee?


John Horne Blackmore: I would include any member of the Liberal party who was able to contribute to the committee's deliberations. I should like to see something done, because tihe suffering in this country is simply terrible.
In closing let me say that I received a letter this morning, full of details vouched for by dependable men, from a woman in this city with children, whose husband served overseas for three years and has since died. The woman has come into the city from another part of the country, and at the present time she cannot get any assistance at all in any way conceivable to man. It would be different if she could get a job, but she can get no job. She has produced evidence to show that she has gone to every person she has heard of who could possibly give her a job, and has been refused work. She has done everything in her power to get a job. She has approached all the authorities from whom she might get assistance, and has found the door locked in every case. I ask, what can that woman do? She wrote to me, and I told her that her difficulty lies in the fact that she, in a way, falls between three stools; but that does not make the fall any easier- it hurts just the same. She is just outside the regulations in each of three different directions. But there she is and certainly she is entitled to assistance if anyone is entitled to it. She is at her wits' end to know what to do to keep a roof over her children's heads and food on the table. That is just one case,
3008	COMMONS
Unemploy merit and Agricultural Distress
and there are almost countless instances throughout this country if we only knew about them, all arising from the fact that there is unemployment, and unavoidable unemployment.
I should feel very much better if I could appeal directly to the minister and if I could go back to my constituency and point out that we had done something, that we had appointed a committee the members of which were getting together so far as they could and trying to find a solution. I commend this proposal to the minister as earnestly as I can, and ask that he consider it and deal with it as he sees fit.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a few of the speeches in this debate on unemployment, but I have read most of them at . night after I have gone through my correspondence. A few members have offered suggestions for the relief of unemployment, while many others have just expressed their views of the problem and have painted a picture of the situation as it exists to their knowledge. Of course, it is a serious problem more or less in every part of this country, and those who are most familiar with it are not those who write to the papers about it. Rather they are those who meet the people who are suffering from unemployment. I assume that every member of parliament, if he is faithful to his duty, hears the representations of quite a number of unemployed people, and if he has time to listen to their stories he can judge the situation fairly accurately. In my constituency, which is part urban and part rural, I receive daily during the recess forty to fifty electors. I know nine out of ten of the men, half of the women, and very many young boys. They come to me, they tell me their problems, I listen to them, and the aggregate of that information is a real lecture on unemployment.
The first thing I have considered is that we have unemployment because of a lack of order in society. In 1930 there was a relatively small number of unemployed, but at that time some politicians tried to make propaganda by paying men who were not actually unemployed to attend meetings, wearing buttons, and to interrupt the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)), especially when he was addressing large gatherings in the west, asking him to do something for unemployment, In 1930 there was practically no unemployment.


Mr. SPENCE:: How does the hon. member make that out?


Jean-François Pouliot: I know that the truth
hurts my hon. friends, but they must be courageous enough to listen to it.


Mr. STEWART:: Give us a little truth and we will listen to it.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Spence) know very well that in 1931, in the Canada Year Book, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), who was then Minister of Trade and Commerce, stated over his own signature that in 1930 unemployment was not as bad as it had been in the years previous.


David Spence: You mean, the next year following?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, no; I am talking seriously. I have a high regard for the hon. member for Parkdale, but I will not tolerate any interruption, and if he has something to say he will say it when I have done. I know whereof I speak, and not only can I put my finger on the spot but I can put the finger of the hon. member for Parkdale or that of any other hon. member on that spot. The cry of unemployment was used in 1930 as propaganda; it was a bogy. At that time the leader of the Conservative party was going through Canada saying that there was unemployment when there was not, or practically none. He did that just to deceive the Canadian people and make them believe that they were sick when they were not.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They were sick of the government then.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask my hon. friend to keep quiet, because, if he looked well after his department from 1930 to 1935, he never paid any attention in the house to the unemployment problem, and when I was accusing his colleague, the good-for-nothing Mr. Gordon, he had nothing to say.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I do not think the hon. member should say that.


Jean-François Pouliot: If it is unparliamentary
I will not use that language


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not only unparliamentary, but untrue.


Jean-François Pouliot: but I will use the expression which your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, permitted, when I addressed the then minister of labour; I called him "dumb," and I will not retract it.
We must consider the facts as they are. At that time the leader of the Conservative party was telling the country that it was sick when it was not. The people believed him, and afterwards the evil became real and the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
government could not get the situation under control. That is exactly what happened in the year 1930. I recall, sir, that when I was sitting in the corner on the other side of the chamber, when I used to ask many questions not only of the Minister of Labour but of Mr. Bennett, the minister was nearly always silent, so much so that one day I had to tell him that I thought the cat had eaten his tongue. Of course hon. members who have received a report on unemployment drafted by a member of parliament remember very well that a false picture of the situation was put by the then prime minister in the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General. This he did not only as to the speech from the throne but also as to the prorogation speeches; it was done at the beginning and the end of each session from 1930 to 1935 inclusive. These are facts. The country was not told the truth. It was impossible for us to obtain information; orders had been given by the government of the day to the service at large not to supply members of parliament with any information on unemployment. That is why it was impossible to have a true picture of the situation.
It was then considered important to have a survey of the unemployed, to know what they did before they became unemployed, what were their previous trades and occupations. That is very easy to do provided one is willing to do it. Why do it? For several reasons. In the first place, it should be done to ascertain whether the picture painted by some hon. members is true only of their own constituencies, true of large sections of the country, or true of the country as a whole. That is the first point. It is most important to know also what are the trades which have suffered most from unemployment. It is important also to know whether there is duplication of relief. If you have a classification of the unemployed, showing their trades and previous occupations and addresses, you can ascertain whether one man is receiving relief for two people or for three people, as has happened several times. But there is another reason, more important than the others; it is that unemployment on a large scale as it has existed since 1930 is an abnormal thing, and we must come together to do something to improve the conditions in this country.
If I am not to make a political speech, on the other hand I cannot ignore the fact that the man who is mostly responsible for the condition that we have now is the former leader of the Conservative party, who is a quitter and who said when he left this country that he was going home.


John Ritchie MacNicol: On a point of order: is " quitter " a parliamentary word to apply to an ex-prime minister?


Jean-François Pouliot: He is no longer a member of parliament.


Walter Edward Foster: The word " quitter " is not in Beauchesne; and it is not applied to one who at the present time is a member of this house.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is a former member.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, there is a rule of the house to the effect that no hon. member may use offensive language with respect to the members of the royal family, His Excellency the Governor General, and members of both houses. But there is a period after that; it is finished. If the former leader of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol)-I was saying " sofa "-had chosen to remain a member of parliament, I would not have used that expression. It is because he is out of this house that I can speak freely about him. I have no grudge against him, but I think of all those who suffered so much as a result of his boastful promises to end unemployment.


Mr. JAQUES:: Your party did the same.


Jean-François Pouliot: Our party?


Norman Jaques: Certainly.


Jean-François Pouliot: Our party said it would do the very best it could, but we have no supermen in our party and that makes a difference. Perhaps my hon. friend can find some superman in his own group. I am sure they believe they are supermen, and I can see that they are very happy in that belief.
The main reason for a survey of the unemployed according to trades or occupations is to enable the government to know what can be done with regard tb the unemployed individually. Unemployment is a sort of disease and it must be treated individually. During the war some men were wounded by shrapnel or bullets and others were gassed. Each one had to receive a particular treatment ; each had to be looked after in a separate individual way. The same should be done with unemployment. Each case should be considered individually. We should have the story of each of the unemployed to see what can be done for him and whether he is really unemployed through no fault of his own. Of course, there are many classes of unemployed persons. There are those who are unemployable. A man may be unemployable for several reasons. He may be sick and incapable of doing any work, or he may be
3010	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
unwilling to work. The first man deserves consideration, the second deserves none. On the other hand there are the fellows who are willing and able to work, and they should be helped. But they cannot be helped solely by this government; they must be helped by everyone in the country who wishes to be a good Samaritan and help his neighbour. If he wants real help he must not be given scrip, because it is not accepted in payment.


Norman Jaques: Would he work for nothing?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, just a minute. My hon. friend is a great heckler, but I would ask him to be just as quiet when I am speaking as I am when he speaks. I do not think I have interrupted him once. I do not always listen to him, I confess. I am here in the house and when he speaks I do not always pay attention to what he says, but I leave him alone and I want him to leave me alone. If he does not like what I say he can speak afterwards.


Norman Jaques: You don't want to learn; you forget nothing and you learn nothing.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is delightful to see the degree of self-satisfaction in the group to your ultimate left, Mr. Speaker. Of course, they are very nice fellows, but they remind me of the old watchmaker who once repaired a watch and forgot to put back two little wheels. It went just the same, but it did not keep time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was not wasting time, either.


Mr. WALSH:: Were they the balance
wheels?


Jean-François Pouliot: When I was interrupted by one of our genial colleagues I was about to say that it is pretty difficult for the government to know exactly what to do for the unemployed unless they know what the unemployed can do; and they cannot get that knowledge except from a survey covering each individual case. I remember that in the good times of prosperity

I mean when the other government was in power-we were told that information could be secured only from the bureau of statistics. The bureau of statistics had the census figures of 1931, some years before, and it was impossible to get any accurate information. Mayors came to Ottawa and information was asked for and they said they had it. The mayor of London, Ontario, said he had it; Mr. Trepanier, an alderman of Montreal, also said he had it, but in fact neither had it. They had none at all, but they started to get the information at the request of a member of parliament, and 
Mayor Houde, the present mayor of Montreal, instructed General Panet, the head of relief in Montreal, to carry out a survey. With nine other persons he spent three weeks making a survey of the unemployed on relief, heads of families, to find out what their previous occupations had been. It was a most interesting survey. We knew what artisans were unemployed in Montreal. Of course there were many who were designated as day labourers, but there was a considerable number of men belonging to the building trade, carpenters, masons, plumbers and so on. These people could have got some help through the building industry. If we had such a survey of the unemployed as was suggested yesterday by a member of the Conservative party, we would know exactly what the situation was and the government would know what could be done to relieve unemployment in particular areas, in bad sections of the country-and when I say bad sections I mean sections where unemployment is worst.
This could easily be done by Ottawa and by the provinces through the municipalities. The municipal authorities are there on the spot. Everyone is known in the municipality, and it would be very easy for such a survey to be made. How could the dominion government get that information? WTe may be told that there is a constitutional issue in the matter, but it could very well be done by the dominion government notifying the provincial governments that they would pay nothing for relief or assistance until they got that information accurately from the municipalities through the provinces.


Mr. MARSHALL:: They have already had it.


Jean-François Pouliot: No. I defy my hon. friend to get that information by trades, in the cities, either from the Department of Labour or from the provincial governments. A survey was made in 1934, by Mr. Croll, who was then minister of welfare in Ontario, and to my knowledge none has been made since in any other province. The information that members get from the Department of Labour- and the minister cannot contradict me on this point-is only as to the number of those who receive relief. We have no information regarding the number of unemployed in the building industry in each municipality.


James Alexander Marshall: Whose fault is it that you have not that information?


Jean-François Pouliot: It is because nobody cares to get it. If members of parliament would unite in asking for that information from the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Department of Labour, I am sure that the minister, who is an able man, would take steps to get it for us.
I have heard some hon. members praise the employment commission, and at the beginning of the session I was even blamed for having thrown the report of that commission on the floor last year. Well, when the commission was appointed the Minister of Labour told a member of parliament that its report on unemployment, showing the previous occupations of the unemployed, was to be the basis of the policy of the government in dealing with this problem. Then that commission did absolutely nothing; its report was absolutely useless. In the first place we must have order, and to get order we must have a real insight into the situation. We must know what is going on; we must know what places throughout the country are suffering from unemployment; we must know the trades in which there are the most unemployed, in order that we may do something to relieve that condition.
Now let me tell the minister for his own benefit, and for the benefit of the government and of the country at large, that I am very suspicious as to the competence of some of his assistants. I fear that in the Department of Labour there are some men who were appointed by the previous administration who are not competent to handl: their jobs. In my humble view the minister should be closer and closer to members of parliament in discussing this question of unemployment. He means well; he is an able man, and that is what should be done. He should be very careful about what is said by those immediately under him, who are not in the least competent to deal with such a great problem as unemployment. We must consider things differently when we have such a huge problem to deal with than in ordinary times, when life is easy and nothing out of the ordinary is going on.
What should be done for the relief of unemployment? In the maritimes they_ want help for the fishermen and something in the way of defence works. The same applies to British Columbia. Why does not the government give them defence works and help the fishermen? In the province of Quebec they want public works for the relief of unemployment. Let us have public works in that province. In the west they clamour for assistance to the farmers. In Ontario they want expenditures on defence works. Give the people what they want, as long as it is reasonable, to make them happy and comfortable. That is my understanding of the
situation. But do not give them what they do not ask for; let them ask for something before giving it to them.
Many very useful things could be done to-day. I regret very much that any man who is fit should have to live on relief, on a small amount that barely keeps him from starvation. He should have enough on which to live decently. A friend of mine in the Antipodes, an old member of parliament in Australia, sent me the report of a speech he made in Canberra advocating the free distribution of milk to school children in order to give them the food they need to keep them healthy. We could do many things like that; I need not enumerate them all. This is a kind of social welfare that could be carried on by any government, or by the federal government in conjunction with the provincial governments. But it is impossible to believe that we can go forward one step in dealing with the question of unemployment unless we try to establish order in this country; not military order but order under which every man will be where he belongs. Many men who were good tradesmen before they became unemployed are not so good now. They feel rusty; they cannot work so easily or so well as before, and men of this kind, if they were technicians, should have easier jobs than those they formerly held.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) made some good suggestions and some others not so good. He deserves credit for making recommendations. He worked pretty hard to prepare his oration, and it is too bad that he went too far and made one statement that was a grease spot on his speech. I was not surprised, sir, that he was called upon to withdraw what he said. He made a statement, which statement was denied, and according to parliamentary practice the only thing for him to do is bring in evidence in rebuttal to show that those who denied what he said were wrong and that he was right. Unless he does that at some future time people will be very suspicious as to the reliability of his information. On the other hand we must not deal with unemployment in a too scientific way. Marshal Foch, victor in the great war, used to say that warfare was common sense. The warfare against unemployment should be common sense also. I regret very much that my good friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) should have declared that this government had done absolutely nothing for unemployment.


Mr. MANION:: 
Jean-François Pouliot: That is some progress.
Perhaps if I asked the hon, gentleman another question he would say this government had done very well. But since my hon. friend is in his seat and not in the witness box I will not pursue my questioning.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that my remarks have been made in a very friendly spirit. I hope that when we discuss unemployment hon. members will not practise extravagance and picture things as worse than they really are. It will be good for the house and the country to learn the bare truth about the situation. In addition I will ask the Minister of Labour, for his own good, for the good of the government and the country, to scrutinize what has been done by some officials of his department in regard to the relief of unemployment. He will find that it is nil. I do not put the blame on him; I think it only fair to make that distinction, but in these times we need the very best men if we are to settle those most difficult problems. It is not a question of sympathy. I have sympathy for every human soul, but when I see a man enjoying a fine and lucrative position at the expense of hundreds of thousands of others, who suffer from his incompetency, I say to the minister: If you are not soft-hearted, throw him out and protect the other thousands.
Some hon. members will of course say that some civil servants or officials are not in the house. Of course they are not. But each civil servant is represented by his minister; his minister has to speak for him. So that the minister may better understand what I have said, I would point out that I have no grudge against anybody, but I want the Department of Labour to be a real department of labour, to be effective, to help the people, and to be worthy of the minister and of the government. Therefore I will not insist upon it; but instead of showing sympathy to one or two or three or four individuals, show sympathy to the big crowd, and the people will understand you and appreciate you, and will be with you.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we are not yet in committee but-


Walter Edward Foster: I would draw the attention of the minister to the fact that if he speaks he will close the debate.


Norman McLeod Rogers: On the question raised by the previous speaker (Mr. Pouliot), which I think might properly be regarded as a question of privilege, I do feel that I ought immediately to make a reply. He has made reference to those in the Department of (Mr. ManionJ
Labour charged immediately with the administration of unemployment relief. He is entirely entitled to his opinion, and I take it to express that opinion in the house, but I would like to say to him that in my experience in the Department of Labour, and speaking as generally as he has done, I have found the officials of that department, regardless of whether or not they were there before I took office, most loyal, most industrious and most faithful in the discharge of their duties.


Norman Jaques: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take more than five or six minutes. In this long debate I believe we have heard every reason for the condition known as unemployment, but only from this corner of the house has there been mention of the financial system.
Hon. members in this group are blamed for bringing up the subject of money on every possible occasion. But, if I may say so, when one comes to see the light of truth one realizes it is impossible to study almost any subject without looking at it from the point of view of finance and money.
If I might digress for a moment, I happen to have a passion for classical music. During the last session the commentator for one of the great symphonic orchestras of the United States invited his radio listeners to send in their comments respecting a comparison between old classical music and modern serious music. During the Easter recess last year, having a little time on my hands, I sent in my ideas respecting modern music, and I said in part that whatever might be said of the merits of modern serious music it would have to be admitted that it was becoming more and more pessimistic. I traced, in a way which I shall not now go into, the tendency towards pessimism in music, to the rise of "the money power."


Mr. MICHAUD:: Right after the birth of social credit.


Norman Jaques: I notice that produces a smile on the faces of some hon. members. However, the Sunday on which the commentator would have read my communication happened to coincide with the Sunday when the honorary secretary of the orchestra, the wife of one of the great financiers in the United States, was making an appeal to the radio audience for subscriptions for the orchestra. That being so, I believe the commentator decided to rule my communication out of order-anyway he did not read it. But he did send me a note in these words, "I agree entirely with your views on modern music. And why ? This particular com-

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
mentator is a very distinguished composer of music. When we consider the disastrous effect that the rising power of money has had on the composers of music, perhaps we can understand the disastrous effect money power has had on the mind of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), and why his economic compositions become more and more pessimistic.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. member
suggest that the Department of Labour should employ an orchestra?


Norman Jaques: I am merely suggesting that this money power or, if you like, the rule of money, in every walk of life, has had a most paralyzing and disastrous effect on the human mind.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: AVe are not in that class.


Norman Jaques: Then, if I may descend
from the sublime to the ridiculous, may I say that people were wont, as the saying goes, to enjoy themselves with wine, women and song-now, I believe, the expression is gin, jazz, sugar daddies and hot mammas.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: And peanut butter.


Norman Jaques: Would this be a fair statement of the Liberal or, if you like, the orthodox viewpoint of the question we have been discussing. Number one, that the unemployed, or the victims, have no real claim on the state; number two, that there is nothing wrong with the monetary system itself and that unemployment is not due to maladjustments or fundamental flaws in the financial system, and, number three, that the only remedy is the one set out the night before last by the minister, namely the expansion of foreign trade.


Mr. GOLDING:: One remedy.


Norman Jaques: I think that is a fair statement, and I hope I am not regarded as being in any way politically biased, because I used to support one of the old-line parties. I have in my hand a book from which I should like to read one paragraph. It is headed "Monetary policy of plenty instead of scarcity", and contains the hearings before the committee on banking and currency of the house of representatives of the United States. The, opinions which I am about to read-


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is the author?


Norman Jaques: This is a copy of the
evidence given before the committee on banking and currency of the house of representatives when it was considering a monetary policy of plenty instead of scarcity.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Who gave the evidence?


Norman Jaques: Perhaps I had better read it.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I am sorry I asked for it.


Norman Jaques: This committee corresponds to our own committee on banking and commerce and is made up largely of men with the same upbringing and surroundings as the members of our committee. I suppose this committee represents the best financial thought in possibly the greatest nation in the world, certainly the richest in industry and production. I have no reason to believe that any of the members of this committee are called social crediters, but apparently they have come to see the light. The first point they deal with is whether the victims of unemployment have any claim upon the state, and they say this:
The more highly a people are civilized, the more often its genius is demonstrated in the work of an individual. Genius is not altogether the result of the merit of the individual, but of the society from which it springs, and the higher the society, the higher the social organization, the more often that genius demonstrates itself.
The one that makes the demonstration should, of course, receive, to a very considerable extent, the results of whatever he has been able to do. Unfortunately, an inventor is very often not the one who receives the benefit of the invention. Nevertheless, it is just that he should. But in the last analysis the society from which he springs is entitled-and all of that society- to the benefit of what he invents. And not he and not a small group that may have had the business acumen to grab the invention and make use of it. The society which has made possible that genius is entitled ultimately to its benefits.
I think that statement justifies what we in this corner of the house have said. The next paragraph, which deals with the bearing of finance upon employment, reads:
Here we have a condition under our present monetary and industrial system in which we concede that we are not able to consume all of the wanted goods and services that we are able to produce. AVe concede that, all of us- every member of this committee concedes that.
Every member of that committee on banking and currency of the United States congress concedes what we in this corner have been saying over and over again, and 'been laughed at for saying. Every member of that committee conceded that it is impossible for an industrialized nation to consume what it produces. The report continues:
All right: AVe all work in an endeavour to consume that part of production which is possible. Then we undertake to put in operation a law which will enable us to consume the balance of it. Is there anything immoral about that? Is there anything that smacks of getting something for nothing about that? Is it better
3014	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
that we should receive what we can produce rather than produce and dump it over into Europe or Asia or some other place? Which is wiser? Which is more just? To produce it for ourselves or to produce it to give it away- and it does not make any difference whether we give it away by the dumping process or whether we give it away by a process of loaning money to the foreign countries which they are to respend in this country, and which debts will never be paid? And that is what has been going on in this country for years and years and years.
That represents the opinion of the committee on banking and currency of the United States congress, and I think it is identical with what we in this group here have so often put before this house.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), I found I was able to agree with him on one point, but I had to disagree with him on another. I agreed with him when he concluded by saying that since the present government came into office the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) had done nothing to diminish unemployment. That is why I rise now to say something on this bill, which is similar to the bills we have had presented every session since 1931. I disagreed with the hon. member for Temiscouata when he said in his opening remarks that we had no unemployment until the Conservative party brought it about in 1930, or words to that effect.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do you agree with the hon. member on that?


Angus MacInnis: No, I do not agree with him on that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You are right on that.


Angus MacInnis: We'had serious unemployment long before the depression which began in the fall of 1929. Those who, both politically and economically, spoke for the working class, were advocating means of alleviating the effect of unemployment years before this depression set in. I have in my hand a statement submitted by the executive of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada to the forty-seventh annual convention of that organization, held in Vancouver in September, 1931. This statement contains a review of the policies of the congress on employment, unemployment and under-employment from 1883, when the congress was organized, to 1931 and points out that from its inception the congress had been confronted with the question of unemployment. We find the congress discussing 
unemployment at its first convention held in 1883, and moving for a reduction in the hours of labour to nine hours a day on the grounds:
That the labour market is at present glutted, and if the resolution is adopted it will result in giving work to many who are out of it to-day as employers would find it necessary to employ more men.
Three years later we find the congress again discussing unemployment at its annual convention and passing a resolution asking the government to enact a bill to regulate the hours of labour of workers in the employ of the government.
In 1895 unemployment was again rife, and of course in between these periods we had unemployment too, but those were the high points of unemployment as we come down through the years and the cycle of prosperity recedes and bad times return.
The new west was being opened up about that time, and the trades congress executive put forward land settlement as a relief measure. It is interesting at this point to note how rapidly we have moved in the last fifty years. In 1895 the four western provinces were practically undeveloped, but within a little less than fifty years we have watched these new provinces being opened up and developed. We have seen enormous wealth extracted from their resources. Now we are witnessing their economic decline. This, it seems to me, should make us pause, to realize that we are no longer in the world of fifty or thirty or even twenty years ago.
Two years later, in 1897, the unemployment situation was still bad, and the congress advocated the restriction of immigration and the establishment of free employment bureaux, both of which were done.
In 1914 unemployment had again reached alarming proportions, and at the congress that year we find representatives of the trades unions asking the government to give the same treatment to labour as it was then by legislation giving to capital. The trades and labour congress of 1914 adopted a resolution urging the federal government to convene a conference of provincial and municipal authorities, boards of trade and labour councils to -formulate measures for dealing with the widespread unemployment and destitution then prevailing throughout the dominion. I understand that a similar conference was proposed this afternoon, and I believe it was proposed a few days ago by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion). But the suggestion is not new.
For a few years during the war we did not hear much about unemployment. The people

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
of the great nations of the world, and we along with them, were so busy fighting each other and manufacturing the instruments of death and destruction that there was work for almost everyone. But with the end of the war again came unemployment. I presume that when the dove of peace brought the olive branch, it also brought with it the spectre of unemployment.
In 1921 the trades congress urged the adoption of unemployment insurance, or as they called it, state employment insurance.
Then for a few years we had prosperity, in 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928 and up to the fall of 1929. But as the Minister of Labour pointed out when speaking, I believe, on the address, we had considerable unemployment even in those days. The estimated figure for unemployment which the minister gave for January, 1930, was 297,000, but I submit that there is a vast difference between 300,000 unemployed in 1930 and the years before, and 300,000 unemployed since 1930. In the years before the depression the unemployed were out of work for only short periods, and they had reserves to carry them over these periods, but, as I shall point out later, the unemployment of to-day is largely unemployment that is continuous.
I am firmly of the opinion that without a drastic change in our economy we are not likely to have a smaller number of unemployed at any time than we have at present, and we may as well make up our minds that the period of expansion which we have known on this continent for the last hundred years is definitely over. That period of expansion was able to take care not only of the ordinary supply of labour and its normal increase, but of millions more who came to this continent from the older countries of Europe, and some from Asia as well.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is, certainly, an
extremely pessimistic view.


Angus MacInnis: It may appear to be a pessimistic view, but it need not be because we were never better able to supply the needs of our people than we are to-day. We have the natural resources; we have the capital and equipment; we have the intelligence and ability to manage these things, and to develop our resources on a greater scale than ever before. Surely under such conditions there is no need for pessimism. If. that is the case, and I maintain that it is, no time should be lost in setting our economic house in order, so as to put a stop to the mental, physical and moral decay which is gradually sapping the vitality not only of our unemployed but of our people as a whole.
At the beginning of the depression the people who were unemployed-not ali of them, but a great proportion of them-had reserves, and those reserves were not all material. Some were material and some were psychological. They had homes, many of which were paid for; they had equities in homes, and hoped some day to be able to own them outright; they had reserves of clothes, furniture and other household goods. But all those reserves are now depleted. In addition, they had reserves of hope, courage and inspiration-spiritual reserves which are now as much depleted as are their material reserves.
A great many of the unemployed were broken in spirit before they went on relief. Most went on relief reluctantly. To make matters worse, as I pointed out in the house the other day, when they do get employment for short periods and go off relief they have to go through the most humiliating experiences before they are able to get back on the relief rolls again. This continual investigating so affects sensitive persons that they refuse short periods of work. The unemployed should, in my opinion, always be regarded as human beings with feelings like our own. They should be encouraged to accept whatever work is offered, and be allowed to use earnings from employment for brief periods without being too closely investigated as to what they do with such earnings.
In any steps taken to rehabilitate the unemployed we must keep in mind that spiritual rehabilitation is even more necessary than the satisfying of physical needs. That is, the unemployed must be made to feel that they are an essential part of society, that they are useful in the scheme of things. That can be done only if they feel that the work they are doing is useful and that they have a share in directing it. Indeed, even without unemployment, the present industrial system dehumanizes the manual worker.
Last fall I was able to spend a few weeks in the maritime provinces and investigate some of the work which has been done there during the last eight or nine years by the cooperative movement. What appeared to me most important was not the economic effects upon the people, not the financial rewards which it brought them, but its psychological effect in bringing back the self-respect of poverty-stricken people. I feel convinced that until such time as we can place our people in a position where they feel they have a stake in the country, it is futile to expect cooperation from them in building up our society, or in playing an important part, or in giving all that they can give in the building of a good

3016	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
society. I would impress that upon the minister, who is, I believe, interested in that phase of this important question. What we must realize to-day is that our economy is trying to adjust itself to a diminishing demand. Industrial institutions are becoming geared to a stable production and consequently to a more or less stable labour personnel. The unemployed of to-day are, as I said a moment ago, in large part those who were unemployed five or six years ago. In this connection I should like to quote a statement made recently by Doctor R. H. Coats, dominion statistician, who is this year president of the American Statistical Association. He made the statement it the annual meeting of that body, which took place in Detroit. As reported in the Vinnipeg Free Press, he said:
The problem is not that all or most workers are sometimes employed and sometimes not, but a differentiation which is hardening into two classes-the seldom unemployed and the seldom employed.
I would ask hon. members to listen to this. This statement was not made by a politician or a man who is interested in what the public thinks of what he says.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would it have been less true if it had been made by some person who is a politician?


Angus MacInnis: He made it because he thought it was true. I am not suggesting that even politicians say things which they believe to be untrue, just for the sake of saying them. Doctor Coats continued:
Thus the unemployed are, first, a sort of human scaffolding set aside when an expanding stage in enterprise is over; second, a series of discards as enterprise works out its operating requirements. *
I am a socialist, and many years ago my reading and study of economics led me to realize that the worker in industry is, so far as his employer is concerned, merely a ' factor in industry in the same way as the raw material, the machinery and the other elements which make up the product. If any proof is required of that, I consider the evidence of this government official is of value.


Mr. BAKER:: May I mention that many Ivho to-day are employers have been employees.


Angus MacInnis: Quite so, but just because a man has been an employee, it does not follow that he is any more considerate of his employees than if he had never been one.


Richard Langton Baker: Yes, it does.


Angus MacInnis: As a matter of fact the reverse is usually true.


Richard Langton Baker: No, it is not.
(Mr. Maclnnis.]


Angus MacInnis: And there is a reason for that.


Richard Langton Baker: There the hon. member is wrong.


Angus MacInnis: We must admit that this statement by Doctor Coats is true. But if we accept the truth of it, what are we going to do about it? It is of the nature of discards to deteriorate quickly, and human discards are no exception. If you are going to maintain the morale of the people you must keep those people continually in an environment which builds morale rather than destroys it. The moment people feel that they are discards, mere human scaffolding which has been set aside when the job has been finished, there begins a deterioration of the spiritual values which are necessary if we are to build an orderly human society. This country cannot afford to have a part of its population in the position of being mere factors in production, mere human scaffolding to be set aside when a certain process is finished. Nor can this country afford to have numbers of its people thrown on the scrap-heap as refuse once they have fulfilled the social need of the moment. If we attempt to do that our civilization will go the way of every civilization built on slave labour.
Last evening I read a statement which was made in this chamber by the Minister of Labour. I had read it, but before I reached the point of elaborating on it I was asked a question by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), and in answering it_ I forgot to comment on the statement. I wish to read that statement again and comment on it briefly. It was made in answer to the following question by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Landeryou) at page 3165:
Does the minister think that under the present economic system we shall ever be able to employ all the unemployed who are employable?
The minister replied:
Mr. Chairman, I am bound to say the hon. member has put a difficult question. I say that frankly to him. I did believe three years ago there was a reasonable prospect, given a return to normal conditions of international trade, that this country could absorb from year to year the annual accretion of potential wage-earners. Lacking normal conditions of trade, it lias not been possible for this country to do that thing.
When would the minister say that we ever had normal conditions of trade? If we take any particular period, say, the period from 1925, when we had relatively prosperous times, to 1929, when the collapse came, the question arises, what caused the break-down then? You could not blame that situation on disturbed world conditions such as exist to-day;

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
you could not blame it on any of the conditions that we have now such as economic nationalism and many other factors which we hear discussed.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, yes, of course we can.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are the major reasons.


Angus MacInnis: In almost every country there was the same prosperity, relatively speaking, as prevailed on the North American continent. And how is it that the United States of America, the country possibly best able to maintain itself, the most self-sustained country in the world, the country best provided with capital equipment, mechanical ability and skill, with a variety of products from sub-tropical to those of the temperate zones, is the one that felt most the effects of the economic depression of 1929? In that country free trade exists over a larger area than in any other part of the world; and if protection has any merits, the United States has had the benefits of protection to a larger extent than any other country. How, then, is it that that country was the one which felt most keenly the depression of 1929?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. member say, of all countries in the world?


Angus MacInnis: Yes.


Norman Jaques: Laugh that off.


Ross Wilfred Gray: It is a broad statement.


Angus MacInnis: I challenge any hon. member to rise in his place and say that any other country of comparable size experienced greater difficulties than did the United States, at least until 1933, when Roosevelt took office.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The difficulty in following what the hon. member has said is that he used the words "United States" when he meant "Canada".


Angus MacInnis: Oh, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, several times.


Angus MacInnis: No. I was taking the United States as an example. What I said applies to a lesser extent to Canada.
I have listened in the last few days, in fact in the last few years, to discussions on unemployment and solutions put forward for overcoming the problem; and as far as I can learn, the Liberal party, the government of the day, maintains that unemployment can be ended or lessened only by a great increase in foreign trade. Our Conservative friends believe the opposite, that unemployment can be cured only by an increase in domestic
trade, that is, by conserving the Canadian market for Canadian manufacturers and producers.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Leave out the word "only."


Angus MacInnis: I will do that if the hon.
member wishes it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Say "mainly."


Angus MacInnis: Well, mainly. My hon. friends to the left, the members of the Social Credit party, believe that unemployment can be abolished only by an increase in purchasing power, which according to them is an increase in the amount of money in circulation-that is, if I understand their theory rightly. What I want to point out is that there is one respect in which these three parties agree. They all believe that the planning of the production of the essentials, the comforts and the luxuries of life, the needs of the people, should be left under the control of private individuals.


John Horne Blackmore: May I make a correction?


Angus MacInnis: My time is limited.


John Horne Blackmore: What we hold is that what should be increased is the amount of money which goes into the hands of consumers-not merely, as the hon. member says, the amount of money in circulation.


Angus MacInnis: Very well. At any rate,
it means leaving the planning and control of industries in the hands of individuals, and that means leaving the livelihood of the people in the control of private monopoly. In other words, the three parties I have mentioned all believe in the private profitmaking system; and that the private profitmaking system is to-day a monopoly has been clearly demonstrated by every investigation into industry that has been taking place in Canada in the past several years. I need only refer to the price spreads and mass buying commission of 1934-35, and the Turgeon commission of 1936. Both these investigations prove my contention.
The group to which I belong, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, believes on the other hand, that unemployment and the problems associated with it are caused fundamentally by the profit economy itself. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) pointed out, unemployment has evolved from the economic system; but this does not mean that the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) was right when he said that we want the state to put everyone to work and to regulate every
3018	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
detail of everyone's life. What it does mean is that we cannot plan production and distribution in the interests of the people until we are able to exercise some control over the means of production.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was pointing out that to-day private industry had _ become private monopoly, that it was exploiting the people of the country. I should like to put on record in that regard the words of one who, I think, will be considered, at least by a large number of the members of this house, as a greater authority than I. I quote from Hansard for February 27, 1933, at page 2510. The speaker was the present right, hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). He on that occasion outlined the policy of the Liberal party on which they were returned to power in 1935. Referring to production and distribution, this in part is what he had to say:
The system of distribution of products needs overhauling. Distribution should be on a service at cost basis. The spread in prices is too great, as any comparison of prices paid to producers with prices consumers have to pay will make self evident.
For years we have been harping on that very fact, without any effect to date. Further on, during the same speech, the Prime Minister said:
Industry has been adversely affected by the control exercised over industry, not by industrial managers so much as by promoters and financiers. We believe the interlocking of directorates is one of the factors which on the one hand enables bankers to control industries, and on the other hand enables industrialists to control the banks. It is our. view that in that connection there is room for much in the way of reform.
That was said over six years ago, yet I submit that the present government has not taken one step to bring about those reforms. All we have is this same old bill to which hon. members opposite were objecting in 1935 and 1933.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And 1934.


Angus MacInnis: Yes_ This in fact is what we in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group have been saying for years. We have been saying that to-day industry, instead of being used to supply the needs of the people, is used to exploit the people. Without using the term "exploitation," the Prime Minister made it abundantly clear that
(Mr. Maclnnis.l
to-day the people are being exploited by the financiers and the industrialists, who are in fact the same people. That is a fact which, if I may say so in all kindliness, our Social Credit friends evidently cannot realize. I say "evidently cannot realize" because I am sure they are seeking for a way out of this difficulty just as earnestly as any of us.
Not only is production being curtailed today in the interests of profit making. In increasing measure private capital is refusing to do what we have been told so often was the only .justification for the toll it levied on the community; that is, it refuses to take the risks incidental to the investment of new capital or capital of any kind. In that regard I should like to quote very briefly from Canadian Business, which, I believe, is the official organ of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I am quoting from the issue of February, 1939, from an article reviewing economic prospects in Canada, the United States and Great Britain:
Following a 25 per cent improvement in American business during the last six months of 1938, a levelling-off is now being experienced. At the moment there is nothing to indicate anything more than a moderate curtailment in industrial production. There is nothing serious to liquidate. Securities are in strong hands; inventories are more or less normal; there is no over-expansion in industry; there has been no building boom. The sore spot is government spending.
From 1933 to 1937, the United States government spent its way to recovery. Consumption followed this spending. And private investment in capital goods followed on the heels of consumption. In 1937, there was an apparent amount of deficit spending on the part of Washington but a closer examination of the accounts show that, including social security taxes, the government balanced its books.
And note this:
This abrupt cheek in deficit Bpending affected consumption. As consumption was reduced, new private investment was at once postponed, and the stock markets went into a tail spin. In 1938, public spending was resumed and up went consumption and the stock market. But there has been virtually no resumption of new financing. Consequently, if government spending is to slacken its momentum, the effect on business might be immediate and sharp.
So that to-day private capital refuses to take chances and industry can be kept going only by government spending. And these same capitalists who will not invest their own capital object to government spending. I have just one more short quotation from page 18 of the March issue of the same magazine, from an article by S. C. Scobell, and this reference is to Canada:
Early in 1937, our favourable balance of trade was beginning to contract. This tended to squeeze us a little. The winter slump in the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
mining market checked the flow of new money into this industry. At the same time, the government started to balance its books in a most admirable fashion. Business was pleased, inventories were accumulated, but gradually consumption started to contract as government deficit spending on this continent virtually disappeared. New private investment-which had never acquired bold long term vision-was postponed. Savings remained idle and throughout most of 1938 Canadian business dragged listlessly. Of course, external influences have exerted a tremendous influence on our economy, but the failure of business to carry on in late 1936 and early 1937, when Ottawa stopped its deficit spending, and its failure to develop new investment outlets was partially responsible for the poor showing of our business index during 1938.
On March 15 the minister staked his hope of recovery on the expectation that private industry, private capital, would begin again to invest in new enterprises. But that, I submit, cannot be done to-day; first, because the field of investment is limited and is becoming increasingly so, and second, because the insecurity of private investment is also increasing daily.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Undertaking of measures.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Would this be the
proper point at which to refer to the completion of the construction of the trans-Canada highway?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That would be a proper subject under this section, I should think.


John Ritchie MacNicol: After one leaves Winnipeg on the way to Portage la Prairie by motor-car, for a distance of about twenty miles west of Winnipeg there is only a fair and at the same time narrow concrete road. Once one has completed that distance and leaves the concrete road, he must cover the balance of about forty miles over a gravel road. I had to do that on one occasion last summer. I do not know, of course, whether or not the concrete road has been completed since that time. But on the occasion I motored from Winnipeg to Portage la Prairie, an occasion when I had to travel very fast in order to catch a train, I found the road in extremely poor condition. It struck me at that time that there would be a real opportunity for this government to assist the Manitoba government in continuing the concrete highway from Winnipeg to Portage la Prairie. That would be good work, and would give much needed employment.


Mr. CRERAR:: Perhaps I could say a
word in regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Davenport. Practically all or at any rate the greater part of the allotment made last year to Manitoba for tourist roads was spent on hard-surfacing the trans-Canada highway between the Ontario boundary and Portage la Prairie, including the road from Winnipeg to Portage la Prairie.


John Ritchie MacNicol: From the Ontario
boundary?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: To where?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Portage la Prairie.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did it get that far?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, it is hard-surfaced from the Ontario boundary to Portage la Prairie. That work was completed last year. Out of the appropriation we are asking parliament to approve, that work will be further carried on between Portage la Prairie and Brandon, during the present year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is splendid work.


Robert James Manion: Since the question of the construction of the trans-Canada highway has come up, could the Minister of Labour tell me the position with regard to the building of that highway between Sault Ste. Marie and Fort William and Port Arthur? I ask the Tninister that question because I remember one of the last things we did when we were in power was to pass a grant-quite a huge one, if I remember rightly-for the construction of that road. But something happened to it, and I do not think it has gone on very far. I am curious to know what happened to that road iu thedast two or three years. I know it is not continued through; some of the rivers are not crossed. I believe it is built east from Port Arthur and Fort William to just below Schreiber, but from Schreiber on through White River and down to the Sault there has been nothing done, so far as I know, in a big way, although west of the Sault some miles have been built. Can the minister say what the position of the road is at the present time?
Mr, ROGERS: What my hon. friend has stated is correct. As I recall the circumstances when we came into office, a considerable sum had been set apart under relief legislation fm that section of the trans-Canada highway, and that work was continued during the currency of the then existing agreement, which ran until March 31. In succeeding, years we have applied our appropriations in Ontario to projects which have been submitted to us
3020	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
by the provincial government. I know that some money has been expended on that section, but I have not at hand the actual amount so expended.


Robert James Manion: Then, when the minister's estimates are up would he have the matter looked into and at that time give me a more complete statement as to the position?
In addition to that, in looking over governor general's warrants which have been passed in the last year or two I noted one for about a million dollars which I was told was to be used in dealing with the roads in the section of which I speak. So if the minister would combine that question with the other one, taking the trans-Canada highway in general, perhaps he would let me know, when his estimates are again considered in committee, what information he has. He could make his statement, even though I were not here, and if he were to do so I should be very much obliged.
Perhaps I might take a minute or so to say that I am anxious to have this information. The trans-Canada highway has been completed, largely, across Canada to-day, although part may be gravel road, as the hon. member for Davenport has said. Some of the highway, for example, between Fort William and Winnipeg-until recently, at any rate- was gravel road. The Minister of Mines and Resources has said that from the Ontario boundary to Winnipeg it is now hard-surfaced. The other part, from Fort William to Kenora, may be also, but I doubt it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, it is not.


Robert James Manion: To-day a man may go
across Canada on the trans-Canada highway, from one coast to the other, with the exception of that very beautiful section, from the point of view of picturesque beauty, round the north shore of lake Superior, from Sault Ste. Marie to Schreiber or thereabouts. I believe from the point of view of the tourist industry, which is of so much importance to us, and which each year brings us in in the neighbourhood of $275,000,000 or $300,000,000, that it is of the utmost value to have that section of the highway completed.
I submit the idea to the Minister of Labour. Perhaps he is familiar with it; but if he is not, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), who comes from Port Arthur, would be. I would greatly appreciate it, if the minister were soon to make a statement, and particularly if he would make the statement that the work will be pushed as far as possible, when the time comes, in regard to spending money on that northern road.
FMr. Rogers.]
I may add one further word. There has been a dispute as to the route to be taken. There were those who wanted the road to go north from Toronto, up the Ferguson highway and round by Cochrane, then to swing down towards White River. Then there were those who wanted it to go from North Bay and Sudbury to the Sault and then round the shore of the lake. That seemed to me the more logical route because it was more heavily populated. But I think it was finally decided by our government and has probably been followed by the present government as a line of least resistance, that probably both would be built. I do not know, either, about the road round by Cochrane.
Mr. Hereford, who sits in front of the minister, will be familiar with the matter. The officers in the department are, I am sure, familiar with it, and I would appreciate it if the minister would, at an appropriate time, give a more complete statement than he gave to-night, whether or not I happen to be in the house.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be glad indeed to obtain a report concerning the position of the trans-Canada highway in that section of the dominion. I would simply say at this time that so far as the route itself is concerned, the designation has always been made by the provincial government concerned, and accepted here without any variation so far as I am aware. The route which was so designated by the Ontario government was that which is now referred to by the leader of the opposition, namely from Sault Ste. Marie to Port Arthur.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I am usually in accord with the leader of the opposition, but to his reference to the superlative natural beauties of the highway in his own vicinity I must take exception, and point out to him that if he has traversed the possible route through the district of Parry Sound he would be rather giving credit to that route as being even superior to the natural beauties of his own constituency.


Robert James Manion: I will not dispute even that. I like the hon. member too much to dispute with him in regard to such a matter as this. But the part I referred to was farther north. I will say this, that the part I referred to is the most beautiful in the northern part, and I have no doubt the part to which he refers is the most beautiful in the southern part- all of which shows how peaceful and law-abiding I am.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I understand the moneys appropriated for the trans-Canada highway

. Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
are spent in cooperation with the provincial government; in fact, they really decide where the money is to be spent.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Correct.


Major James William Coldwell: If the question of the trans-Canada highway is to be considered, might we not have a statement from the minister as to what has been done? When I was in northern Saskatchewan last summer I was told that there was under consideration the changing of the route of this highway so that it would run through northern Saskatchewan instead of through southern Saskatchewan. As that was at the time of the Humboldt by-election, I am not sure whether there was any truth in the statement. I think we should have the matter cleared up and be told exactly where the trans-Canada highway is to run.
I am in agreement with the policy suggested by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) of hard-surfacing these roads. We shall not get the United States tourist to come across our prairies unless we have some kind of hard surface on our roads. For a number of years it has been my custom to drive east and west, and sometimes when going to British Columbia I have taken the United States route No. 2 across the Dakotas and Montana. When travelling that route I have always met a number of Canadians, as well as a number of Americans who have expressed the hope of visiting Canada some day, but they feared to do so because of our dusty roads. Last summer I saw an article, I believe it was in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, reporting a dispatch from one of the Chicago papers-again I am not sure, but I think it was the Tribune-which actually warned people not to attempt to travel across the Canadian prairies because of the dusty roads. They were not warning people against the dust storms, they were warning them against the dusty roads.
I approve the suggestion that federal assistance should be given to permit the hard-surfacing of some of these roads. I refer not only to roads running east and west, but also to those running north and south. There are a number of roads running into our national parks. In Saskatchewan, I am thinking particularly of highway No. 4, which runs from Swift Current to North Battleford, then connects with a highway to Prince Albert. These roads run up to the Prince Albert national park, a wonderful prairie park situated in the northern part of Saskatchewan. I believe that either one or both of these roads ought to be dust-proofed, if I may put it in that way.
instead of hard-surfaced, which term the Ontario members apply to concrete highways. If we are to retain and increase the tourist traffic across Canada, we shall have to do something to eliminate dusty highways. I should like the minister to give us some information regarding the route of the trans-Canada highway and what policy is being carried out in an effort to persuade the provincial governments to carry on a program acceptable to the government.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I take it that my hon. friend is quite content to leave this until my estimates are before the committee, or possibly until the estimates of the Minister of Mines and' Resources are before us. Until last year, the money expended on the trans-Canada highway came from the appropriations of the Department of Labour. A change was made last year and the appropriations are now made under the Department of Mines and Resources. In the supplementary estimates of that department there is an item this year to cover expenditures on tourist highways. The information wanted can be given when my supplementary estimates are before the committee, or when the Minister of Mines and Resources is dealing with his.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Rosetown - Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), but at the same time I do not want him to steal the show altogether. I desire to present certain claims in connection with tourist roads of Manitoba. The first highway is No. 10, which runs from the peace garden at the boundary between Manitoba and North Dakota to Riding Mountain and Clear lake. This could be made one of the finest scenic highways in the dominion. I have travelled over most of the highways in the dominion, so I am not speaking at random when I make that statement. This highway is in urgent need' of surfacing and being made a permanent road. I did not intend to speak to-night, but I could not let the opportunity pass of putting in the strongest claim possible that this road should receive much needed attention. It would be possible to bring large numbers of tourists over this route from the central states, but they will not come into Canada and travel over the dusty roads that we have at the present time. The peace garden is one of the unique institutions of Canada. It is not yet completed, but a great deal of work has been done, especially on the United States side. Clear lake is, beyond any question, one of the beauty spots in Canada. I urge the immediate improvement of highway No. 10, as well as highway No. 1. the trans-Canada.
3022	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon on the second reading of this bill it was suggested by the Speaker that I should reply when the bill was in committee to two questions which had been put to me, and I think I can do that now on this section 3. The hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght)-I thought he was present in the chamber-put a question to me to which I was not permitted to give a complete answer. I was not imputing motives to the premier of Ontario or the premier of Quebec, but I had understood that each of these gentlemen at some time recently declared that the responsibility for the solution of these social problems, which we were discussing this afternoon, and for the appropriation of the money which will be required for the solution of these problems, was the sole responsibility of the dominion parliament and the dominion government. Associated with those declarations were further pronouncements, as I understood, that they as the premiers of those two provinces were not in favour of any amendment to the British North America Act which would make it clear that this parliament might lawfully appropriate moneys for those purposes.
I was merely suggesting this afternoon that [DOT] a decision should be obtained from the highest judicial authority as to the responsibility of the dominion parliament and the dominion government, and as to whether the revenues in the dominion consolidated fund might lawfully be appropriated for those purposes. If a decision were given that it was not lawful to make such appropriations, I have confidence in the two premiers to whom I have referred sufficient to believe that each of them would thereupon agree to such amendments to the British North America Act as would clearly authorize the parliament of Canada to make such appropriations and clearly authorize the dominion government to administer such appropriations for the purposes to which they were to be applied. But, before we can come to an agreement with the several provinces or reach a sound basis of negotiation, it seems to me necessary, and expedient as well, that a judicial determination should be obtained as to what our duties and responsibilities are, and as to what extent we may make appropriations of dominion funds for those purposes.
I wish also to make a remark to my hon. friend the member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson), and to say that I can see no inconsistency ^ whatever in the position I have taken through' out a long number of years with regard to the authority of the federal parliament. I gave this afternoon certain suggested inferences from a very recent decision of the judicial

committee. Whether I was drawing proper inferences and the same inferences which the judicial committee itself would draw depends upon a further discussion of this question before the supreme court and the judicial committee, and that is all I am suggesting.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who, I regret, is not now present, also made a strong presentation of the humanitarian point of view. I shall not take any exception to what he said because I have not the facts before me which would enable me to do so, and therefore I presume that the quotations which he made are a correct statement of the actual facts. But the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is intolerant of any suggestion in favour of procuring judicial interpretations of the British North America Act. To him I say that we are not free, under a federal system, to make appropriations for all purposes. Our legislative authority is circumscribed by the terms of the British North America Act, and therefore in order that we may act conscientiously, seriously, and may I add, honestly, in the discharge of our duties, it is necessary that we should from time to time be instructed by judicial authority as to the extent of our legislative and administrative powers.
I confess that while I have great sympathy with suffering, and especially the suffering of those who are not employed, I still cannot sympathize to the full with the attitude which the hon. member took this afternoon. The veiy fact that people are in necessitous circumstances, suffering and in need of assistance, does not justify a man taking money from the first treasury upon which he can lay his hands in order to remedy the evil and provide relief for such suffering. I remember seeing the other day a plea made by an official of a prominent bank who had misappropriated and expended some thousands of dollars, to the effect that his family were in need, his wife and family were sick and required medical care, and so he had appropriated-the court said "misappropriated"-some of the funds of the bank under his care for the purpose of providing medical attendance and care for his wife and family.
The situation is pretty nearly the same if we make appropriations of public funds of which we are trustees for purposes which we know to be invalid and illegal. There is a doubt as to the validity of these appropriations; everyone will admit that. But we are going on, and I have no objection to going on temporarily, making and administering these [DOT] appropriations. But I do say that as members of this parliament performing a public trust it is our duty and responsibility to see

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
that these doubts are removed and settled by the highest judicial authority possible. If that judicial authority in its final judgment shall decide that the appropriations which we have made and are now making are invalid and illegal, then we should take the position that we shall cease making them unless the governments of the several provinces will agree with us to modify the terms of the British North America Act to such an extent, at least, as will enable us to make such appropriations valid and legal for the future.
One other remark I would have made to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if he were present, and that is that in discussing this act on the second reading I was not dealing with permanent relief. If he had taken the trouble to read this bill he would have seen that the appropriations which are being made for relief expire on March 31, 1940. They extend for one year only. It is true that in another section of the bill there are certain provisions for renewals of loans and advances already made but extending beyond March 31, 1940. But in respect of the relief for the indigent and the unemployed, that seotion expires, if I read the terms correctly, on March 31, 1940. So that we are here dealing only temporarily with the subject matter which I was discussing; and my contention was that, certainly within the year if possible, before this relief measure expires and before the government should come to parliament with another relief measure, the necessary procedure ought to be taken for a reference to the supreme court and to the judicial committee to ascertain exactly where we are and what we may do in a valid and legal manner.
Such a final decision from the judicial committee would enable the government and parliament to deal with embarrassing questions as to the validity of the appropriations which we are now making, and also enable the government to place before the premiers of the several provinces the fact that, in view of the decision of the judicial committee, which would then be finally obtained, it is necessary to have the consent of the provincial governments to such modifications of the British North America Act as will render such appropriations valid and legal. I am not making any partisan presentation of the case; I am simply dealing with a matter which, if studied, will prove embarrassing to most hon. members when they are brought face to face with the agitation which is being carried on from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to the effect that it is the sole duty and responsibility of the government and parliament of Canada to make the appropriations 71492-191
for relief which all citizens regard as necessary. I am not discussing the extent of relief; that is a matter for consideration each year; but I am dealing with the fact that these doubts should be allayed before parliament and especially before the electors can give a serious and conscientious decision upon the issues which have been placed before them.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The main point I wished to make this afternoon when I commented on what the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George had said was this, that it would be premature to refer this question to the supreme court now, that it would be much better to wait until after the Rowell commission had made its report, because there may be a number of other questions, relating to the respective spheres of jurisdiction of the dominion and the provinces, and desirable changes within confederation, which will come up, and it would seem to me that it would be unwise to refer the one question to the court at this stage in advance of receiving that report from that national commission which has been studying this and many other questions.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My reply to that, Mr. Chairman, is this, that the commission which is making a report cannot resolve this problem.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No. Quite so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is not within their authority or their jurisdiction.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Quite so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is within the authority
and jurisdiction of the courts, and therefore should be solved by a reference. I think it would be far better if the problem were resolved before a general election, because I believe the government will find a great deal of confusion in the public mind with regard t^ the duties and responsibilities of this government; and if it were resolved before the termination of the fiscal year which will end March 31, 1940, we would have a clear understanding, not only in the minds of hon. members but throughout the length and breadth of this land, as to what the respective rights of this parliament and of the legislatures are in the premises. I think it would be better to have these doubts resolved. But that is merely a matter of opinion and does not affect the real argument and statement which I endeavoured to make this afternoon in clear and comprehensible terms.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the absence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) I shall not attempt to speak with any authority upon the

3024	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
legal question raised by my hon. friend. I listened carefully and with great interest to his reasoning in support of his contention this afternoon. I agree entirely with him that there has been a great deal of confusion in the public mind as to the respective spheres of responsibility in relation to this whole question of unemployment relief. In what he said this afternoon he acknowledged that the late administration, when this system of giving grants in aid to the provinces was first initiated, did so under legislation which declared specifically, I believe, that the action was taken under the peace, order and good government clause of the British North America Act; and subsequently, in the preamble that intention was made even more definitely clear by a reference not merely to an emergency condition with respect to unemployment but also to the emergency condition which had arisen in the western provinces as a result of drought.
I take it that my hon. friend feels that the judgment given by the privy council in the unemployment and social insurance case makes it even more clear than it was before that it is actually beyond the constitutional power of the dominion parliament to apply funds from the consolidated revenue fund to objects which in their pith and substance are provincial and fall within section 92 of the British North America Act. That, I take it, was the deduction which he drew from the judgment of the privy council.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not think that it was in doubt then, but I know now that it is in doubt.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I just wonder, and I speak with some diffidence on this point, if the judgment itself is conclusive on that point.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think it is, quite,
but I think a fair inference from it is the negative of the powers which we are now assuming to exercise.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I understood that to be
the conclusion reached by my hon. friend. But there is just this point, that in the earlier portion of the judgment the court rejects the contention that the unemployment insurance act could be based upon the emergency theory under peace, order and good government, the ground being taken that unemployment insurance clearly contemplated a continuing machinery for dealing with a continuing problem, therefore the emergency was excluded.	.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Are we not now assuming
that relief is a continuing burden for either the provinces or the dominion, or both?
'Mr. Rogers.]


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well,- Mr. Chairman, I
agree that we have probably gone some distance in reaching the conclusion that some permanent machinery has become necessary in order to deal with that problem. But I think the argument on that point is more conclusive in relation to unemployment insurance, which definitely sets up permanent machinery, than it would be with respect to grants in aid to the provinces to deal with the existing unemployment situation and the drought conditions in the western provinces. I am sure, however, that the Minister of Justice will give his own close attention to what has been said by my hon. friend, and if he agrees with him I have no doubt that he will take whatever action can be taken wisely at this time to resolve any doubts which may exist in regard to this matter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should like one moment to reply, if I may, and to say this, that it is useless for the Minister of Labour as for me to. labour the argument on this issue. What inference he draws from the decision of the judicial committee, or what inference I may personally draw from that decision, is utterly futile for determining the real issue which I raised this afternoon. I think the minister himself, by the statement which he has just made, recognizes that there is a grave doubt as to the application of that decision. I ask that such doubts be resolved, because I am thoroughly convinced that, if this parliament is vouchsafed legislative and administrative authority to deal with these social problems, we have sufficient intelligence, resolution and determination in this parliament to solve these problems satisfactorily. But in order that we may proceed satisfactorily to the alleviation of the distress which we all recognize as existing, it is necessary that the foundations on which we build should be solid and not liable to be set aside-well, I was going to say- by a captious decision of gentlemen who are members of the British privy council, sitting in a narrow room in London, without much knowledge of the conditions which prevail in this country, and which we are endeavouring to meet by our legislative and administrative action.


Mr. LENNARD:: Subsection 2 of section 3, I notice, is for the employment of persons who, being available and competent, are necessarily and properly in receipt of assistance and registered with the employment service of Canada for employment in the province in which the work is to be done. As I interpret this provision, it eliminates a class of people who are very much in need of assistance, namely, the younger people over twenty-one

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
who are kept by their parents and have never been on relief. Is that the situation? Is it necessary that a person should be in receipt of assistance before becoming eligible under the legislation?


Norman McLeod Rogers: If the hon. member will read the entire clause he will see that the requirement of registration with the employment service of Canada is not all-inclusive. It is considered desirable that it should be applied where employment can be obtained conveniently through the employment service, but obviously there are places where there are no branches of the employment service now established. As to the receipt of assistance, that again is not mandatory, and it has been interpreted in a manner which has not inflicted any undue hardship upon the class for whom-my hon. friend speaks.


Mr. CHURCH:: This bill must be judged in the light of experience. We have had experience for three or four years of the working of the provisions contained in this measure. The bill has been weighed in the balance and has been found wanting, and it is among those things that have been condemned in briefs which have been submitted to the Rowell commission. The minister apparently is going to postpone, until the receipt of that commission's report, any measure of active relief for the unemployed, from the point of view of unemployment insurance, but he is willing to perpetuate the mistakes that have already been made. These mistakes have been fatal to the principles of section 3 of this bill.
In the first place, according to decisions handed down in the courts, this parliament has jurisdiction only, first, if an emergency exists and, second, if what is undertaken is for the general advantage of Canada. The minister smiles, -but that is correct. His predecessor, Mr. Heenan, stated as Minister of Labour that this parliament had nothing to do with unemployment. He said that unemployment was a matter for the provinces and municipalities. Well, that was all changed by the introduction of relief under this bill. The old state of affairs has been altered. Under the former administration agreements were made direct with the larger municipalities. In the municipalities of Ontario and of Quebec we find the people who are paying eighty-five per cent of the taxes collected by the dominion. This money goes into the consolidated revenue fund and is derived from various sources, including sales tax and income tax, and these large municipalities, under this bill, must deal with the provinces.
71492-19X4
For the last three years I have been moving for a return under section 3 of these unemployment relief measures, and the papers brought down have disclosed some interesting facts. I am not quarrelling with anything done for Montreal, which is an industrial city from which a good deal of revenue is obtained. But what has Montreal been given? Municipal and local works of all kinds-macadam roads, parks, botanical gardens, schools, hospitals, roadways and driveways; and we find that Three Rivers has been given a courthouse and other municipal institutions-because the province of Quebec is friendly to the government. But in Ontario did we get any such hand-outs? No. The minister smiles, and he is from Ontario.
Yesterday, in paying a tribute to him, I admitted that his position was a- difficult, tiresome and thankless one. It nearly killed two members of our party, his predecessors, in this house. I should like to take some of the heavy burden off the minister and his officials, and I recommend that he look into the Couzens report in the United States. What was their policy? They appointed Mr. Hopkins, who has the handling of relief for 127,000,000 people, and under his policy there is a standard plan which, if applied to Canada, would require that Hamilton, for example, in order to get any municipal institutions should conform to certain standard federal plans and conditions laid down to qualify for any work. They would have to say whether the money was to come out of income or capital; they would have to indicate the term of the bonds, whether the work was in the public interest, what the municipal debt was, the necessity of the work, the labour provided, and so on. In my opinion, as I said yesterday, the policy of this government under this bill is simply a Santa Claus handout policy. They are handing out benefits just as Santa Claus hands out presents at Christmas. I have just referred to the courthouse at Three Rivers and I am glad the people there got it. But when we ask for similar favours in Ontario we cannot get them or hardly anything. There may be a little difference of opinion between the province of Ontario and the dominion, and for that reason the governor in council declines to make any recommendation under section 3; or if he does make a recommendation, the province of Ontario will not recommend these local works and so we get nothing.
There are some other objections to the bill. It is not in the public interest that we should continue the present system which, I repeat, has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. In the first place the bill
3026	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
does not create employment, nor is there any standard plan or any estimate of the cost. We have simply an agreement between this parliament and certain favoured provinces, and those provinces get all the plums at the expense of others. The government is just a Santa Claus handing out presents. Why, the city of Ottawa receives consideration under this bill and some six or seven acts and agreements. Other places should get equality of treatment. It gets votes which no other municipality can get. I have found about six agreements under which Ottawa obtains assistance. I am not objecting to that, but I want to see the same way of helping other places.
The explanatory note declares that this bill is in the same form as the act of 1938, with the addition of assistance in respect to youth training, and section 3 provides that the governor in council may, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, authorize the execution of such undertakings as the governor in council may determine.
In the return I received there were nearly 1,600 different items, and I found that Ontario was getting very little if anything under this or any other act. Ontario does not even come under the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, because the government at Queens Park say they will not have anything to do with that sort of thing except some roads of their own. It seems to me the principle of section 3 is this by provinces: To him that hath shall be given and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. That is the principle of the whole legislation. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) is on the good roads commission of York township; I want him to listen to this discussion, because he should not be asking the city of Toronto or the province of Ontario to hand out money for good roads there when he can come here to Ottawa like people in other provinces and get-money supplied almost entirely by the people of this country generally.
My contention, Mr. Chairman, is that there should be equality of treatment under this section; that whatever money is voted and whatever measures are put into effect dealing with specific works, there should be equality of treatment as between the provinces. We need a new system along the lines of the recommendations of the Purvis commission, a national policy, so that this parliament will not have to deal with this question every year. The provinces, municipalities and local communities should help; so should these corporations referred to in this bill. We are proceeding in a haphazard manner.

This section also deals with agricultural distress. In other words this is not under section 3 a two-base or three-base vote; it is a home run for the agricultural people, who have this and five other bills under which they may receive assistance from this parliament.
As to the rules and regulations which may be made, I think he who pays the piper should call the tune, and that is the industrial provinces, which pay 82 per cent of the cash taxes. Ontario alone pays 41 per cent of the taxes, and it receives little or nothing in return. The premier of Ontario says he is not going to come to Ottawa with his hat in his hand asking for votes under this bill for a Toronto sewer, and will not contribute a cent. All kinds of federal buildings and undertakings throughout Canada are being paid for under this section, including airports, post offices and a hundred and one other things, but we do not get anything, not even pin money in Toronto and little in Ontario except votes for roads in new Ontario. I doubt if the hon. member for Parkdale would get enough to pay for a macadam road anywhere in his good roads system, and I hope he will have something to say about the matter tonight. In the light of our experience I do not believe this section ever shoidd have been passed. I venture to say that if, when this provision was first introduced, we had known how these votes would be handed out, with some places getting a great deal and others getting nothing, with some provinces paying practically nothing for relief and others paying most of the cost and getting nothing, with some provinces getting permanent works at the expense of the other provinces, we never would have adopted it.
This system should not be continued. A new system is wanted. The present system was condemned in a brief presented to the Rowell commission by the government of Ontario. That province was represented before the commission by a lawyer who presented a brief; a large sum of money was spent in preparing that brief, and it condemned the system under which a province like Ontario, which pays such a large share of the taxes, gets little or nothing in return. Under this bill Ontario is made the goat of confederation. It is not fair. The minister comes from a city in Ontario; he is rather an able young man. and I am surprised that he does not do something for his own province, or help to get Ontario to agree to the legislation. Ontario is an old province, but we do not ask for everything. I believe the principle of confederation should be what is well expressed

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
in the old Cornish battle cry, "Each for all and all for each." If something is done for the benefit of the maritimes it is for the benefit of Ontario; but when I see favouritism, with some places getting all the benefits and others getting nothing, I do not think it is fair. A person may have to pay for a roadway in front of his own property, while another municipality can have fifty per cent of the cost of a similar roadway paid under this section and part by a province. You take Fleet street and University avenue in Toronto; the city had to pay for the construction and has to maintain those roads. If we were in another province we might have fifty per cent of that cost contributed by the dominion and a further contribution by the province. The system should be changed. The minister and his officials are overworked, but I believe we should call a halt, change this system here and now, and deal directly with the larger municipalities. I think we should cease handing out money in this way at the expense of the industrial workers of Ontario and Quebec.
This is a haphazard system of handling this problem. In the prairie provinces it does not cost them anything for relief; they are getting it at the expense of the whole dominion. At the present time there are five or six other relief bills on the order paper which are intended to benefit the people of the west. I believe that during the recess of parliament the minister should carefully consider the whole system and get a new one and deal directly with the large cities. I believe that we should have a national policy to deal with unemployment and that any grants of money should be under a standard plan approved by the dominion, with whom all should meet. The late government dealt directly with Vancouver and other large cities in this country and got results. Where does the revenue come from? It comes from the industrial cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, London, Windsor, Vancouver, Winnipeg and so on, yet one of the industrial provinces, Ontario, can get none or little of this money. Under this section the minister, through the governor in council, can choose the provinces, the works and the measures. That is unfair; it is discrimination; it is not for the general advantage of Canada. We are overtaxed and over-governed in this country, yet we are continuing under this principle which was condemned in five or six briefs before the Rowell commission.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member who has just spoken dealt at the same time with sections 3 and 4. Section 3 is a general clause which provides for the spending by the
governor in council of money appropriated by parliament for the purposes of this act; and the moneys so appropriated are shown in the supplementary estimates which shortly will be before this house for consideration.
I should like to remove the impression left by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) that there has been either intentional or unconscious discrimination as between the provinces with respect to the amounts made available under this legislation. Consider the relative positions of Ontario and Quebec last year, for example. The monthly grant to Ontario was $465,000, while the monthly grant to Quebec was $400,000. It so happened, however, that these two provinces dealt in different ways with the moneys received. The provincial government of Quebec adopted a policy whereby they very largely substituted relief works for direct relief. The provincial government of Ontario, on the other hand, preferred to adhere to the existing system under which relief was given, in the main, without work being provided in return. That being the case, no doubt my hon. friend could find certain projects in the province of Quebec assisted by dominion funds, while he would not find similar projects so assisted in Ontario. The reason, however, is as I have indicated. There has been no dircrimination as between Ontario and Quebec in the allocation of funds


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not wish to be captious, but I direct the minister's attention to line 23 of section 3 which authorizes the performance of such acts, and so on, as the governor in council " may deem necessary and expedient." Would it not be as well to leave out "expedient" or to leave out "necessary"? It may be found that some things are necessary that are not expedient, and some things are expedient that are not necessary.


Norman McLeod Rogers: This is the way in which the bill has come to us from the draftsmen in the Department of Justice. I am bound to say I have no particular affection for the words as they are given here. I assume it is a repetition of the phrase which has occurred in earlier bills of this kind. Just what effect it would have if it were entirely omitted, I am not prepared to say. I would be quite ready to take the word of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George that the effect would be nil, if the words were omitted. But perhaps as they are here, and the bill has come in this way from the draftsmen-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We are getting a reputation not only throughout this country but in others for our draftsmanship, which is not always as careful as it should be.
3028	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, may I add a few words in connection with relief works and the bill under discussion. I would not like to enter into an acrimonious controversy with provincial governments, but I think the government of the province of Quebec to-day raises the gratuitous accusation that the dominion government refuses its cooperation in the matter of relief works. I feel bound to take part in the discussion in order to give some facts for the information of my province so that its people may judge on their merits the opposing factions and give each one its share of responsibility.
A few years ago, after the coming into power of the conservative government in Quebec, Mr. Duplessis and some of his colleagues came to Ottawa to seek the assistance of the dominion government. If I am not mistaken, they received a grant of approximately $2,000,000 for different works. I will not attempt to mention all the projects undertaken jointly by the provincial and the federal authorities in the province of Quebec. I will refer only to project No. 17, in connection with the highway from Mont Laurier to Senneterre, which has been carried out with funds provided partly by the province and partly by the dominion. We have contributed to that project from $70,000 to $75,000, I think. An agreejnent was concluded between the two governments under which political considerations were to be excluded, and the construction of the highway would be entirely under the direction of the provincial authorities.
We succeeded, thanks to the intervention of the federal Minister of Labour, in having inspectors appointed, whose sole duty was to check the payrolls. It is unnecessary to add, Mr. Chairman, that these inspectors had no jurisdiction to point out any irregularities which might occur in the execution of the work. In the course of an interview which I had at the time with the Minister of Labour at Ottawa I expressed strong doubts regarding the sincerity of the Quebec government. As it was just after the National Union government's victories of August, 1936, we had to be very careful, the verdict of Quebec having been conclusive to a degree. However, I opposed then as I do now the Dominion government's contributing to unemployment relief works in Quebec province without having the opportunity and privilege of controlling the expenditures.
My apprehensions were justified, Mr. Chairman. I have in my hand a detailed report made by two detectives who visited the spot and found extraordinary anomalies in the

administration of the work on the highway between Mont Laurier and Senneterre on the section conducted by a man named Moore, of Maniwaki. I shall not read the report in full, but simply point out certain facts which will enlighten the people of my province as well as this government. These facts will also serve to indicate the procedure which should be followed in future. As I say, Mr. Chairman, no control was exercised over these relief works. For instance, the detectives say:
In groups of 25 to 30, the men were brought to their working place in trucks, with their belongings. As it was a long trip and the weather was bad, the trucks offered no protection against wind and cold, and the men suffered very much from the cold during that trip.
On their arrival, the men were taken to the clerk's office and, after registering, were told to report to one or several foremen under whom they were to work.


Mr. McDONALD (Pontiac):: It was in
winter?


Maurice Lalonde: In the fall, I think.
The men received three pairs of woollen blankets each and slept 24 in a canvas tent measuring 16 by 24.' In some tents, the ground was covered with branches; in others, with a wood floor, on which the men had to make their bed. For a mattress, the men had to carry hay from bales piled in the yard. They did not mind breaking open several bales to get clean and dry hay.
As there was no warehouse for storing supplies, everything was lying about in the yard. There were barrels of gasoline, oil and grease, food, hay and so on. As these supplies, hay, for instance, were left without protection, the men had to carry a large quantity of wet, damp, heated or mouldy hay to find some which they could use.
Through a lack of organization, men were forced to sleep and eat in groups as best they could, with consequent indescribable disorder. One man in each tent was detailed to look after the fire during the day and another during the night. Even red hot stoves failed to keep the men warm and dry, and they often had to sleep in their wet clothes.
Sanitary conditions were non-existent. No one in authority would concern himself about them; filth was everywhere around the tents and about the camps and the air was foul with it all. Some tents were old and torn, affording no protection against the rain and cold. Poor sleeping quarters, lack of even the most elementary sanitary regulations, scarcity of balanced rations, all tended to create much discontent. Representations were made to the foremen requesting improved conditions, but without avail.
Failing any organization and with everyone having ready access to supplies, pilfering on a high scale was an easy matter. Men would go and take woollen blankets, obtaining more than they were entitled to. Wagon and truck drivers also helped themselves. They would often take new ones on each succeeding trip and they would not be seen bringing back the old ones.

Unemployment and, Agricultural Distress
The report goes on to state that a foreman by the name of Jos. Poirier said that about 1,100 woollen blankets had vanished and that he had been unable to trace them.


Wallace Reginald McDonald: Eleven hundred pairs of blankets?


Maurice Lalonde: Yes, 1,100 pair, 2,200 blankets. And that is not all:
There was too much of certain foodstuffs and not enough of others, so that, at first, meals were not properly balanced. The rate of 90 cents per day for board and lodging was deemed prohibitive with the result that strikes and disturbances were impending. After some representations had been made to the foremen rates were reduced to 50 cents per day.
And further, Mr. Chairman:
Camp No. 1, that is, the main division which was the centre of the works and equipment consisted in 22 frame buildings.
Those buildings had been built with funds provided by both governments. I continue:
A portable saw-mill was brought and used in connection with the logs cut down in the nearby forest. Huge quantities of boards were used in building some of the shacks. As they were available in such large quantities, the waste was considerable. It is impossible to give figures which might afford even an approximate estimate of the money spent on wasted lumber. Organization and coordination were lacking altogether. Whenever a piece of board was needed, it was cut from a full length board and the remainder thrown away. No control was exercised on the job by the foremen, which explains much of the waste. Buildings were erected in other camps under the same wasteful conditions.
In camp No. 1, the first buildings that were erected were for the use of Superintendent Atkinson and the clerk, after which stables, stores and warehouses were built. The buildings in which the men were to be housed were the last to be erected. This was a cause of dissatisfaction among the men who claimed that animals had precedence over them. However, the teamsters stated that the men already had tents at their disposal, that their horses had no shelter and could not be left out of doors after a hard day's work, that the canvas shelters set up for the horses were too damp and that it was preferable to leave the latter in the open lest they should become sick.
In camps No. 2 and No. 3, decayed lumber was used for the erection of buildings. Too large quantities of that material had been taken there and left unsheltered in the open. The carpenters had to use it for building the shacks. In that camp, as well as in the others, materials and provisions were left in the open, with the result that a large quantity of them was spoilt and later had to be thrown away. Kegs of nails which were still nearly full had been left uncovered and the contents had rusted in the rain. Being useless, the nails were left there. Kegs were opened indiscriminately, and the contents of many of them were spilt over the ground. Such facts were reported to the foremen, but the waste continued unchecked.
That camp was in a state of utter confusion. No one invested with authority took the trouble of doing anything to prevent such abuses.
Mr. Chairman, I could quote the whole report, but I do not want to take up more time. What I. wish to show is that there was no semblance of organization in those relief works and that the federal government was justified in refusing to make any furthei contribution towards works of that character. I even claim, Mr. Chairman, that if the federal authorities had continued to follow that course, they would, in my opinion, have been party to robbery and graft. Some 50 men from the constituency of Labelle were given work on project No. 17.
Other men remain on the job with the intention of doing as little as possible and avoiding work whenever they could.
The group from Three Rivers-
Incidentally, I may say that a number of unemployed from Three Rivers were sent to this district, thus displacing the unemployed of Labelle and Gatineau counties.

conducted to the office of assistant superintendent J. Poirier informed the latter and anyone else who would listen that they had been sent by Maurice and that they had not come there to work. If that does not suit you, they said, let us know and we will see about it. Faced with that ultimatum J. Poirier is reported to have told them not to get excited and that he would look after them. They were assigned to foreman J. Turpin. Not one of them was ever seen to do a stroke of work and one of them was heard to say on several occasions: "I broke an axehandle and the whole bunch of us have not done enough work to pay for it." They had been placed in a camp by themselves and were well fed. Finally, tiring of their idle life and wishing to visit some of the other camps, they asked to be sent elsewhere, which was done. Before leaving they said one of them would remain behind in order to bring them their mail and run errands between this camp and the other places to which they might go. This was granted to them and some time after their return one of them said that he was disgusted with the way things were managed.
There is more, Mr. Chairman, and this is an example of the scandal which I feel I should bring to the attention of the government.
Shortly after the holidays the assistant superintendent's son, L. Poirier, arrived at the camp. He was not given any work nor was he assigned to any foreman. He received the wages of a carpenter working eight hours a day. He spent all his time making wooden tool chests which he sold for $3 each. These tool boxes, made of one-inch red pine, were 3 feet long, 16 inches wide and 15 inches deep. They were made on government time and with government material. The metal fittings for the said chests were likewise made, on government time and with government material, by blacksmith Rondeau who worked in camps No. 1, 2 and 3. Some 200 tool chests were made and sold to the workmen. They were made not secretly but openly, although Poirier claimed that he made them during his spare time
3030	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
And further:
The superintendents and foremen were aware of what was going on, but none of them ever did anything to stop it.
Nobody protested, it being desirable to remain friendly with the assistant superintendent's son.
I could quote more extracts, but I will lay the report aside and mention the other cases from memory-


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: Who wrote that report?


Maurice Lalonde: I gave that information a few moments ago, but my hon. friend was not in his seat, I presume. The report was prepared by two men who were stationed there and remained three weeks at the very place the work was carried on by that particular contractor. It is a genuine report from eye-witnesses who vouched for their accuracy.
There is more, Mr. Chairman. A single merchant provided the food supplies required by the man in charge of the kitchen. That merchant sold such supplies for an amount of approximately 835,000 in three months.


Mr. DUPUIS:: How many workers were on the job?


Maurice Lalonde: About 175, at the time. I have here an official report from the Minister of Labour.


Wallace Reginald McDonald: What is the name of the merchant?


Maurice Lalonde: A Mr. Bainbridge, of Maniwaki. If my hon. friend wishes to know the exact amount, I can give it to him.


Jean-François Pouliot: What was the bill of fare?


Maurice Lalonde: The exact amount was $34,271.69, I think.
Our inspectors, who prepared the report, found that bags of potatoes were discarded after having been carried in the cold weather in open vehicles so that they might freeze. About ten carcasses of pork and ten of beef were retrieved, as well as some bacon and boxes of sausages. You realize, Mr. Chairman, the appalling waste that was going on. I must apologize for using such picturesque language, but those are facts we must know and which caused the Minister of Labour to abandon relief works of that kind. I objected to them at the time and I am still opposed to them. I would even go as far as to say that I am expressing the opinion of my fellow-members from the province of Quebec. We are in favour of relief works for alleviating unemployment, but I think it is only fair that their whole administration should be left to the dominion government.
Mr. Chairman, I shall not proceed any further with the recital of such abuses, but if

honourable members who are interested in these facts care for further details, I shall undertake to furnish them with more particulars that are not to the credit of those who are responsible for these relief works. Besides, we are in a position to prove that a certain political organization compelled truck owners to buy "Diamond T" trucks; otherwise, they could not obtain work on the Mont-Laurier43enneterre highway. The party selling those trucks was a strong supporter of the Union Nationale party in Papineau county. We find the same conditions in the county of Labelle, where an official of the department of colonization of the province of Quebec, at Mont Laurier, is the agent for those trucks. He tells people: "If you buy your trucks from me, you will get work on the Mont Laurier and Senneterre highway." Do you think, Mr. Chairman, that, in such circumstances, the federal government can, decently, offer its cooperation to the Quebec government? We have a hundred reasons, not to refuse our cooperation, but to insist on a different system for the distribution of public funds appropriated for unemployment relief works.
I now wish to discuss another matter. Parliament passed an act authorizing the government to lend money to municipalities, up to a total of 830,000,000, at an interest rate of 2 per cent. Had the province of Quebec accepted that plan, as most of the other provinces did, we would have obtained money at a low rate for local improvements. The parish of Ferme-Neuve in my county had to borrow money for the building of sewers at 5 per cent instead of 2 per cent because the provincial government, for no reason at all, would not cooperate with the federal government. Their objection was that guarantees were required. I say that such guarantees were essential to make those loans regular under our constitution, and the Quebec government could have given them without any risk, because the decision as to the amount in each case rested with the provincial authorities alone.
I now come to the loans under the home improvement plan. There were 44,941 such loans amounting to $18,695,511.99 for cities with a population of 5.000 or over. The total number of loans under the home improvement plan was 63,516 amounting to $25,340,305.63. In that field, the federal government helped in relieving unemployment.
I Shall next bring another matter to the attention of the government. Last year, thanks to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) and to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), my constituency had the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
good fortune to obtain public moneys for the rebuilding of tourist roads. I shall conclude my remarks by stating that, notwithstanding the criticism just made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St.	George	(Mr.	Cahan)	with
regard to the legal aspect of those estimates,
I still urge the government to continue its aid toward the	building	and	rebuilding oftourist roads. Mr. Chairman, my constituency is privileged in	having some	of the	finesttourist attractions in the whole province of Quebec. For instance, befcveen Nominingue and Duhamel, lies an old road about 25 miles long built some years ago. A grant of a few thousand dollars is all that would be required to open up to the tourist traffic a huge area which, although unfit for colonization, contains more than 200 lakes and would become the tourist paradise	of the	province. I	have
brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Public Works and of the Minister of Mines and Resources and I trust they will kindly grant this legitimate request in favour of the constituency of Labelle which has been neglected for over 25 years, and has leceived practically none of the federal moneys appropriated for unemployment relief works.
I also hope, Mr. Chairman, that the new plan submitted by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) whereby the dominion will contribute fifty per cent of all salaries paid in connection with unemployment relief works, will be accepted by the Quebec government I am advised that the details of such plan have been received by the province of Quebec on February 2 of this year. All the provinces have replied, except Quebec, which has remained silent so far.
In conclusion, I trust that there will soon be an end to the practice of making political capital out of the sufferings of the people and that all governments will take the necessary steps to prevent speculation at the expense of those who are starving.
I thank the Minister of Labour for the consideration he has given to my constituency in the matter of relief works. I trust that he will give his best consideration to the requests I have made on behalf of my constituency and that he will accept the invitation which I extended to him some time ago.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with the greatest attention to the speech just delivered by my distinguished colleague from Labelle (Mr. Lalonde). This afternoon, I had listened to the constitutional theories presented by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. It is evident that the constitution must be flexible. Ocean liners very often change their course to rush to the rescue of a floundering ship.
Such may be the case of the dominion government in the trying conditions we are experiencing.
There have always been two schools of jurists. Rome had its Proculians and Sabinians, even as we have to-day. Some of our colleagues belonging' to the legal profession favour a very strict interpretation of the law, while others wish for greater liberality. In certain respects the constitution should foe amended so as to allow freer action on the part of the dominion government, provided it be proven necessary. At present, however,
I observe that federal and provincial governments alike are acting with regard to unemployment as if there were no constitution, and it is only when a government wants to refuse some request that the British North America Act is invoked.
Should we wish to keep to a strict interpretation of the British North America Act, the dominion government must perforce maintain peaceful relations with the provincial governments, if both intend to cooperate. That is elementary. And in that event it is absolutely necessary to open negotiations not through the League of Nations, but through voluntary intermediaries, to the end that all differences between the federal and provincial governments may be ironed out. If that is done, the greatly desired harmony referred to this afternoon by an hon. member from the Social Credit group will be achieved. It is not a difficult matter. It is a question, first of all, of ascertaining the wishes of everyone, instead of avoiding one another and acting like enemies. The Prime Minister may have to throw out ballast. That is commonly done; when we want to rise, we have to throw out a little ballast. It might not be such a bad thing to throw out some ballast also, for the sake of peace.
But should peace be impossible, there is another way. If the dominion and provincial governments cannot agree upon joint works, let them each undertake their share in connection with certain projects. In the matter of the trans-Canada highway, for instance, if the dominion and provincial governments cannot agree upon the joint construction of a certain section of the highway, why not divide it into sections and let the dominion and provincial governments build each a section alternately? The parishes could be divided in two. Half the work in a parish could be performed by the federal government and the other half by the provincial government. This suggestion is made in case the dominion and provincial governments should find it impossible to reach an agreement. That is a suggestion. Even though mountains cannot meet, it should foe
Un

employment and Agricultural Distress
quite easy for two men to come together for a friendly discussion of matters in which they are mutually interested.


Vincent Dupuis: There are not two mountains, but a mountain and a precipice.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not quite agree with my honourable friend. There is such a thing as freedom of opinion. He has a perfect right to hold his own views.
We will have either to reach an agreement or hit upon some accurate definition of what we are to do. I regret greatly that no agreement could be reached in connection with the settlers in spite of the good will shown by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and even the willingness displayed by Mr. Hereford, who must not be mistaken for Mr. Dickson, to whom I was referring this afternoon. The minister and Mr. Hereford will remember the exhaustive inquiry which was held in the county of Temiscouata. Investigators from the federal Department of Labour interviewed from 1,200 to 1,400 families of settlers in this county in order to ascertain the conditions. It was at my request that the inquiry was held. They witnessed the distress of those settlers. I afterwards took the trouble to conduct an inquiry of my own in order to find out how many animals those people had on their farms. Some of them had six animals-six hens. Others had but one animal-a dog. A great many settlers had no oxen, horses, sheep or hens. How could they farm under such conditions? Their predicament is appalling. These settlers were placed there quite a long time ago, not under the present administration, but before, following the division of colonization lots from maps which did not show the altitude of the land. These maps, which were as level as the floor, gave no indication of the land elevation. Thus it is that there are settlers on mountain slopes and others on mountain tops. In the parish of St. Jean de la Lande, in the southern part of my county, there are seven mountains on each one of which are to be found two or three small houses. To visit their neighbours, the settlers have to descend an enormous hill and ascend another one. Then there is the precipice to which my hon. friend referred a moment ago. Because of its seven hills I call St. Jean de la Lande the eternal city.
These settlers are leading very precarious lives and I have called the attention of the country to their plight. I am grateful to the newspapers which published my representations on their behalf. I have also brought their case to the attention of all the governments of the province of Quebec, and 
I am sorry to see, Mr. Chairman, that a man who is responsible for the distress of these settlers in my county still occupies a very important position in the provincial colonization service. He is a dangerous man. I have denounced him on several occasions but neither the former nor the present government have given me the amounts paid to him by the Canadian National Railways while he was in their employ.
But these settlers are suffering, they are poverty-stricken, and we must help them. Cannot the dominion government give a special grant to the provincial government so as to help these worthy people? The situation is known to the minister, he has the report. Mr. Hereford has read it. It was very well prepared by officials of the Department of Labour, who are not numerous, but quite competent. I am deeply indebted to Mr. Hereford, as well as to Messrs. Carter, Lafortune-a former controller of the city of Ottawa-and Pigeon. This report I had asked for and those gentlemen found that these settlers needed help; I hope they get it.
Mr. Chairman, if we are to obtain appropriations for relief works, I hope that peace may reign anew so that our friends who may not be supporters of the provincial government may also have their share of work. Personally, I have no reason to complain of the provincial government which has shown itself very generous when time came to help the unemployed in my constituency by having repairs made to the lock at Morin lake. I trust the dominion government will also contribute to the rebuilding of these locks which are exceedingly important from the point of view of flood control. The matter is extremely important. The minister is well aware of that, he knows the situation and I hope he is now listening attentively to this wholly legitimate request.
Something should be done for our young people, not only to enable them to take up courses, but also to afford them transportation for that purpose, and we should see to it that at the end of their period of training they may benefit from the knowledge so acquired.
Many young people have read in the papers that the government was planning to spend one million dollars for the technical training of youth. The minister will remember that when the matter was first brought up in 1936, the hon. member for Temiscouata pointed out how important it was to bring home to the young people the necessity of respecting craftsmen. Nowadays, no consideration is shown to craftsmen. Our educational system is, to a great extent, responsible for that.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
The training which our young people receive only qualifies them for clerical work. We have clerks in untold numbers; they are as numerous as grasshoppers. Our young people will not take up trades which are quite respectable and useful to society. Machines are displacing manual labour, and with their commercial training, our youths refuse to take up honest trades. We will, have to go back to the old times; we will have to respect, as we formerly did, those who produce our wearing apparel: the tailors, the shoemakers, the haberdashers, in short, all those who are plying some honest trade of any description. Our educational institutions should also teach our children from their earliest years to respect craftsmen, because they are absolutely necessary to our economic life.
Two years ago, in England, I had the privilege of visiting stately buildings admission to which is usually denied to tourists and more particularly to American tourists. I refer to the Guild buildings, which are remnants of the guilds of the Middle Ages. One can see there the great part played by corporations in England. They are immensely wealthy institutions which have contributed in a remarkable way to the teaching of crafts. For instance, the former prime minister Ramsay MacDonald himself attended a school founded and maintained by the guilds. In England, trades are held in high regard, and the strength of that country is based on the middle classes which are the backbone of the nation.
Conditions will not be improved in Canada by the teaching of learned theories, but by a return to the three R's. It is useless to think that unemployment will disappear overnight. The Canadian people will have, in the first place, to re-educate themselves, to return to the principles of former times when people respected that which was worthy of respect. We should not start a book by the end, as they do in China-but by the beginning, by the rudiments.
One of the first things to do in order to put our country on the right path is to teach our youth to respect the crafts and encourage them to practise them.
Then, Mr. Chairman, we must not allow our fellow-citizens to starve. Although some have painted too dark a picture of the situation, it must be admitted that there are some very sad cases. A brilliant Montreal journalist, Mr. Richer, recently mentioned things that are occurring daily in Ottawa, a city which should be less affected than others by unemployment, owing to the millions of dollars paid in salaries to the civil servants. Only yesterday, a young man came to my door and told me that he had a family to
support and that his little daughter and himself had not had anything to eat all day. That is happening in the city of Ottawa. The Ottawa people are very well disposed, they are charitable, but there is something lacking. Members of the clergy have united to establish an association for the purpose of feeding under-nourished school children. That is very fine, that is admirable, but there again such marks of devotion should not be necessary.
I mean, Mr. Chairman, that in a city like this one, such cases of distress should not exist. The federal government should get into touch with the provincial government and the Ottawa municipal authorities with a view to improving the situation. It seems quite feasible to me, but how can it be done if, as I stated this afternoon, we only care for those who are classed as unemployed? Inadequate care is taken of the white collared, educated needy. Up to the present time, only those appearing on the direct relief lists or those who are on relief works have been considered as unemployed. Young men who are 16, 17, 20 or 25 years of age, with some schooling, but who have never been employed, are not classed among unemployed. They are not unemployed the minute their father holds a temporary job or if he earns regularly a few dollars a week. That is an injustice, Mr. Chairman, I take it. I believe that we should class among the unemployed not only those receiving relief allowances or employed on relief works, but also those who at times earn a little, but who cannot make a decent living. They are the ones who are unfortunate and who nurse the greatest worries, for their children being unable to find work, they cannot see any future for them.
I realize that the government is faced with a very difficult task; I admit that the government cannot be compared to "Santa Claus" and find work for all the unemployed, whether they are on relief or not, but, on the other hand, before the government is in a position to give further help, it is absolutely necessary that the chief officials of the Department of Labour give leadership to the nation, and ' that we teach in the schools that a trade is an honourable occupation and also that paternalism, far from contributing to the welfare of the people, is dangerous, and can operate only for the benefit of the few. I trust, therefore, that in dealing with unemployment we shall do so as objectively as possible, not for the purpose of justifying or condemning the policy of one party as against that of another, but in the interest of those who suffer, so as to improve their lot and rid every home of that feeling of anxiety which is a constant threat to peace in this country.
3034	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Section 3 of this bill provides that the governor in council may, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, authorize the execution of certain undertakings. Is the minister relying upon specific appropriations in the estimates, or is he relying. for the provision of some of the funds for the purposes of this measure, upon Bill No. 93, to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service

the Loan Act, 1939. Under Bill No. 93, the Loan Act, it is provided:
The governor in council may, in addition to the sums now remaining unborrowed and negotiable of the loans authorized by parliament by any act heretofore passed, raise by way of loan, under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931. . . .
And then it goes on:
. . . such sum or sums of money as may be required, not to exceed in the whole the sum of seven hundred and fifty million dollars, for paying or redeeming the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada, and also for purchasing and withdrawing from circulation from time to time unmatured securities of Canada, and for public works and general purposes.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) intimated that under the provisions of the measure I have just cited a certain amount might be available for public works and undertakings. Is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) relying upon the provision of some funds under Bill No. 93, the Loan Act, for the purposes of the bill which we are now discussing, or is he relying upon specific appropriations of his own department, or upon supplementary estimates?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am relying upon specific appropriations that are already before the house in the supplementary estimates. As my ihon. friend is aware, the expenditures under this bill are not all of necessity made through the Department of Labour. The Department of Mines and Resources, under the vote for tourist highways, would operate by agreement under this bill, but as regards the expenditures contemplated, they appear in the supplementary estimates.	[DOT]


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then the expenditures
in other departments to which the minister refers might be made under Bill No. 93, the Loan Act?


Norman McLeod Rogers: They are all in the supplementary estimates, so far as I am aware.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Agreements with provinces and others.
Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: This section reads:
The governor in council may enter into agreements :
(a)	with any of the provinces respecting the alleviation of unemployment conditions and of agricultural distress therein and to assist those in need;
(b)	with corporations or partnerships or individuals engaged in industry respecting the expansion of industrial employment.
I think these two parts should go together. The word "expansion" might act as a deterrent to the minister in granting any increase or help which he may be disposed to give. I suggest that this phraseology be changed to read in one clause something like this: "With any of the provinces respecting alleviation of unemployment conditions and with corporations or partnerships or with individuals engaged in industry respecting industrial employment and agricultural distress." That would cover the situation in a proper manner. I cannot see why the industrial sections of the country should not be considered as on a parity with the agricultural sections in the matter of distress. We have more distress in our manufacturing centres in the cities than we have in the country. It seems to me that every endeavour is being made to assist agricultural distress, and I maintain that industrial distress in the cities should be properly looked after and eliminated. I believe this could be done if the minister would assist the industrialists to provide employment. I should like the minister to take into consideration this matter of giving greater attention to the cities.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think I understand what my hon. friend wishes to accomplish by his suggested change. At the same time I feel that the clause as drafted does carry out effectively what we have in view. I think the hon. member is mistaken in assuming that unemployment measures are subordinated to measures for the relief of agricultural distress. Actually the words in the first part of the section are as follows:
The governor in council may enter into agreements :
(a) with any of the provinces respecting the alleviation of unemployment conditions and of agricultural distress therein and to assist those in need.
Paragraph (b) refers to the possibility of agreements with-
-corporations or partnerships or individuals engaged in industry respecting the expansion of industrial employment. . . .
This same clause was in the bill which was before the house last year. Actually it

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
has not been invoked except on one rather recent occasion, when agreements were entered into with the railway companies at the time the relief camps were closed.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: I had reference to the part having to do with expansion. I do not think it is necessary to say for expansion or for any other particular purpose; I believe the purpose should be to give assistance to corporations, partnerships or individuals engaged in industry, with respect to industrial employment. I believe the words "the expansion" should be deleted. That is the point I was trying to make.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to endorse paragraph (b) of this section. In bringing forward this measure, the minister is only doing what is being done in other countries. I would not ask for assistance to industry if the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) were correct. He apparently embraced all industry, but I do not think he meant that; I assume he meant that there was an occasional industrialist who did not play the game. That may be quite true, but I certainly do not endorse his all-embracing statement that industry is the soulless outfit that I understood the hon. member to class it. I was associated with industry for a long time, and I know that by far the majority of the managers and executives of industry came from the ranks of industry itself. These men had the very same souls when they were working in industry that they had when they became managers or executives. My experience on the whole has been that the industrialists of Canada as a class are as Godfearing and sincefe as any men to be found in any walk of life, I care not what it is.
Believing that, I want to support whatever can be done under paragraph (b), because the Canadian manufacturer who exports his products is up against certain conditions that may be alleviated under this section. For example, in Great Britain to-day a company exporting goods to the continent-and I will take electrical companies, or companies manufacturing lines of equipment that require electrical parts, because I am familiar with such companies, although this would apply to all other industries as well-must assure importers on the continent that at least fifty per cent of the material entering into the article exported has its origin in the old country. This has resulted in quite a number of Canadian companies being compelled to establish branch plants in the old country. I visited a number of these branches of Canadian companies which formerly enjoyed a
considerable export business to European countries. This, of course, has meant a loss of employment in Canada. I have in mind one company that now has in London a larger plant than the parent concern in Toronto. Formerly the Toronto plant shipped all the goods exported to European countries; to-day those exports are sent from the English plant, because of the regulations pertaining to manufacture in the old country. So, if any assistance can be given under this section, to the remaining plants in Canada, they certainly need it in these times, and it would mean a good deal of employment.
To continue with the plant I have in mind, it costs a great deal less to manufacture in London than in Toronto. The London plant has a floor space of approximately 12,000 square feet, most of which is on the one floor. It costs only $175 a year to heat that plant. The parent plant in Toronto is perhaps a little smaller, but on account of our climatic conditions it costs far more to heat the Toronto plant; I believe the figure is approximately $800 a year. That is one item. Another item is the wage bill. In Great Britain, as the minister knows, under the youth unemployment relief regulations young folk working in industry are partly paid by contributions from whatever government department it is that encourages the employment of youth in the old country. I visited one factory which employed several thousand youths from fourteen to sixteen years of age, who received on an average a pound a week. I knew they could not live on a pound a week, and I inquired from one of the managers how the difference was made up. He told me the youths received, in addition to the pound a week earned, a contribution from some government department or fund the name of which I have forgotten, sufficient to make up the difference between what they required and what they were paid in that industry.
I do not know whether we have anything like that in Canada. I do know that a boy fourteen years of age in this country is not allowed to work at all; as I understand it, he must be sixteen years old before he can go to work. That is not the ease in the old country, however, and there the cost of production is lower than it is here. Perhaps under this section the department could figure out some way to assist industry in Canada to cut down production costs.
I found out that one of the labour offices, I believe it was the King's Cross labour office, had applications for over 12,000 between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. Evidently the manufacturers of the old country are taking

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
advantage of the assistance from the government to enable them to employ youths for the purpose of manufacturing operations. The machines operated are so perfectly constructed that to-day a fourteen year old boy can operate a machine to make 6-inch shells, and turn them out as rapidly and as efficiently as a man could do. The machines are perfected to such a point that they do practically all the work. I saw youths operating large shell machines.
We cannot do that in Canada. Therefore there is an avenue where something could be done. I do not know just how far the department can go, but it is evident that the employment of youth in the old country must be detrimental to the operations of exporters in this country. Perhaps the department has ' something of the kind in mind.
Probably the minister is aware that in Germany there is a two i ter cent tax on all manufactured goods. That tax goes into a common pool, and in every instance where a German manufacturer has to export at a price lower than he otherwise should, he withdraws compensation from the pool. I do not think we would want that system here; possibly this could not be done in Canada. However, I point it out as one condition which reduces exports from Canada, and consequently reduces opportunities for labour.
The minister also will be aware that recently the government of the United States voted many millions of dollars to assist in the exportation of manufactured products. I have been told, further, that Swedish manufacturers can obtain any order they want. Of course they do not get them all, but they obtained one recently in Canada. I am told by a manufacturer that a Swedish company obtained an order for $50,000 worth of electrical goods. That may not be considered a large order, but it is a substantial one. He informed me that the Swedish manufacturers are in a position to obtain any order they wish to go after.
Therefore I am in accord with what I believe to be the import of paragraph (b). I would agree with the paragraph if the import of it is to assist i dustry, under certain conditions which the department of Labour and the Department of Trade and Commerce would approve. As I say, if the import of paragraph (b) is to enable industry in Canada to keep its men employed as much as possible and, where necessary, to increase its personnel, then to my way of thinking it is a very good provision.


Major James William Coldwell: May I take the opposite point of view from that taken by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Clarke):	I
think there may be some justification for doing what is suggested in the paragraph, alI Mr. MacNicol.]
though I am not sure about it. I refer to the provision to assist private corporations in the expansion of their industry. But I cannot see any reason why we should place-


John Ritchie MacNicol: It says, "expansion of
industrial employment."


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, but the interpretation placed upon those words was somewhat different.


Mr MacNICOL:: The hon. member surely
is not opposed to increasing employment.


Major James William Coldwell: I always listen to the
hon. member for Davenport with a good deal of interest and respect, because he makes a practice of conducting personal investigations with respect to various matters, and then brings to the house information based upon those investigations. That is a procedure which, I think, is worth while. However, I should like to say this, in the absence of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Mac-Innis), that perhaps the interpretation placed upon the words he used this afternoon was not the correct one. If my recollection serves me correctly, the words of the hon. member were to the effect that there were some good employers who had never worked in industry for hire themselves. I do not think the statement was as sweeping as would appear from the interpretation placed upon it by the hon. member for Davenport.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad somebody
else got a different impression.


Major James William Coldwell: On the other hand
there was some justification for what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver East. It so happened that while hon. members were speaking in the French language this evening, and as unfortunately I do not understand it very well especially when it is spoken rapidly, I took occasion to examine a copy of a magazine published in Toronto by the youth movement of Canada. While the hon. members were speaking, I was reading an article entitled Textiles, and from it I shall quote one or two extracts. It is written by a textile worker, and this statement is made:
The average age of men in this industry is 25-26 years, and that of women 24 years, which, even if they look old, does not take them out of the "youth" class.
Then this statement is made to which I draw particular attention:
The international labour office at Geneva says that in 1931 twelve of every hundred Canadian textile workers were 10-17 years of age. A study of the cotton and woollen industries of Ontario conducted by the Toronto office of our union (United Textile Workers) at the beginning of 1938, shows no change in this figure.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Then it goes on to say that there are some 65,000 persons employed in these mills, and some of the conditions are given. I shall quote again:
It would take more than a mere genius to become inspired or enthused when after 54J hours of work in one week the pay envelope contains $7.26.
Then an instance is given of working seventy-eight hours in one week, and it is stated that girls are paid 11J cents an hour. After a 52-hour week they find that they have less than S6 to pay their weekly board bill. Conditions like that justify what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver East.
I am not going to quote more from the article, although I could do so. Of course the comment made is that the textile industry was investigated by the Turgeon commission. The industry itself is protected and to that degree of course is subsidized, and has created fortunes for some of the owners.
When we have industries of that description, it seems to me the criticisms that are sometimes levelled against industries-perhaps in too general a form-are justified at least to some extent. I think the minister in endeavouring to expand employment is to be congratulated, provided that in the expansion the interests of the countiy are properly safeguarded. I know that the railways were, shall I say bonused, by having work done several years ago by people on relief. I was thoroughly in accord with that being done for our national railway, but I am not so sure that we are justified in doing it for private corporations to the extent that some advocate. I would rather see a program confined to public works of various descriptions. I would point out that in the United States WPA works and other forms of public works have absorbed many thousands of the unemployed and have given to the people not only the necessities but many of the amenities of community life. I should like to see more of that sort of thing done in the dominion.


Mr. BROOKS:: I do not rise to make any complaint with reference to clause 4 of this bill, although it seems to me it is hardly broad enough to cover all sections of this country. Clause 4 reads:
The governor in council may enter into agreements:
(a) with any of the provinces respecting the alleviation of unemployment conditions and of agricultural distress therein.
I assume that means distress in the drought areas of the west. We have no objection to the large sums of money that have been spent in the west; but there has been great distress
among the fishermen of the maritime provinces, and it occurs to me that this clause should be broad enough to cover the fishing as well as the agricultural industry. Would it not be possible to enlarge this clause to take in the fishing industry? We know there has been some difference of opinion as between the federal government and some of the local governments in connection with the alleviation of distress conditions in this industry, and I thought possibly it could be included under this clause.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is no question that under this clause agreements could be entered into by which assistance could be given to those in need in the fishing industry. The hon. member should note the last words in the clause, "and to assist those in need." While those words refer with greater particularity to unemployment and agricultural distress, they do not preclude us from giving assistance to the fishermen. I would say also that the provision for agricultural distress has not been confined to the western provinces. I refer to one particular agreement, which for two years was under the Department of Labour but which has been transferred to the Department of Agriculture, under which assistance is given in New Brunswick for the reestablishment of settlers. I mention this simply to show that agreements with respect to agricultural distress are not confined to the western provinces.


Mr. GREEN:: Apparently, under this clause, agreements are made with the provinces?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Correct.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be possible to have in the agreements a standard provision with reference to residence, setting out just how long a person must reside in a province in order to establish residence? As I understand it, there are different conditions prevailing in the different provinces and the need for some uniformity is extremely great. I would refer the hon. minister to a publication of the Canadian welfare council entitled "Wayfarers Perforce," which was issued in February, 1939. On page 13 I find these words:
. . . the conclusion is inevitable, time and time again, that, in order to provide for the orderly administration of our social services, some attempt must be made to clarify the question of what constitutes residence, either municipally or provincially, and to bring about the acceptance of something like uniformity in the definition of residence in this dominion.
The minister has apparently had inserted in the agreements a paragraph dealing with municipal residence within the province. For
3038	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
instance, in section 5 of the agreement with British Columbia dated July 19, 1938, there is this provision:
The province agrees to maintain such residence regulations that no person shall become ineligible to receive material aid by reason of having lost residence in one municipality or jurisdiction within the province before having established residence in another.
Would it not be possible to make it a condition of these grants in aid that each province should adopt standard residence rules to be set by the dominion?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That particular suggestion of my hon. friend is now under discussion with the provincial governments. The agreements with the various provinces with respect to the grants in aid can become operative only after this legislation has received royal assent. The agreements are made operative under this legislation. I may say that a similar discussion took place yesterday when the point was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) and his colleague the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I gave those hon. gentlemen the same answer I am giving now, namely that this question of domicile and transiency is being canvassed very carefully.


Howard Charles Green: In view of the fact the money comes from the dominion, is this government not in a position to insist that such a standard provision be adopted by each province? Must it necessarily be a matter of agreement?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is always possible for us to attach conditions to our grants in aid, but in administrative practice it is not always possible to make such conditions entirely effective. I can assure my hon. friend that we are going as far as we can in bringing about uniformity, but he will recognize that the question of domicile is under provincial jurisdiction. It is questionable just how far the provinces would be willing to abandon the position they have taken with respect to domicile unless they could be persuaded that it was in their interest and in the interest of the country as a whole to do so.


Howard Charles Green: If they could not get the money otherwise, they could easily be persuaded.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Is it compulsory for the province to put in an amount equal to that contributed by the dominion government in connection with any work to alleviate distress?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is not compulsory that the amount contributed by the province to a

work program shall be equal to the contribution of the dominion government. Normally that is the case, but sometimes the provinces have preferred that the dominion contribution should be spread over a larger program; at times it has been applied to the direct labour costs of projects. There has not been an entirely uniform practice in that respect.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What I had in mind was the application of the city of Toronto for aid in connection with the construction of a sewage disposal plant which is very necessary at the present time. It seems to me that when one looks over the brief-the minister probably has a copy-he must see that this project is more in the nature of that referred to in section 3 as being in the general interest of Canada. Toronto, having expended so much for relief in the past few years, has come to the point where its borrowing power has been reduced to some $7,000,000.	In the
United States, cities near the border that were forced to put in seiwage disposal plants received aid from the federal government, and I think it would come well from the federal government here to advance some money towards this project in Toronto in spite of the fact that the province has, I understand, refused to advance any money in equal proportions with the dominion government.
I would point out that Toronto has contributed to the federal treasury in the past six years $296,277,576 in customs revenue, $42,662,830 in postal revenue, and $154,848,143 in income tax, or a total of $493,788,550, although it cannot be segregated for that city alone. Certainly something will have to be done in connection with this sewage disposal plant, because it is very much overloaded at the present time and the waters of the lake are being polluted; and as I said in the house last year, this is having a bad effect on the fish. It is more of a dominion than a provincial matter. It is probably more between a federal and a municipal project than it is a provincial project. Cannot some aid from the federal government be given at least to get this project started? It is a necessary work and would contribute greatly to relieving the terrible unemployment condition in Toronto to-day.


John Horne Blackmore: Would it not be possible for the department to work out a scheme to take care of border-line cases of people who cannot qualify by reason of residence? The provinces do not agree on residence; and, until they do, could not these border-line cases become temporarily the sole responsibility of the dominion in much the same way as transients are so regarded? It

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
causes me a great deal of unhappiness to think that such cases as I referred to this afternoon should exist. The woman is in the greatest danger of 'being cut right off from all sources of relief, which is distressing to the widowed mother of a family of children, where she usually has anxiety enough without being faced with a situation of that sort. I feel that some regulation should be made to cover such cases, and perhaps the minister would tell us what is being done in that respect.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall certainly take note
of the case which my hon. friend brought to the attention of the house this afternoon and see whether the responsibility of the government can be determined with respect to that particular woman and her family. If all the provinces would enter into an arrangement with the dominion government for an equal division of the cost of relief of transients there would be no residual transients, as my hon. friend will understand, and we hope we can bring the provinces to that point of view. Personally I have always preferred to seek that kind of cooperative measure rather than to . adopt a policy which might create a group of what might be termed dominion transients. Domicile, after all, is essentially a provincial matter, and there is no territory in this country short of the Northwest Territories which is not also provincial.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: To follow up my
question of a few moments ago, would it not be possible under this bill for the federal government to make some arrangement with the city of Toronto that would enable this work to be started even though the province has refused to cooperate?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It has never been customary to deal with particular projects in committee because, as I think my hon. friend will realize, that would produce an impossible situation. There have been some general references from my own side of the house to special projects, and I have dealt with them all in precisely the same manner. The project to which my hon. friend refers is one which would normally be referred to the dominion government through the provincial government. It has been so referred, but without any indication of the attitude of the provincial government towards the project itself. I would be quite wrong in encouraging my hon. friend to believe that there can be an acceptance by the dominion government of financial responsibility in any large
[Mr. Blackmore.)
degree for a project of the dimensions that he has indicated. As I recall it, the expenditure contemplated is in the vicinity of $16,000,000.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: About $15,000,000.


Norman McLeod Rogers: 
Douglas Gooderham Ross: The point I
wished to make was:	If Ontario does not
make application and Toronto does, then in view of the fact that this project is, to my mind, more in the nature of a harbour project, certainly not a direct municipal project, but something that is'forced on Toronto by treaty, would it. not be possible for the dominion government, under the circumstances prevailing to-day, to enter into an arrangement with Toronto so that a portion of this work might be gone on with without the matter having to go through the province?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In any apportionment of
funds made available under this measure for civic improvements in Ontario, we shall have to consider the situation in the province as a whole in order that there may be as fair as possible an allocation of the funds among the various centres of population where unemployment exists in an acute degree. I am sorry that I cannot go beyond what I have already said with respect to the possibility of a dominion contribution towards a section of this sewage project in Toronto.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: As I understood him, the minister said that in some instances there was an equal contribution by the provinces, and that in other instances there was no contribution by the provinces. Why, in this instance, make an exception of the city of Toronto? Am I right when I say that there is no contribution by some of the provinces?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend has not understood me correctly when he states that I said in some instances there was no contribu-
3040	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
tion by the provinces. I said that different methods of contribution had been adopted under the various agreements with the provinces and that no compulsion in the matter has been exercised by the dominion government. We have applied our own appropriations for relief works to programs of such works submitted to us by the provincial governments. Sometimes those works were provincial; sometimes they were municipal. But there has been, I think, invariably a contribution from the provincial government. I can recall one exception to that, where certain work was done on a playground in the city of Toronto, but that was done under an agreement with the provincial government, not directly by agreement with the municipality.


Mr. MASSEY:: Earlier this evening the minister referred to the differences in the methods of applying these grants in aid in the various provinces. For example, Ontario applied its grant in a certain way, whereas Quebec did it in another way. May I ask, in the making of these agreements with the provinces, do the provinces state the manner in which the grant in aid will be applied?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No. Actually the clause in the agreement governs the manner in which the grant in aid is expended. In its present form that agreement was recommended by the national employment commission. The clause is as follows:
Whenever used in this agreement or any schedule thereof, the word "minister" shall mean the Minister of Labour for Canada and the term "material aid" shall mean either food, fuel, clothing and shelter (or any of them) supplied to individuals in necessitous circumstances, or, the costs of carrying on works or training projects specifically designated by the province as projects intended to provide such individuals when employed thereon (other than supervisory personnel) the equivalent of food, fuel, clothing and shelter (or any of them) which otherwise would have to be supplied to those individuals, provided in each ease that a schedule setting forth a description of the project, the estimated total cost thereof and the specific cost to which the dominion will contribute has been approved in writing by the minister.


Denton Massey: But there is nothing in there about rates of wages, rates of pay and so on?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No.


Denton Massey: Essentially we are buying a pig in a poke. It is up to the province to do anything it wishes?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No. There is another clause which provides that fair wages shall be paid.


Denton Massey: Does that apply to a scale of wages which is not a relief scale but current rates of pay for that type of work?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Sometimes by agreement provinces have carried on what might be termed relief works. That is to say, those who work earn their relief with a certain oremium over and above what normally they would receive for relief. But one must remember tL*t the question of wages is under provincial legislation.


Denton Massey: Quite so.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And there has to be a certain amount of accommodation of these plans to a variety of provincial conditions.


Denton Massey: In regard to hostels for the transient unemployed, is the cost of hostels maintained in part under this grant as well, or is that a separate matter?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not under the grant in aid, as a general rule, although there would be nothing to exclude it. Sometimes special arrangements are made for single unemployed men in hostels through a grant which is made available under the item in the supplementary estimates which was before the committee just before adjournment last night, that is the item for assistance to single unemployed persons.


Denton Massey: That is why I asked the question. I did not know whether it came from this grant or the other.


Norman McLeod Rogers: For the most part I should say that, now we have reached the new percentage basis, those in hostels will qualify under that fifty per cent for transients.


Denton Massey: Then it would seem to me desirable that there should be some federal supervision of these hostels if we are paying for them in part-forty per cent, or whatever it may be. At the moment is there any supervision?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No. That has not been the practice at any time in the past. The hostels are visited from time to time by officials of the Department of Labour. As a matter of fact I have visited hostels in most of our provinces, and occasionally our inspectors will bring to our attention any complaints with respect to these hostels. I am bound to say that as regards those I have visited I have formed the impression that they were being carefully administered, and certainly there was no reason to believe that those charged in the provinces with relief administration would be less careful than would similar officials responsible direct to the dominion government.


Denton Massey: So far as the minister recalls, have there been any complaints?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I recall no recent complaint. We do have from time to time a

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
report sent to us from the provincial governments. I speak particularly of Manitoba, where there are periodic inspections by medical boards and also by a committee of the citizens. Broadly speaking, I believe that these hostels are carried out efficiently and achieve their objectives. That does not mean that food reaches every standard of adequacy; but so far as I have seen them they have been clean and the food has been good. As a matter of fact the menus are not far different from those which were given to those who served during the great war. On the whole I would say that menus in hostels compare rather favourably with the food that was available to at least private soldiers in the late war.


Denton Massey: What hostel in Toronto has been inspected?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not in a position to say that. I have not myself visited hostels in Toronto.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I wish to say one word more in connection with that sewage disposal plant. Lake Ontario, as we all know, is a boundary water, and therefore the matter is, as I said before, more a matter for the dominion. Now, on account of the treaty of 1909, Toronto is forced to take care of its sewage disposal so that the water will not be polluted, and as well as that, of course, the safety of citizens of the dominion who come there by train or air or water and so on is endangered if the water is not pure. point out again that to my mind it is more a matter for the dominion and the city of Toronto than it is to any great extent for the province of Ontario.


Major James William Coldwell: I was going to ask if the appropriations under this bill cover the kind of relief work which is being done in Saint John, New Brunswick and to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) referred last night. If so, it seems to me that the federal government, in making appropriations, should lay down some regulations in connection with the payments. I have just looked at Hansard, and I see that this reputable body of citizens-as after some inquiry I have found them to be-give some typical cases of relief there. They show, for example, that for two adults and seven children three to eighteen years of age the allowance on the relief work basis is $5.60 a week. For another family of two adults with two children ten and thirteen years of age the relief work schedule allows $3.50 a week. It seems to me that if those statements are correct, either the number of hours of work must be very few-and I do not think that is the case-or the rate of wages per hour
must be terribly low. If we have nothing in the nature of a fair wage clause, it seems to me that something should be done by our own department to check up the government of New Brunswick. That province, as I understand, is giving not direct relief but work relief; and if the conditions are as stated by this reputable body of citizens, careful supervision should be given of this particular situation in New Brunswick. I am not from New Brunswick, but I am a Canadian and I want to see that the people have at least an opportunity to live more decently than the schedule placed before us last night would seem to suggest. Is there any supervision at all?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Under the agreement with New Brunswick there is a clause providing that it shall be the responsibility of the province to see to it that all persons employed in the execution of works and undertakings are paid fair wages. Fair wages are the prevailing wages in the province in which the work is done, or rather the district, because sometimes there is a variation within the province.


Major James William Coldwell: Has the minister the schedule?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No. Normally, we would not have the schedule. It is exactly on the same basis as the relief scale established in the various provinces and in the various cities within the provinces. We do not ourselves control the relief scales nor do we control, except by this general clause, the actual wages paid on works within the province. I am not certain of the facts, but it may be that in New Brunswick the wages paid have conformed to the fair wage schedule within the province. I would assume that was so, otherwise it would be a violation of the agreement; but they may have worked for a comparatively small number of hours in order to reach the allowance mentioned by my hon. friend.


Major James William Coldwell: I was under the impression that the number of hours was given in the report last night, although I cannot find it in Hansard to-day. This is an agreement between the federal government and the provincial authorities. Could the federal government not see that the agreement is carried out? Could it not exercise some supervision? I suggest that at a subsequent time the minister might inform the committee what supervision has been exercised in Saint John, New Brunswick, what the schedules are, and what are the hours of work that give such a terribly low standard of living as that indicated in this particular report.
3042	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Denton Massey: On Monday last I placed on Hansard some figures with regard to the relief provided by Toronto for food. I also gave minimum figures as suggested by the Ontario Medical Association and the Cana-, dian Council on Nutrition, as well as League of Nations' figures. Taking the Ontario Medical Association and the council on nutrition, the relief paid in Toronto was shown to be 19 per cent lower than requirement. It is obvious from these figures that the scale of relief in that one particular city-and it is only illustrative-is too low, and that the food provided those on relief is not adequate, according to such authorities as I have quoted. If, in connection with wages, there is a general clause in the agreement providing that the province shall conform to a certain standard, could there not also be a general clause in regard to the food standards under which the agreement would operate? After all, if we are providing funds from the federal government to assist the provinces, and through the provinces the municipalities, surely we should have some say in regard to the standard to be provided under these agreements.


Norman McLeod Rogers: On that point, the system of relief administration as it has developed in this country proceeds upon the principle that there is an immediate responsibility resting upon the municipalities with respect to relief scales. I know of no instance where the dominion government has declined to contribute to a particular scale on the ground that it was too high or too low. One must leave that with the authority that lies closest to the individuals concerned. We, at this distance, could not effectively supervise relief scales across the country. If you could adopt one scale across the entire country it might be a simple matter of administration, but my hon. friend will be the first to acknowledge that this could not be done. There must be some variation as between the city and the country, as between the city and the village, and as between province and province.


Denton Massey: But surely it is obvious that if a scale is 19 per cent below what is recognized by the Ontario Medical Association as the minimum, it is too low for that particular area. It does not make any difference whether a man's stomach receives nourishment in Montreal or Saint John or Toronto, In certain types of work there may be a variation in the number of calories required, certainly in the age group. But taking one city with another the standard should be essentially the same.


Major James William Coldwell: It seems to me that a report such as we had last jnight from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre

with regard to conditions in New Brunswick, calls for investigation. Chief Inspector Me-Leese of the police department of Saint John reported to the common council as follows:
Children have died this winter for no other reason in the world than that they were undernourished.
If we are bearing any part of the cost of this relief, and if we have an agreement and the wages paid are so pitifully low that the conditions outlined actually exist and children, according to this inspector, have died for no other reason in the world than that they were undernourished, then our department should take some responsibility and exercise supervision over the expenditure of funds.


John Horne Blackmore: I wish to associate myself most emphatically with t'he words of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). 'If there are municipalities in which the men in charge have so far got out of contact 'with human values that they are starving future Canadians to death, then it is high time that we instituted a publicity campaign to reveal to the rest of Canada what these people in' New Brunswick are doing, and to bring to the attention of these people in a vivid manner the fact that they are not discharging their responsibility to the Canada of to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 21, 1939

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McPhee.

[Stage Direction]
Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski) presented the second report of the standing committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government, as follows:
The standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government begs leave to present the following as a second report.
On April 4, 1939, the house ordered,- "That the annual budget of the Canadian
National Railways and Canadian National
Steamships, tabled herewith, and the annual
reports laid on the table of the house on

St. Hubert Airport
March 30, 1939, be referred to the standing committee on railways and shipping, together with the following votes:
442.	Maritime Freight Rates Act, Canadian National Railways Eastern Lines, $2,000,000.
443.	Maritime Freight Rates Act, railways other than Canadian National Railways, $800,000.
454. Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, capital advance, $20,000.
from main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940, as tabled on January 27, 1939; also
588.	Canadian National Railway Company, $43,750,000.
589.	Prince Edward Island Car Ferry and Terminals, $327,000.
590.	Trans-Canada Air Lines, $488,941.
from the special supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940, tabled March 31, 1939."
The reports laid on the table of the house on March 30, 1939, referred to above were:
1.	Annual report of the Canadian National Railways System for the year ended December 31, 1938.
2.	Annual report of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited for the year ended December 31, 1938.
3.	Annual report of the Directors of the Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ended December 31, 1938.
4.	Annual report of the Canadian National Railways Securities Trust for the year ended December 31, 1938.
5.	Report of the firm of George A. Touche and Company, auditors of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways System for the year ended December 31, 1938.
Your committee has considered the above budget, reports and estimates, and approves of them.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved:
That votes numbers 442, 443, 454, 588, 589 and 590 approved and reported upon by the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, be now referred to the committee of supply.
He said: This committee has reported, but of course, the house will not approve the report automatically; the committee of supply must still pass upon the items contained therein.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. H. MOORE (Ontario) presented the second and third reports of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the third report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Pursuant to a verbal
request made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), I beg to table certain contracts pertaining to the Department of National Defence.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Helen Kerr Hogg Molson.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Adele Adfeldt Grunau.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Jeanne Beauregard Desnoyers.-Mr. Bercovitch.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Samuel Taylor: Before
the orders of the day are called I should like to ask three questions of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley).
1.	Will the minister please explain why George Morris, customs officer at Crofton, Vancouver island, in the Nanaimo federal constituency, has been given notice of dismissal without apparent just cause?
2.	Why have applications for the position been called for without George Morris having been permitted to answer any accusations?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: I think these questions
should be placed on the order paper and not asked on the orders of the day.


James Samuel Taylor: I have received a wire from Duncan, Vancouver island; the merchants there are very much disturbed about the situation that has developed and have directed me to ask these questions.


Walter Edward Foster: I cannot see the urgency
of the questions. If the hon. member will place them on the order paper they will be answered in due course.


THE ST. HUBERT AIRPORT CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION FOR THE POSITION OF AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL OFFICER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CHARLES E. FERLAND (Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, last week I drew the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) to the fact that the Civil Service Commission is at present advertising, under number 28797, a
3044	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
competitive examination for the position of airport traffic control officer at St. Hubert, in the province of Quebec, and that the notice of this examination does not require that the candidates be bilingual-
Walter Edward Foster: Order! This question is similar to the one respecting which I rendered a decision a moment ago. The rules require that such questions be placed on the order paper and not asked on the orders of the day.


Mr. FERLAND (Translation) :: I had notified the minister of my intention to ask this question to-day.


Walter Edward Foster: If there is
an understanding between the hon. member and the minister, and if the latter is willing to answer-


Mr. WERMENLINGER (Translation):: I object, Mr. Speaker.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I cannot say that there has 'been an understanding, but I notified the minister.


Walter Edward Foster: In that
case, I have to maintain the ruling I gave a moment ago.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
REPOnTED SIGHTING OF SUBMARINE IN HALIFAX HARBOUR
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: In view of the question asked yesterday, and the minister's suggestion that he might make a statement, I should like to inquire if he has any further statement to make at this time about the supposed German or foreign submarine in Halifax harbour?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The latest information received by the department is to the effect that a fifty foot fishing vessel based at Sambro has reported having passed the pilot vessel at the exact time, in the exact position and on the exact course indicated in the report with reference to the submarine.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Much ado about nothing.


Robert James Manion: It might have been something if it had been a submarine.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. 96,
[Mi. Ferland.]
to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress-Mr. Rogers-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 5-Grants of financial assistance to provinces.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the Youth Training Act,_ 1939, which is referred to in this section, Bill'No. 94?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Yes, that reference is to Bill No. 94, which is now at second reading in its progress through the house. In previous years the appropriation for youth training has appeared in the supplementary estimates, and has been eligible, as were other appropriations of that kind, in respect of applications to the Department of Finance for further assistance by way of loans. This year, inasmuch as youth training is being provided for by statute, it is necessary to include the possibility of loans being applied for under this bill for purposes of youth training.


Mr. PELLETIER:: I know the minister will say that no particular project can be considered while this bill is being discussed1, and I have no intention of asking the minister about any project which it is not proposed to undertake. But in order to have the record clear I should like to read what happened last year in connection with a project which I proposed at that time. This is what the minister said, as reported on page 2498 of Hansard of May 3, 1938:
I did tell him deliberately

That is referring to myself.
-that I felt that the importance of having a Peace River outlet was appreciated on all sides of this house.
I am not at the moment referring to the necessity of putting this project through this year, but the minister will recall that last year I sent a map across the floor of this chamber to him which apparently he looked over quite closely. What action was taken under a similar bill which was passed last year in connection with the project I then proposed? I realize that it is impossible for the minister to commit himself as to any particular project this year, but I should like to have his report as to what was done last year in this regard.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Last year there were no appropriations under the Department of Labour for highway construction, the appropriations for that purpose being under the Department of Mines and Resources. Whenever a highway program is considered it is discussed in the first instance with the pro-

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
vincial government concerned, and I assume the same practice will be followed this year as last.


René-Antoine Pelletier: But the difference this year is this: If any particular project is deemed to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, it is not necessary to have a provincial recommendation before the federal government can proceed with the project. Am I right in that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Even so, unless the consent of the province were obtained it would be impossible for the dominion government to proceed with construction of its own volition in any single province.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly. Where a province is not called upon to make a contribution to any particular project but has no objection to having it declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, could the federal government itself proceed with the project without recommendation from the province? The bill makes it quite clear that the minister or the governor in council has power to declare any work to be for the general advantage of Canada. If no obstruction were placed in the way, would it not be possible for the federal government to proceed under that power with the construction of a highway or any other project?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Under the conditions described there would be no legal impediment to doing what the hon. member proposes. It would then be a question of policy, whether or not it would be wise for the dominion government to enter upon the construction say of a highway or any other provincial undertaking in any province.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I want to understand that quite clearly. It would simply be a matter of government policy whether construction of the road should be undertaken?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Correct.


Vincent Dupuis: It may surprise some hon. members of this committee to see me rise to speak on the question which has been raised by the hon. member for Peace River. But I had the privilege in 1933 of visiting the Peace River country and I know at least a little of the difficulties in the way of transportation which beset the citizens of that part of the country. In the session of 1934 I was one of those who seconded, while wTe were in opposition as the hon. member is now, the proposal for a Peace River outlet. The same difficulty existed then, that the public roads of the province are under the direct control of the province of Alberta. It was then considered
advisable to obtain from the province authorization for a contribution towards the building of the Peace River outlet. I am strongly in favour of the building of that road. I believe it is a necessity, very urgently required by the people in that part of the country. I do not know in just what way this or any other government might best proceed, but undoubtedly the Peace River district is one of the best sections of Canada. It is prosperous, the land is fertile, the people are industrious, and any government which undertook the building of that outlet would render a service not only to the people of the Peace River district but to the whole country. It would encourage people from the other provinces and from other countries to establish themselves in the Peace River district.
I must admit, however, that the argument of the minister is correct. While under the legislation a company or public body could obtain money, it is almost impossible for the federal government to interfere in provincial affairs, and public roads are undoubtedly under the direct control of the province. But I repeat, if this government can under any other circumstances assist in that project to help that part of the country, I should be one of those in eastern Canada to approve such action.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to section 5 which I will ask my colleague to move. It reads as follows:
That subsection one of section 5 be amended by inserting after the word "Act" in line 30, page 2 of the Bill, the words "or the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1938."


Mr. HOWE:: I move accordingly.


Mrs. BLACK:: Mr. Chairman, I have been very much interested in this Peace River road because a number of former Yukoners, men who served overseas, went into that country when they came back. A number of them visited me in Vancouver this fall. So far the road in British Columbia has been built just as roads used to be built when I was a girl, many years ago. The farmers and residents of the district did the work. They could not afford to spend money, and so they pooled their resources, their horses and their time and their food, to get the work done. I would ask the minister to consider giving as generous assistance as possible to the building of this road.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I agree entirely as to the value of the work that has been done in a voluntary way by those who have made some progress on the Monkman Pass highway, and I am sure that the Minister of Mines and Resources who is now more directly interested,
3046	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
is equally aware of the nature*and importance of that project. I believe there are two outlets on which some progress has been made: the Monkman Pass highway, on which progress has been made by voluntary effort, and the Finlay Forks road. If the governments of British Columbia and Alberta could include a portion of the Monkman Pass highway in their program, it would certainly facilitate its construction.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I desire to thank the minister for the fairmindedness he has shown, and to thank also the hon. member for the Yukon and the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville. I have made no extended remarks this afternoon as to the desirability of constructing this road, because I do not think this is the proper occasion, but I shall be prepared to do so later. At the moment I wish to impress on the minister the fact that the construction of this outlet would be of benefit to the people not only of the Peace River district but of many other parts of Alberta and British Columbia. I feel sure that many members on both sides of the house would be glad to support such a project, because it is a matter of much more than local significance. As I say, I am not attempting now to give any details. I simply wish to refresh the memory of the minister, and I trust that the government will bear the project in mind this year.


Mr. HEAPS:: All this week the house has been discussing Bill No. 96 and the resolution which preceded it. I am sure that no Liberal member can reasonably complain about the time the house has taken in dealing with these important questions of unemployment and agricultural distress; for I remember that between 1930 and 1935 we discussed the question of unemployment not for days but for weeks. I am sure that members of the Liberal party will display a little patience if for a short time I discuss this very important matter. Fortunately or unfortunately for myself, I was unable to be present during the preceding days of the week, but I carefully read Hansard and took note of what had been said. If there was one thing which impressed me in reading over the speeches, especially of the minister and those associated with him, it was the drifting attitude of the government and the totally ineffective methods they have adopted in the past few years to deal with this perplexing question.
I am sure that at this time no hon. member is more disappointed with the result of his efforts than the Minister of Labour himself. There has been no harder working minister of labour than the present one. No one, I believe, is more greatly respected by the mem-
[Mr. Rogers. 1
bers of the house than is the Minister of Labour. I feel sure that when he assumed office about three and a half years ago he did so in the high expectation that within a reasonable length of time the policies which the government would adopt would have some measure of effectiveness in so far as unemployment is concerned. But though the minister and those associated with him are anxious, I believe, that something of an effective nature should be done, unfortunately to-day we are no nearer the solution of the problem than we were when hon. gentlemen opposite assumed office. I recognize that the responsibility is not an easy one for any government to assume. But, in going through the speeches delivered during the past few days by the minister and others of his party, I find nothing of an effective nature in any proposals they intend to adopt during the brief lifetime that remains for the present government.
Another point which struck me forcibly was that, having practically admitted that they had no solution of the problem of unemployment, hon. members proceeded to throw jibes at the unemployed themselves. I am not blaming the Liberal party for that, but I do blame some hon. members because of the applause which evidently greeted certain remarks made on that side of the house. I do not think it is in the best interest of the unemployed themselves to sneer at them or call them insulting names because under existing conditions they are so unfortunate as not to have employment. From my personal observation of these young men I know that many of them are just as good as my own boys, as good as any boys we can find. What we are doing and have been doing for a number of years is enough to demoralize them, because we have not been able to make out of them the useful citizens they should be.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I have no desire to restrict discussion on this question, but I have been waiting for my hon. friend to address himself to the section before the committee. He was not here when the resolution was discussed or when the bill received its second reading. Had he been here on either occasion he could have made the speech he is now making; and it does seem to me that if we are to proceed with our business at all it must be done in the regular way. My hon. friend should address himself to the section before the committee.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Unfortunately I was unable to be here, but this section deals, I believe, with practically the whole question of unemployment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, no.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is so broad that almost anything, I think, can be discussed under it. It deals with grants of financial assistance to provinces.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will give an undertaking to my hon. friend. If he will address himself to the sections in question as we proceed with them, I am quite willing that he shall make his speech when we come to the final section of the bill, the title section.


An hon. MEMBER:: Another speech-


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not want these innuendoes from any hon. member.


Mr. BRADETTE:: A few moments ago the hon. member was making innuendoes against the whole Liberal party. It seems that he is a good judge of innuendoes.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman, will you let me make my point in reply to the minister?


An hon. MEMBER:: On a point of order?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Surely I am entitled to speak to a point of order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wait until the chairman rules.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I want to speak before you rule, Mr. Chairman.


Frederick George Sanderson: If the hon. member will confine his remarks to the point of order, well and good.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is all I said I wanted to do. I know what the ruling is going to be, but it does not matter.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The marginal note to section 5 states, " grants of financial assistance to provinces." Does not that deal with unemployment? Then it goes on, "renewals of loans, advances or guarantees." That is all in connection with unemployment and nothing else. It deals with youth training; it deals with the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1938, and so on. Does not the whole question of unemployment arise in the very term.4 I have referred to? The reason I intended to speak on it fully at the present time was that I thought that under this section I could make my remarks more comprehensive. I intend to make them only once, not twice, and if the minister says I can make them when we come to the last clause of the bill, it is a matter of no consequence to me whether I make them now or later. At the same time I thought I was perfectly in order in discussing the question, now that we are dealing with the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1938.


Frederick George Sanderson: I think the point of order raised by the Minister of Labour is well taken. I would ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North to confine his remarks to the section before the committee. The minister intimated that the hon. member would have the privilege of making his speech on section 12, which is the last clause of the bill.


Abraham Albert Heaps: To clarify things a little, the minister might briefly tell us what is meant by " the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1938." What bearing has it on this section and on the bill?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The proposed amendment?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No. It is in the section itself.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The amendment was proposed a moment ago and has been read aloud to the committee. The purpose of that amendment is to permit the passing of an order in council which would authorize a loan for relief purposes covering a province's share of relief expenditures made in the dominion's preceding fiscal year. Due to some of the western provinces' fiscal years ending April 30, a month later than the close of the dominion's fiscal year, and due to the uncertainty as to what the provinces' share of the unemployment relief costs will be, for some time after the close of their fiscal years, it is deemed advisable to provide this authority to make any loan which may be found necessary to cover the provinces' relief outlays during the fiscal year 1938-39. The amendment touches the portion of this section which has to do with loans made to the provinces.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But these loans are for the purpose of alleviating unemployment and agricultural distress; am I right?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Correct. They cover the provinces' share.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yet I was told a moment ago that we cannot discuss unemployment relief when we are considering a section in which provision is made for funds for the alleviation of unemployment. Is that a logical way in which to conduct business?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I still think that if we are to make progress in a businesslike way we should address ourselves to the different sections of this bill. What my hon. friend proposes to say would have been perfectly in order, I think, on the resolution or on second reading.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member was ill.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That does not affect the rules of the house.

3048	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Major James William Coldwell: Of course it does not, but this section is sufficiently wide to take in what the hon. member has said.


An hon. MEMBER:: The chairman has ruled.


Major James William Coldwell: However, the ruling has been given, and I do not want to transgress. But may I just say this. The section provides for the granting of financial assistance to the provinces by way of loans, advances or guarantees for the purpose of assisting the province to pay its share of expenditures incurred for the purposes mentioned in section 4 of the act. I wish to draw to the attention of the minister again a situation that is right under our noses in this particular city. There are as a matter of fact about a hundred men in this city at the present time who are without a place to sleep in. These men find it impossible to obtain relief from the authorities because they cannot establish domicile- exactly what we were discussing a day or two ago. I understand that these facts have been presented both to the mayor of the city and to the Hon. Eric Cross, but nothing has been done. To my personal knowledge some of these men are ill, and owing to the fact that they are living under these conditions more of them are likely to become ill. It seems to me that when we are discussing a section of this kind we should impress upon the minister the necessity of assuming an obligation to persuade, if I may put it that way, the provincial or the local authorities to do something to alleviate this distress.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I submit that this speech is just as much out of order as that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We discussed this matter yesterday on second reading, and we also discussed it on the resolution. I have no objection to its being brought forward, but how does my hon. friend bring what he is saying under the clause which has to do with the lending power? He has not even so much as suggested the lending power.


Major James William Coldwell: The clause, as I understand it, has to do with grants of financial assistance to provinces-what for?


Norman McLeod Rogers: By way of loan, advance or guarantees.


Major James William Coldwell: By way of loan, advance or guarantees.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, and that does not affect the question my hon. friend is now discussing.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. The matter comes under the province and in connection with some of these commitments made under the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act.


Norman McLeod Rogers: On a point of order, if my hon. friend is correct, it is possible on every clause of the bill to reopen a debate generally on unemployment. Surely that is not a possible situation. Ample opportunity was given, both when the resolution was before the house and on the second reading of the bill, and there will be further opportunity when the estimates of the Department of Labour are brought forward; but it seems to me we are not going to be able to make progress at all if we reopen the general debate upon every clause of the bill before the committee.


Major James William Coldwell: I had concluded what I intended to say on the matter, and was going to ask the minister to give the committee an assurance that the department would take some steps to alleviate the distress.


Norman McLeod Rogers: This matter is not now
before the committee for the first time, and my hon. friend is perfectly aware of the policy that has been announced on behalf of the dominion government with respect to care being given transients. Not only that., but I am equally sure he is aware, as I have pointed out before, that a certain amount of private employment is being made available steadily from week to week in this city. It has never been possible for this or any other government to give an assurance that work would be provided for any particular group of men, and I cannot think of what sort of assurance my hon. friend expects at this time.


Major James William Coldwell: I want some assurance that if work cannot be provided some assistance and care will be given these men who are in distress, and I think the. federal authorities can bring pressure to bear upon the provincial and the municipal authorities to look after this situation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would it be possible for the minister to submit a tabulation of all loans made under similar legislation to each province, showing the date and the amount of the loan and the amount refunded since this policy started? The unemployment relief and assistance act of 1936 was a renewal of all similar previous legislation, and I presume the minister will have no objection to furnishing the committee with such information. Possibly he can do it right now.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: I wish to ask the minister a question I directed to him when speaking on the resolution. Could he give us the total amount of money that has been spent on relief in Canada since relief started, say, since 1930, by the municipal, provincial and federal authorities? What portion has been capitalized in the municipalities and by the provincial and federal governments?

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Norman McLeod Rogers: That information will be available in the course of a very few days in the annual report of the commissioner of unemployment relief. As a matter of fact some information has already been brought down in answers to questions placed on the order paper. I am not sure that it can be given precisely as my hon. friend asks for it- that is, as to capitalization.


John Charles Landeryou: This is an important matter. I have been listening to addresses over the air by mayors of municipalities and they claim they can no longer carry on under a financial policy whereby they must borrow or capitalize relief expenditures. The interest charges are rapidly mounting, and people are alarmed over the situation. They are refusing to build homes. I think the information should be made available to the committee.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall certainly try to get the information in the manner now requested by the hon. member. I believe he will find most of it in the report of the commissioner, which will be available in a few days, but I shall look up his remarks and find out whether the information can be given in the form he desires, although I am informed just now by the commissioner that we have not here as of record the degree to which the municipalities have capitalized relief expenditures.


Mr. HAYHURST:: Mr. Chairman, will you read the amendment again so that we may know exactly where we are?


Frederick George Sanderson: It has already been read from the chair. It is moved by Mr. Howe:
That subsection one of section 5 be amended by inserting after the word "Act" in line 30, page 2 of the bill, the words "or the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1938."


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member for
Temiscouata asked a question about loans paid under the various relief acts since 1930. The amounts are:
Manitoba	$23,158,646
Saskatchewan	 61,052,442
Alberta	 26,079,198
British Columbia	 32,957,210
This gives a total of $143,247,496.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister. I wonder if these loans are distinct from guarantees that have been given the provinces in some cases. What amount has been refunded by each province since 1930?


Mr. DUNNING:: The provinces pay
interest upon the amounts loaned, with the exception of part of the loans to Saskatchewan, the interest on which that province has been unable to meet. As to repayments, we
71492-192J
have total repayments this year from Manitoba of $956,000, and from Saskatchewan of $31,000. As to guarantees, these are loans under the authority of this or similar legislation since 1930, and they have nothing whatever to do with guarantees.


Jean-François Pouliot: Therefore guarantees for seed purposes and so on are entirely different?


Charles Avery Dunning: Entirely, yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Are the refundings that
the minister has just mentioned the only ones that have been made by Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?


Charles Avery Dunning: We have had some each year, but I happen to have the record of the refunds for this year only. They are in the public accounts each year.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is the amount mentioned in the first place by the minister the amount that is now due by each of the provinces?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the net amount now owing.


Jean-François Pouliot: Are there some amounts still due from the legislation of 1930 to 1935 inclusive which have been renewed by the act of 1936?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are all renewed
constantly, except in so far as the repayments affect the totals.


Jean-François Pouliot: But what I want to know is whether sufficient payments have been made until now by each province to repay the amounts lent for unemployment and agricultural purposes from 1930 to 1935.


Charles Avery Dunning: Doubtless the answer is no. I would have to verify it, but I am certain the answer would be in the negative.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is on a refunding basis only?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, repayment. I understood the hon. member for Temiscouata wished to know if there had been sufficient repayments to reimburse the dominion for the amount lent between 1930 and 1935. Without reference to the public accounts, I cannot answer that with finality, but I am quite certain that there have not been.


Jean-François Pouliot: Was the amount paid
each year by each of the three prairie provinces enough to cover the interest and pay something on the principal, or just enough to cover the interest, or not enough to cover the interest?


Charles Avery Dunning: Speaking from memory I would say that the interest is kept up in
3050	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
the ease of all the provinces except Saskatchewan. On a considerable portion of Saskatchewan's indebtedness the interest is kept up, but not on all of it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank both ministers
for their explanation. We have every sympathy for those of our countrymen who are in distress in any province. With regard to the prairie provinces, we are informed that the situation is worse in Saskatchewan -than it is in Manitoba and Alberta. In Alberta, of course, the land is just on the slopes of the Rocky mountains which is a great agricultural advantage; and in Manitoba there is not so much drought as in Saskatchewan. On the other hand if that policy is sound for the west I do not see why there is not an understanding between the dominion government and the provincial government to provide the same assistance for the settlers of Temiscouata county. In my constituency, just as in the west, there are some good lands, other lands not so good, and some of my people have been put by the provincial government-


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member is
out of order. We are discussing section 5.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, if you
will be kind enough to listen to me, you will see that I am proceeding by way of comparison; I say that the loan policy which has been extended to the western provinces should be extended also to one part of the province of Quebec which needs it badly. I could object to that policy, but I do not, although I find it is legally wrong. It is done to help those who are in distress, and that is a very good reason for doing it. But as it is done for one part of the country which needs it, I do not see why it is not done for another part of the country which also needs it. That is why there is a correlation between the two points, the distress of the prairie. farmers who suffer from the drought and the distress of the settlers of Temiscouata who suffer from having been put on the rocks. There are two obstacles to good colonization in my constituency-


William Hayhurst: Possibly they are settled on the rocks.


Jean-François Pouliot: They were deceived as to the fertility of the lands that were given to them, as my hon. friend could be deceived on an investment, something which was painted in glowing colours to him and he took it and then found it was bad. That is the trouble with those settlers; they wanted to do well and they suffered from having been deceived in the way I have indicated. Therefore, sir,

I urge upon the members of the cabinet who are here at present and on the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance to take early steps toward the relief of all the settlers who suffer in my constituency. I have said this many times, and not only for my own constituency; I have said the same for the north country also. I want every man to be happy and just as prosperous as a man can be in this country. That is my earnest hope. I do not see why men who are my countrymen, good sturdy people, should be deprived of opportunity to earn their living decently, on account of some trouble which is not theirs. I do not want to make an unpleasant comparison between different sections of this country. We are all together; we must help all those who suffer in this country, and there should be no distinctions. We are not jealous of the west, but we want our share also. I have a right to say so here, and I will maintain that right. I can go anywhere in my constituency and no one will pull a hair from my head; they know I am fighting their cause. I do not paint the picture blacker than it should be; I do not try to give hon. members a false impression of my constituency. There is good land in my constituency, but the settlers are not established on the good land; put them on good land and they will not suffer any more.
The other day I got a word of approval from the far corner of the house. It was highly appreciated by those farmers; they said, "There are some members who are interested in us. You are not alone in defending us; you will get some sympathy." I want all hon. members to approve my stand in asking the government to do something for the relief. of those settlers. If the constitution is not an obstacle to helping farmers from the prairies I do not see why it should be an obstacle to helping the farmers and settlers of Temiscouata county. What is good for the west is good for us. Therefore, sir, I thank very heartily the members of the committee for the sympathy which they seem to show to these people who are good Canadians and who suffer under a handicap and who must not suffer any longer.
I received a letter from a parish priest to-day informing me of what is going on. There are some children who cannot go to school because of lack of proper clothing. They have to spend all the winter inside; they suffer distress; they need help, and they must have it. As was so well said yesterday, when a ship is on fire at sea there is not a big liner which will not change her course to go to her rescue. I want the help of the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
dominion government jointly with the provincial government for those settlers of Temis-couata county, and I hope I am heard by all.


Charles Avery Dunning: Before the subject is closed may I say it is quite evident from the applause that members of the committee do not clearly understand the nature of the existing legislation in its relationship to the provinces. Of course no one can quarrel with what the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) advocates with respect to citizens of the province of Quebec, and of the constituency of Temiscouata in particular, who are suffering under adverse conditions. The question is rather one of method, depending upon where the distress occurs.
The test under this legislation as to the eligibility of a province for a loan is, first, its demonstrated inability to take care of its own share of the expenditure under consideration. That is to say, there is first the province's share of direct relief. The test there is: Are the province's own resources at this time, as revealed by financial statements which from month to month they must submit to the minister, adequate to meet their own share of the expenditure? Sometimes they are in part adequate, in which case they do not get a loan for the full amount. In some cases they are quite inadequate, in which case they get a loan up to the amount of their own share of the expenditure on direct relief.
The next question is this. All the various cooperative schemes which are in effect as between the dominion and the provinces for providing works of various kinds under various departments of the government in each case involve a provincial share. That is, the province must be prepared to spend some of its own money. In that case also, only if a province demonstrates that its own revenues prevent it from going into the scheme without the aid of a loan from the dominion is a loan made.
Coming to the specific matter mentioned by the hon. member for Temiscouata, within the scope of existing legislation resettlement schemes are operating cooperatively as between the dominion and any province desiring to enter into such an arrangement. The dominion contributes; the province contributes; also in some cases the municipalities contribute-I believe that is under the Department of Agriculture, is it not?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is under the Department of Labour.


Charles Avery Dunning: But even in such case a province would be able to take advantage of the loan facility afforded by section 5 only if it demonstrated, as in all other cases,
that its resources were not equal to the task of putting up its own share. Let it be understood that the dominion always puts up its share in cash, as a grant. It is not a loan. I am speaking now only of what is contemplated by section 5, namely the procedure of lending to the province for its share of any cooperative undertaking. In that connection of course I need not tell the hon. member for Temiscouata we have never had an application from Quebec based upon the essential principle that the province was unable to meet its own share.
Under this legislation we have power to enter into resettlement arrangements. One of the ministers concerned with resettlement more intimately than I am could deal with that phase of the matter. The official before me tells me that most resettlement schemes are provincial in character, and do not necessarily come under cooperative undertakings. But it does run in my mind that in connection with some provinces there is and has been a measure of cooperation by the federal government in connection with resettlement. I am wholly in favour of such cooperation. The important question the hon. member raises rests of course upon whether or not a province is able to bear the cost of its own share of any cooperative undertaking.


William Hayhurst: Before the minister rose I was going to speak in regard to what the hon. member for Temiscouata has said. I interjected the remark that some of the settlers were probably living on rocky land. We realize that in every province a large number of our settlers are living on land which is sub-marginal. It may be rocky, or sandy, or some other type of land unfitted to produce a decent standard of living. Therefore I was entirely in sympathy with what the Minister of Finance said regarding a resettlement scheme. It would seem that when Canada was settled there was no planned idea in respect to the manner in which the people should settle. It is time now that the provinces, the municipalities and the dominion got together for the good of the people and proposed some planned scheme of settlement whereby those people could make a living.
I realize that many of the people in Temiscouata who live on their own land, and children moving from their homes into the immediate neighbourhood, have settled on land on which it is very difficult indeed to make a living. They are unable adequately to take care of themselves. There should be some kind of planned economy. I do refer not to a socialistic state, but to cooperation of the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities to prevent people from settling on
3052	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
lands which are better adapted to the growing of trees. Reforestation activities have been suggested in the house. It would seem to me that these questions should be considered on a much wider basis, in order that the whole population may have a higher and better standard of living.


John Charles Landeryou: I am trying to find out the amount of money we have borrowed to maintain relief in Canada, and the amount of interest we are paying thereon. I should like to have these figures so that I may make a comparison between the amount of money spent yearly on relief and the amount going to the bondholders because of relief expenditures. Can the minister give me those figures? Can he tell me the amount of money we have borrowed as a dominion to meet our share of relief, the amount of interest we have paid on the amount borrowed, and the amount spent every year by the dominion on direct relief?


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, an answer to the hon. member's question would of course involve a search of the records of the Department of Finance. An effort to segregate the portion of each year's expenditures devoted to relief purposes and the portion capitalized would probably involve months of work. It would be virtually an impossible task. The only approximation one can give is this-and when one is discussing large-scale financial transactions he does not like to give approximations-broadly, in view of the fact that in every year since 1930 there has been a deficit as between revenue and expenditure in the dominion accounts, one can assume-not entirely, but almost-that the deficit has been borrowed from time to time, less, of course, any surplus on ordinary account. It is very difficult to particularize. If we assume the worst and consider that it is all debt-this will suit my hon. friend, because it will make his argument that much stronger, although I am not admitting that assumption for a moment-there would be S143,000,000 outstanding which would represent debt. We come now to the hon. member's next question, the interest. No man can tell what that is. This amount has been accumulated at different rates throughout the years which have elapsed, and the length of time must be considered. Mjr hon. friend knows this as well as I. If he takes a figure for interest-


John Charles Landeryou: Take an average rate.


Charles Avery Dunning: An average rate of what? In order to average it you would have to get somewhere between the dominion rate on three months' bills, which is and has been

for some time past just under two-thirds of one per cent per annum, and the rate on long term money, which at the present time is slightly over three per cent per annum. My hon. friend may average it as he likes in order to make his argument stronger or weaker, according to the particular spot he takes for his average. These questions are entirely hypothetical, and one cannot answer them with accuracy. I think I have given my hon. friend sufficient guide for his argument.


John Charles Landeryou: We know that during the last three or four years, as the minister states, we have been getting money at anywhere from three-quarters of one per cent to three per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


John Charles Landeryou: Two-thirds of one per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: It has been as low as less than one-half of one per cent.


John Charles Landeryou: I listened to the mayor of Montreal say that he had to pay 4-61 per cent for the money he had to borrow in order to capitalize relief expenditures. I believe Montreal can borrow money just as cheaply as any other municipality.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend does not know what he is talking about.


John Charles Landeryou: Other cities may be able to borrow at a little lower rate.


Charles Avery Dunning: I must stop my hon. friend when he misstates the facts. The city of Ottawa, for instance, borrows at a rate much lower than the figure my hon. friend mentioned. I cannot allow him to generalize and then put me in the position of confirming his statement.


John Charles Landeryou: Possibly Montreal has to pay a little, more than Ottawa, but there may be other municipalities which have to pay more than the city of Montreal. I do not believe the city of Montreal has to pay the highest rate. The municipalities, I believe, now put up 33J per cent of the expenditures, the provincial governments 33| per cent and the federal government 33J per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member is
wrong again.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The percentage varies as between municipalities even in the same province. In the arrangement announced for this year the municipalities will assume 20 per cent of the cost of material aid. Hitherto the municipalities have been assuming from 20 to 30 per cent of this cost.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


John Charles Landeryou: The municipalities
have been assuming from 20 to 30 per cent ot the total expenditures for relief, which have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of $900,000,000 in round figures. Is that correct?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There again my hon. friend is dealing in round figures.


John Charles Landeryou: We cannot get the information.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That figure of $900,000,000 covers not only the amounts paid through the municipalities for the distribution of direct relief, but also large expenditures on public works. As a matter of fact, of that $900,000,000, which it is sometimes said has been spent without there being anything to show for it, over $300,000,000 has been expended on public works of various kinds, chiefly highway construction.


John Charles Landeryou: This $900,000,000 was spent for the alleviation of relief in Canada, whether in direct relief or on the construction of public works. We are continually stressing the fact that relief costs are tremendous. We attempt to show just how much it is costing to keep these people on relief and the tremendous burden it creates, municipally, provincially and federally. I should like the minister to state the difference between what we pay in interest to the bondholders who have lent money to the municipalities, to the prov-. inces or to the federal government for relief expenditures, and what we are spending on relief. I believe we are paying more in interest than we are paying to the relief recipients.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member knows better than that. The question is not worth answering.


John Charles Landeryou: Can the minister give us any information as to that?


Mr. PERLEY:: I have an appeal to make to the minister which I think is more important than the idea the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Landeryou) has been trying for some time to put over. I was interested in hearing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) give a statement as to the financial standing of the provinces in connection with loans outstanding. The minister stated that under this bill it will be possible to make loans to the provinces, especially to those which are not in position to bear their share of the cost. I am going to take this opportunity to make an appeal on behalf of the Saskatchewan government. Looking about the chamber I see that there are only a couple of Liberal members from Saskatchewan now present. If there were more of them here,
I know they would smile when I make the statement that I am going to try to do something on behalf of that government. I know the province of Saskatchewan will be most anxious to take advantage of this legislation and enter into an agreement under which they will be able to obtain loans to undertake certain projects of a national and general interest for the relief of unemployment.
It is reported in the western press that Hon. A. T. Proctor, provincial minister of highways, is en route to Ottawa to seek federal assistance for an extensive road program. The report states that the premier and the attorney general are with him, and it goes on to say:
Except for the ordinary expenditures f<pr highway maintenance, no money was voted in the legislature for highways construction this year. Consequently the only road construction undertaken will be whatever the province can obtain assistance for in Ottawa.
I trust that when this appeal is made tc the minister he will give it every consideration. The highways of the province are not in good shape. This report states that the provincial minister is going to make a special appeal in connection with the highways running north and south from the United States boundary to highway No. 1. About 140 miles of that highway running west from the Manitoba boundary must be covered before you reach hard surface. The importance of the hard surfacing of our highways was discussed last evening, and I was sorry more hon. members from the west were not here to support the proposal made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). It is most important that our highways should be surfaced in order to attract the tourist traffic which is fast becoming an industry of great value. Considerable employment could be given in hard-surfacing these roads. It is quite obvious from this report that unless the province is able to get assistance, no road work will be undertaken this year. I trust -that when this delegation from the west arrives the minister will give their representations every consideration, supported as they will be, I am sure, by some of the Liberal members from Saskatchewan.


Major James William Coldwell: In connection with the youth training plan, I have here a booklet entitled Canada's Young Unemployed, facts and figures of the youth training program, and at page 24 there is a table which 1 should like to put on Hansard, because without it my remarks will not be intelligible.


Charles Avery Dunning: May I point out that the clause under consideration merely involves the provision of authority to lend money to
3054	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricidtural Distress
the provinces. The youth training legislation is on the order paper. Also there are votes for every one of the purposes contemplated by this legislation. I did not like to interrupt the hon. member for Qu'Appelle because he was having such a good time making the remarks that he did, but as a matter of fact the contemplated expenditures for roads can be discussed in their proper place, on the votes; and the youth training legislation is to come before the house. So in the interests of order, Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the committee to the fact that the clause under consideration simply confers on the government through the Minister of Finance certain powers to lend dominion funds to the provinces.


Major James William Coldwell: I am quite aware of that, and I do not want to take up the time of the committee; nevertheless these votes are expended in various ways, and the expenditures involved more or less bring these tables into the discussion. I do not want particularly to discuss the matter at this stage. I am quite willing to defer my remarks until the youth training bill is before the house, but will there be opportunity for full discussion of these expenditures on the estimates? We all know what happens in the last two or three days of the session when millions and millions of dollars are voted in a few hours.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have already announced that it is proposed to follow this bill either with the estimates of the Department of Labour or with the youth training bill, so that my hon. friend will have ample opportunity later.


John Charles Landeryou: How much money has been advanced by the dominion government to each of the provinces in each of the years since 1930, and what rate of interest was paid by the provinces on these loans?


Charles Avery Dunning: I gave the figures of the present outstanding amounts. I have here a whole volume of figures for each year.


John Charles Landeryou: The minister can put it on Hansard.


Charles Avery Dunning: The information has been brought down repeatedly in the form of returns. The present rate charged to provinces is three per cent; that is what they pay to-day. When this government came into office it was five and five and a half per cent; that was reduced, and the rate is now, and has been for some years, three per cent. The information my hon. friend asks for is all in the public accounts; it is all of record now. To give the

figures here would be a complicated matter, because of the various divisions throughout the years.


John Charles Landeryou: Do the public accounts give the exact amount of money borrowed by the provinces?


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly.


John Charles Landeryou: For every year?


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly.


John Charles Landeryou: And the rate of interest paid?


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly.


John Charles Landeryou: Could I have the page numbers so that I could look it up?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is going too far.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Can the minister tell me the outstanding commitments under the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1938, for the three prairie provinces?


Charles Avery Dunning: Loans to the three prairie provinces under this statute for 1938?


Orvis A. Kennedy: The section says:
-as well as the amount for which the province may be obligated by way of loan in connection with the cost of any undertaking for which commitments were made under the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1938.
What commitments would these be?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is the province's undertaking to borrow that is there referred to. An agreement is made between the province and the minister concerned, depending upon the type of project. That involves a certain commitment. The accounts with respect to that commitment may not all be in at the end of our fiscal year. Our authority is just an annual authority, so that there must be provision to take care of the overlap. But it does not increase the original commitment.


Orvis A. Kennedy: Has the minister the amounts outstanding under the commitments of the three prairie provinces?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not here, I am afraid.


Abraham Albert Heaps: As I understood the Minister of Finance, the three prairie provinces have been lent, all told, a vast sum of money, approximately $70,000,000, and with the exception of Saskatchewan, which was faced with extraordinary difficulties, they have paid all the interest charges due on their obligations. Is that right?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is correct, and it is also correct to say that Saskatchewan paid a portion of its interest even under present circumstances.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am glad to have that information, because comment is often made in this house on the amount of money the government is lending the west. Given ordinary conditions in western Canada, I am satisfied that the people of the western provinces would be only too happy to pay back every single dollar lent to them by the federal treasury, and that up to date they have paid the interest charges on their loans is an indication of that very fact.
There is one thing I wish to say to hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not see why they should be so anxious to call out at every opportunity "carried"-"carried"-"carried." I remember when some of them were in this chamber in 1930 and in 1935, and the long weeks that were taken in discussing this very same kind of legislation. We have been discussing the legislation now before us for only a comparatively short time, and hon. gentlemen opposite seem anxious not to allow it to be discussed in the way it ought to be discussed. If hon. members who apparently do not wish to discuss this measure would allow others who do wish to discuss it the opportunity to do so, there would be no harm done. In discussing the legislation hon. members are only exercising a right which is theirs as members of this house. It may be that some members are on their feet a little too often but no one can accuse me of that, because this is the first afternoon I have said a word on this legislation. I have been absent through no fault of my own.
This question of unemployment is one tihat seriously affects our constituencies, and it is of particular importance to my own constituency. I am not going to discuss it now at any length, but I do wish to make a mild protest against some hon. members opposite attempting to dispose summarily of what is after all the most important question that confronts the house at the present time. Not only that, but if they will turn their minds back to 1930 and think of all the things they said about unemployment during the election campaign of that year, they will realize how much it helped them to obtain the seats they now occupy in this chamber. On the third reading of the bill I shall make some extended remarks. All I wish to say now is that hon. members opposite should not interrupt those who desire to speak on this legislation, which is of great importance to some of us.


Charles Avery Dunning: The important thing is not whether anybody is taking up too much time, it is a question of the rules. The rules give to my hon. friend the same rights as are given to anybody else in this chamber, but no more. He is right in urging full dis-71492-193
cussion, but it is not right to accuse me of trying to ram things through when I insist upon the rules being applied in another particular, and that is that the discussion shall relate to the subject matter under consideration. Now, there are the two sides of the rules, and I believe all of us have a duty to maintain both sides, that is to say, freedom of discussion, but discussion strictly within the limits of the rules; otherwise everybody infringes everybody else's rights one way or the other. Is not that so?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, I think the minister is correct in what he says; but never since I have been in this chamber have I known anyone to ask for these rulings as often as the minister has asked for them.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite right, I did. And I intend to.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There you are; and I say therefore that is somewhat arbitrary.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I say with due respect, and I have a high regard for the minister, that when his party were in opposition there were not the same restrictions placed on discussion as there are at the present time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Oh, but that was different!


Abraham Albert Heaps: If the minister in charge
of the bill would appeal less to the chair and more to the good sense of the members, we should get along just as fast without having rulings of the chair as often as we are having them now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Again, you see, the word "carried." But there is a question I want to ask the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Labour. A moment ago the Minister of Finance referred to the fact that we passed these bills annually. That is true. The other afternoon, in discussing this matter, I was anxious to find the reason why we pass these bills annually when the problem is admittedly no longer an emergency matter. It is not a matter of an annual appropriation or an annual plan; it is properly a matter of longterm policy. In 1929 and 1930 we hoped that conditions would right themselves and that this prolonged period of unemployment would end long before the present time. Instead of that, there was a slight improvement and then a recession. The time has come when we should consider some long-term plan, extending possibly over three, four or five years,.

3056	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
instead of one year, in connection with public works which might be undertaken over that period of time. I notice that in the second part of the defence purchasing bill provision was made for the carrying on of defence expenditures over a period of, I think it was, ten years.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, then, over a
period.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, not at all.


Major James William Coldwell: The finance portion of the bill indicates that.
Mr.	DUNNING:	My	hon.	friend	completely	misunderstands the	bill.


Major James William Coldwell: No, I do not. It allows parliament to appropriate a sum of money repayable over a period of ten years.
Mr.	DUNNING:	My	hon.	friend	misunderstands.Mr.	COLDWELL:	If	I misunderstand,
will the minister correct me?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will try. To answer
my hon. friend's first question as relating to this particular bill: it astonishes me to hear a member of any opposition advocate giving to a government for a longer period than twelve months the powers contained in a bill of this kind, because that would constitute the worst kind of blank cheque, this bill dealing, as it does, with a method of financing expenditures which-remember'-are otherwise provided for. This is a means whereby the provinces may be helped for a year only by the dominion. With respect to the comparison the hon. member makes with the other bill which has passed this house, the same holds true. That bill does not appropriate one dollar.


Major James William Coldwell: I know that.


Charles Avery Dunning: It does not spend
one dollar. It starts a plan of repayment of money spent, but which parliament can deal with session by session in the estimates in just the manner that this legislation is dealt with. So far from being different, the principle of responsibility is maintained just the same in the one case as in the other, and it is necessary to come ;o parliament with specific estimates in connection with that bill and in connection with all the activities contemplated by this one. There is no difference whatever.
[Mr. Coldwell.l


Major James William Coldwell: I do not agree with
the minister. My understanding of the other bill was that it does establish a ten-year program.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, positively not.


Major James William Coldwell: AVell, a ten year repayment of a program.


Charles Avery Dunning: Ah!


Major James William Coldwell: It is a program laid out in advance.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, positively not. If my hon. friend will permit me again-


Major James William Coldwell: Then what was the object of the legislation?


Charles Avery Dunning: It laid down the method for repayment of such sums as might be voted by parliament each year for capital expenditure, defence purposes. It did not in any way commit parliament to spend any money. It merely provided a method whereby each year one-tenth on an amortization basis of whatever sums parliament might decide in each year should be spent of capital. It is a different conception entirely.


Major James William Coldwell: Suppose I grant that there is a difference.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Why then make a statement such as the hon. member has made?


Major James William Coldwell: I do not understand what the hon. member means.


Ross Wilfred Gray: The hon. member has made
a very definite statement, that it is on a ten-year plan.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister has explained where I was under a misconception. As a matter of fact, I am very glad to be corrected if I am under a misconception; I never show any resentment over it. I am usually courteous to hon. members on the other side of the house, and I wish the hon. member for Lambton West would extend the same courtesy to those of us who are in this corner of the house.
In my opinion this condition of unmeploy-ment, particularly with regard to youth training, requires a long term and not an annual program, and I believe this is the place where one might make that suggestion. We have the bill before us now.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, we have a bill before us now.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not this bill.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Major James William Coldwell: I am quite well aware that we have a loan bill. I notice that hon. members on the other side can discuss even the rocky soil in their constituencies, but when we stray a fraction from the actual point of the section under discussion we are immediately called to order. I want to bring again to the attention of the minister and the government the matter of a long term program.


John Charles Landeryou: I believe this is the last question that I wish to direct to the minister. The money is advanced to provinces which are unable to finance their relief obligations. As I understand it, the minister said that there is submitted to the government monthly a financial report upon which they decide whether or not money shall be advanced. Is that correct? In other words, it is the duty of the government to determine whether or not a province is financially able to carry out its relief expenditures. Is that true? The government determines on the report submitted what is the province's position?


Charles Avery Dunning: As to whether they can provide their own share of the payments; that is correct.


Abraham Albert Heaps: One other point-the question of the attitude of the government and the provinces and the municipalities to this whole question of relief. For many years I have stressed in this chamber the great burden which relief places on the municipalities. Lately we have had the mayors meeting in this city and complaining about the difficulties they have had in financing the relief burden. I do not know what the present proportions are. I believe that they are forty per cent federal, forty per cent provincial, and twenty per cent municipal. Am I correct?


Charles Avery Dunning: I hope my hon. friend will forgive me for telling him that he is completely out of order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Out of order?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, quite.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It seems to be difficult to know when one is in order and when he is not.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is quite easy.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Here we are dealing with the question of grants of financial assistance to the provinces.


Charles Avery Dunning: By way of loan.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes. Well, if we grant money to the provinces and they grant it to municipalities, can we not discuss questions involved in the disposition of that money?


Charles Avery Dunning: As a matter of fact they do not do that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is what I am trying to get at, and it is important; and yet I am told I am out of order.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, we are all alike, and if any member of this house insists upon his rights of speech, which I uphold as strongly as any man, at all times, then I submit that we must also, to be logical, uphold the rules of the house; and the rules of the house in committee are clear and specific. I submit to you, sir, that the point of discussion under section 5 relates wholly to the terms and conditions upon which the dominion may lend money to provinces.
Mr. MaeNICOL: All that the chairman has to do is to hold the debate down to the point under discussion and stop irrelevant talk.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the amendment carry?


Abraham Albert Heaps: If I cannot discuss the question of municipalities, if I cannot do this or that for fear of being out of order, I do not see how we can get information. It is the easiest thing in the world to raise a point of order on any question discussed here.


Norman McLeod Rogers: On the point of order,
section 4 would have been the proper place for the hon. member to raise that whole question, and as a matter of fact there was a discussion on it last evening. But we have passed section 4.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Charles Landeryou: How does the government determine whether the provinces are financially able to meet their obligations-on what basis?


Charles Avery Dunning: We continuously examine their accounts as submitted to us. Section 6 deals with the conditions, as far as they can be set out in a bill.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Conditions of financial assistance.


Major James William Coldwell: How is the audit carried out-how frequently? Have we a staff?


Charles Avery Dunning: We get monthly statements from the provinces, certified by their own audit officials, and they are checked up by our own officers, who are particularly charged with this business of looking after loans. Now that the business is of quite considerable proportions we have to watch it
3058	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
closely, and it is not from the -point of view of disputing the certified statement of the province that we review it, but necessarily we must be looking forward over the whole year, just as the province does. The revenue of the province does not come in equal twelfths in each month; it fluctuates up and down. The question of accuracy of anticipation on the part of the province therefore arises. While there is naturally a considerable amount of correspondence back and forth, no material difficulty which it has been impossible to straighten out has arisen with any province so far as I can remember.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the government go into the books of the province and examine the relationship between the province and the municipalities within the province?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, we have nothing to do with that. It must be remembered that the agreements contemplated by this act are altogether between the province and the dominion; we do not follow down to the municipality. That has nothing to do with the question, because we are lending money to the province under agreement.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I understood that, and I think the government is quite right in dealing only with the provinces. It ought not to recognize the muncipalities directly, because that would lead to difficulties that would make the act unworkable. Last week the province of Quebec gave the city of Montreal authority -to come direct to borrow money from the federal government.


Charles Avery Dunning: Very kind of them,
wasn't it?


Mr. HOWARD:: It was a great concession.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It was a neat way of "passing the buck," and the Minister of Labour was perfectly justified in standing by the declaration he had made when he said that he could recognize only the provinces. I thought, however, that where certain irregularities had occurred in the past in the granting of relief, the dominion might perhaps have stepped into the picture.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The provincial authority would have intervened in so far as it was a question of administration.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But where there may have been maladministration in the granting of assistance under the federal act, the government has not stepped in.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct.


John Charles Landeryou: The bondholders in Alberta were invited to make a financial analysis of the problem, and they recommended that their province increase taxation. In view of the fact that the government has these reports from the provinces monthly and will only grant money to the provinces, when it is apparent that there is need for it does the government ever make recommendations to the provinces with regard to increasing their revenues?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend missed his profession; he should have been a lawyer.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That silenced him.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Orders and regulations to have the force of law.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I am trying to facilitate the passage of this bill by keeping quiet. I want to ask a question in regard to this section, however. I quote:
. . . but if any order or regulation is varied, extended, or revoked, neither the previous operation thereof nor anything duly done thereunder shall be affected thereby. . . .
Does that mean that any works started shall be continued?
M'r. ROGERS: It does not mean that. It is really a clause that has been in the legislation from the beginning, that is from 1930. It is a legal necessity- placed in the bill by the officers of the Department of Justice.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It has no reference to the completion of works?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Appointment of officers, clerks and employees.
Abraham Albert Heaps: How are the appointments made of those who administer the youth training act?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The appointments of the federal staff, which is very small in number, are made by order in council. The supervisor of youth training, Mr. Thompson, was appointed by the governor in council under the terms of the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, and he has as his assistants clerks who have been appointed similarly under that act.

Supply-Labour


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are they appointed from the present staff?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The bulk of the work is being done 'by the present staff. The only new appointment was a supervisor.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The other appointments
throughout the country I suppose are made by the authorities who administer the act?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, and we share certain expenses.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Have the federal authorities any say in these appointments?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, we have a right of review and approval. For instance, with respect to placement officers we sometimes indicate that we 'believe they ought to have certain qualifications, and we require those qualifications. But the actual appointments are made iby the province, and we share the expenses.


Orvis A. Kennedy: Are two sets of officers set up under clause 10, or are they the same officers?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The same officers also administer the youth training. Broadly speaking youth training is carried out in close cooperation with the Department of Labour; the only separate official at the present time is a supervisor.


Mr. MacNEIL:: Is aid given for physical training on the same basis as for youth training projects?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Projects of this kind may be submitted by any province. Actually they have been so submitted in three provinces.
Mr. COLDWEL'L: How many officials are there under the old act?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The number employed in the unemployment relief branch at Ottawa is 52, as of the year 1938. The field staff numbers 27.


Major James William Coldwell: They are for the entire dominion, not assigned to any province?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The unemployment relief branch.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
508. To provide for federal contributions to farm employment, forest conservation and supplementary plans for single unemployed, $3,500,000.
Charles Grant MacNeil: The other evening I was about to ask the minister if he would explain the present situation in British Columbia with regard to forestry project camps. I should like a further word of explanation also in order that we may distinguish between the two types of camps. I understand the one type is expressly for training purposes in the summer, while the type of camp operated in the winter months is for transients and those in destitute circumstances. Also I should like to know when they are likely to close this year.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS: (Minister of Labour):	Forestry conservation
camps operated in winter in British Columbia are intended to provide for single unemployed men, largely in the cities of the province. The camps usually begin to operate in October and continue until April or May. Provision is made for the deferring of a portion of the payments to those who work in these camps in order that they may have some means at their disposal when they leave in the spring. The forestry training camps operate in the summer, usually beginning in May. It is intended rather to bring into those camps men of a fixed age group, young men of eighteen to twenty-five, who receive training while they are also doing certain conservation work such as the construction of fire trails.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Wihat is the present
position of the eastern transients? Will they all be sent back east under whatever circumstances, or have they been allowed to secure in some instances the cash they have earned at destinations other than those indicated on the interrogation form?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Those who came from
eastern points and therefore were not accepted by British Columbia as its responsibility were permitted to go into the camps until such time as they would earn an amount sufficient to pay their transportation back to the point from which they came. Apart from the Cultus Lake camp-


Charles Grant MacNeil: Was there not another?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There was another at Capilano, and my understanding is that the
Supply-Labour

men in that camp are working out their transportation under the plan originally proposed, or have already done so.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Some of these men when interviewed last fall indicated that they had hopes of employment at points other than those indicated on the interrogation form when they were admitted to the camp. If they can show hope of employment at other points, say in Alberta or Saskatchewan, will they be allowed to make some arrangement to secure the surplus over and above the cost of transportation to a destination other than that indicated on the form?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The arrangement was, and it was one to which they consented, that they should receive transportation back to the point in eastern Canada that they indicated. I know of no instance in which that arrangement was departed from, except possibly by mutual consent. As my hon. friend is aware, the actual administration of the camps is under the provincial department of labour. The understanding was that they should receive transportation back to the points which they themselves indicated before they entered the camp.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is that compulsory, or
may they change that destination on submitting proof that they have hope of employment at some other point? After all, as the minister recognizes, these men have moved from point to point.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If they wish to stop off at an intervening point, there should be no difficulty about it. There might be some difficulty if some gave as a destination an extreme point in eastern Canada.


Charles Grant MacNeil: How many eastern transients were cared for in these special camps?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not that information here. I doubt very much if the provinces made a return, but I shall try to secure the information and give it to the hon. member later.


Charles Grant MacNeil: When will the other camps in British Columbia be closed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My present understanding
is that these camps are being closed between now and Ju'i I That is to say, the men in the camps will work for such period as will allow them vouchers up to June 1.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I represent the province
that pays the shot for most of that work out there, and-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, between Ontario
and Quebec. Are the young men in these camps put through physical culture, the same as they are in the CCC camps of the United States? Are they trained to be smart, quick, active, civil and courteous, and to respect authority?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Provision is made for
recreational training in the various camps operating under this plan. A committee of welfare organizations and service clubs in Vancouver has been formed, and it is actively cooperating with the provincial department of labour in assisting in the recreational and physical training work of the camps.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are they put through
physical culture ?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Physical training and
recreation.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does the minister appreciate the fact that the authorities in the cities are disturbed as to the prospect of the release of a large number of men from these camps? Are there any plans now under contemplation whereby the men will be assisted or guided to whatever employment may be available as the camps are closed? Are they to be released in such a way as to prevent any gatherings at any one point, to the discomfiture of the citizens in cities and towns?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sure the provincial
department of labour has that situation in hand. My understanding is that the time of the closing of the camps has been extended beyond last year's closing time, and the belief is that when the camps are closed there will be sufficient volume of employment available.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Where does the labour
transference officer come into the picture? Does the employment service or the labour transference officer lend assistance in connection with that problem?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the past that has been
dealt with by the employment service of Canada.


George Halsey Perley: Could the minister give
the number of men given employment on farms in Saskatchewan last year under this plan, and the amount of money spent in that way?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I placed those figures on
Hansard on Wednesday.


George Halsey Perley: Possibly I was not here.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In Saskatchewan there was a total of 16,943, including 12,856 men and 4,087 women.

Supply-Labour


Major James William Coldwell: Did the minister get
the number of rejections?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I explained to the hon.
member for Weyburn that we will have to get that information from Saskatchewan. It is not yet available.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When the minister gives these figures I presume they include men who worked for a week or a month, or some other short time?


Norman McLeod Rogers: They include the total number of placements. The great majority of them remained for a period of months.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is, they would be on a farm three or four months, or whatever the length of time may be, and then when the work was finished they would drift and wander around for another year. Then they may go back to the farm. That is perhaps one of the saddest features of the whole situation. Young men who are maturing, at the ages of twenty-five or thirty years work on the farms and receive in the neighbourhood of $10 a month -and I do not think I am understating it when I name that amount. In fact, an hon. member to my left tells me I may be overstating it. However, if they received $10 a month it would not present much of a future for them. All we do for the young man in Canada is to provide him with a job on a farm at $10 a month, barely sufficient to take care of the necessities of life, besides food and shelter. Can the government not do better in that respect than it has been doing, in order to give those young men a little more than they have received in years gone by? I think the government's contribution has been $5 a month.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It has been $7.50, if they remained.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not know what additional sums they may have received from the farmers, but in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, where the farmers have had such a bad time of it in the past few years, I am certain that in many cases the farmer would find it extremely difficult to supplement the amount received from the government. I am not thinking of the immediate present so far as these men are concerned. I am trying to look a little ahead, possibly a year or two years, to see if we cannot get something which would present more of an incentive than is presented by this procedure of putting a man on a farm at $7.50 or $10 a month. Certainly in a country such as Canada, rich in natural resources and in other respects, we ought to do better than that.
We ought to be able to do more than to give our young men $7.50 a month when we send them to work on the farms.
As has been said just now and on previous occasions by the minister, these young men prefer to accept that amount, rather than go on the dole or do nothing. I believe great credit is due them for that spirit. They prefer work to public relief. But when they do work they should be given some encouragement, and should not be working for such a small amount. If a young man worked four months on a farm he would leave the farm with about $30. He would require clothes and other essentials of life, and I think that amount is very little for a man who has devoted four months of his time working on a farm helping to gather in the nation's wealth. Would it be such a heavy burden on the national treasury if the government were to supplement the $7.50 and make it $10 a month, so that work on the farm would be a little more attractive?


Howard Charles Green: I returned yesterday from the Pacific coast, where I learned-and the minister will correct me if I am wrong-that there were about 4,000 single unemployed in the forestry camps throughout the winter, and that all those men will be out of the camps and their deferred pay will have run out by June 1. Am I correct in that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, that is correct.


Howard Charles Green: There is considerable apprehension at the coast as to what will happen after June 1, and I suggest that some provision be made for the men after the closing of the camps, or after their money has run out. I was told the policy of the government seemed to be one of feeding the men through the winter, but doing nothing or very little to help establish them in work in the summer. I learned from reliable authorities that about sixty-five per cent of the men in the camps this year were repeaters. No doubt the minister will be able to inform the committee as to the accuracy of that information. If it is correct, it is an indication of the seriousness of the situation. The suggestion was made that it might be worth while for the government, working through a business men's committee, to establish a farming training unit on an experimental basis, and also some unit for training in mining, forestry and road building. The expense need not be very great. There is a citizens' committee in Vancouver, known as the citizens' recreational council, which is doing splendid work under the provincial government. I ask the minister to consider carefully trying out such a scheme as I have suggested. If a farm
Supply-Labour

were taken over in order to give some of these young men training, eventually it might be used as a home for older men admittedly unemployable. We might be able to build up some system which would help solve this problem which is worrying us all, and probably the minister more than anyone else.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The provincial department of labour has maintained close contact with the welfare organizations in Vancouver, and I would assume also with this citizens' committee to which my hon. friend has referred.


Howard Charles Green: It is under the provincial government.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I feel sure that every precaution is being taken in closing these camps to see that the men are assisted toward employment. This does not mean that the only employment to which they will be assisted will be that provided by the various governments. I understand that the logging companies in British Columbia are in a somewhat better position this summer to provide employment. A year ago the amount of employment provided was far short of what it was thought it would be possible to provide.


Howard Charles Green: I was told that a farming training unit would need an expenditure of only $10,000, but apparently the province cannot put up the money. I suggest it might be worth while for the dominion to try something on a small scale. Even if the money were lost, it would not be such a large amount, and if the scheme proved successful it might give a lead toward settling the whole question.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). Surely it is worth all the trouble in the world to see that some suitable action is taken at this time to prevent trouble in the future. We have had this problem presented to us in its most aggravated form in British Columbia over and over again. I do not want to be critical, I simply want to offer constructive suggestions. Would it not be possible for the employment service of Canada to undertake special activities in connection with the men about to be released from the camps? Could there not be something worked out in the way of a vocational guidance? Or perhaps special examinations could be held to discover the special aptitude or experience of the men. The experience in the past has been that as these men are released from the camps they drift back to the various centres when they begin to wander. They cannot plan or finance their wanderings, and they become a charge upon the community. The charitable agencies

sometimes find themselves unable to deal with the problem, and the men start out panhandling and riding the rods here and there in any direction in which they think there will be some form of work. The information that they get on their own initiative is generally most unsatisfactory, and the result is that quite often they become destitute in their wanderings. I do hope that we may have a word from the minister that some special activity will be carried on through the employment service in an effort to exhaust every last hope of employment for these men.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I agree with my hon. friend that it would be desirable that some special effort be made by the employment service of' Canada, and I shall take whatever action I can to see that this is done. My hon. friend is aware that under the existing arrangement this is a matter which would require cooperative action by the two governments.


Major James William Coldwell: I am really disturbed about the condition of our young people. The farm placement scheme assisted to some extent, but after all it was an emergency measure. Some thousands were placed under that scheme this winter in the province from which I come, but all they are getting is $5 a month, with an additional $2.50 if they remain the whole period. The regulations are such that a farmer's son or daughter living in a home where there is no future is debarred from obtaining even this pittance. I do not know what is to be done. My personal contacts with many of these young people lead me to believe that their condition is really a major tragedy. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) referred to the rise in illegitimacy figures. This is one phase of the matter, but another phase is the fact that these people are getting soured by the conditions under which they have to live. If they go on like this for a number of years I am afraid of the ultimate outcome. I realize that with the huge expenditures required, it is quite difficult for the government to consider any broadening of the scheme, but something will have to be done to bring more of these young people under the scheme. We will have to give them something more to which to look forward.
The amount paid should be increased so that a young man may be able to dress decently. I realize the difficulties the minister has to face, and I know that much of what he has done in connection with youth training has been good. I think it is a departure that has been welcomed. A short time ago I was glad to be able to pass along to the minister an appreciation which I had

Supply-Labour
received from one of the towns in my constituency. The people there felt that this was a step in the right direction. However, to deal with this question we must go far beyond the point we have now reached. I endeavoured to ask a question earlier this afternoon, but apparently in doing so I transgressed the rules. I have in my hand a publication issued by the Department of Labour dealing with the training of Canada's young unemployed. There is a table of figures on page 24, and I should like to have some explanation of these figures from the minister. I do not quite follow them. If possible I should like to have this table put on Hansard.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Those figures are over a year old. I intend to place more up to date figures on Hansard in the course of a few days when the youth training bill is before the house.


Major James William Coldwell: Then I shall wait.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the minister explain the -basis under which men are admitted to these training projects in connection with mining and forestry? Is admittance limited to persons living in homes where material aid is being given, or does it apply also to persons living in homes in the lower income brackets?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is not limited entirely to those receiving material aid. It is intended to cover those in necessitous circumstances who may not be actually on relief.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is there any specific quota? There has been great difficulty in filling the needs of the young people in the suburban areas who would like to get some training.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It was not thought possible to establish a quota which would be satisfactory right across Canada. Naturally we felt that those who came from families on relief should have priority.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the significance of the phrase "supplementary plans"? What -has the minister in view?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is placed here to give us some freedom to undertake alternative plans other than farm employment and forest conservation in dealing with single unemployed men.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would that not come under Bill No. 94?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, under this item.


Angus MacInnis: I have 'been informed that a number of single unemployed men in the city of Ottawa have been transferred during the last few days to camps at Trenton, Petawawa and Borden. What kind of camps are these? What will the men be doing in them? Do they come under this vote?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I did make inquiries myself in the course of the last few days at the employment office as to the employment made available through that office during the past two weeks. My understanding is that some men have 'been offered employment at Petawawa. The actual work is, I believe, being done iby the Department of National Defence. It is the removal of -brush and so forth from the ranges, under the supervision, I understand, of the forestry station at Petawawa. I do not know as to the work to which my hon. friend referred at Borden and Trenton.


Howard Charles Green: Have any steps been taken to set up in Canada a farm hostel plan, particularly for the older men? The publication of the Canadian welfare council entitled "Wayfarers Perforce," says at page 36:
It appears that the older migrant, if given any opportunity whatever, is ready and anxious to become fixed in his abode. For that reason it is thought that the farm hostel plan might provide for the definitely unemployable group. As yet there is not sufficient information available as to the measure of success achieved by this plan, which has been in operation in a few communities, but it would seem that some such method might be suitable.
The report goes on to set out that the hostels would be fairly close to the larger centres and that older men with like interests, miners for instance, and others engaged in different occupations, could be organized into congenial groups and placed in the hostels. It also points out that eventually the provinces might be willing to recognize these hostels as part of their charitable institution program and provide them with grants or, alternatively, maintenance costs. Has anything along that line been done by the federal government, and if not, could not something of that kind be done?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Another vote deals with the rehabilitation of older unemployed persons. It is possible for the provinces to submit a plan of that kind to us for approval under this vote. As a matter of fact, in three provinces, although perhaps the plan is not the farm hostel plan, progress has been made in establishing groups of the older unemployed in farming operations.


Howard Charles Green: In what provinces?
Supply-Labour


Norman McLeod Rogers: In Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I would direct the minister's attention to the fact that in some of the camps maintained under this vote there are ex-service men. Would he approve the suggestion that steps be taken in cooperation with the Department of Pensions and National Health that when ex-service men go into these camps they be automatically checked up as to their rights under the war veterans' allowance and pension acts and medical treatment regulations so that they can get the utmost opportunity to secure rehabilitation? It is distressing that there Should be so many exservice men in these camps. May I also ask *whether it is possible for the minister in cooperation with the Department of Pensions and National Health, to deal in some other way with ex-service men, particularly in regard to medical treatment?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In connection with the
camps in British Columbia, which are the ones now in operation, we received a request from Colonel Foster of the Canadian Legion that men with war service who were eligible for the camps should be placed in separate camps. That has been done, and, I believe, with complete success. We also secured the cooperation of the Canadian Legion in obtaining men who are giving physical training and recreational direction in the camps. The suggestion of my hon. friend is a good one, and I will bring it to the attention of my colleague.


Mr. STIRLING:: The minister stated that single homeless unemployed in Ottawa were being given work at Petawawa, Trenton and Rockeliffe.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Petawawa only.


Grote Stirling: Surely the minister is not leaving these men to the tender mencies of the Department of National Defence, is he?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is simply the work that is ordinarily done in order to put the camp in order for artillery manoeuvres in the summer months. The men are receiving the regular prevailing wage, at an hourly rate. Whether or not they are being accommodated in tents or. the property at Petawawa I am not in a position to say, but they are receiving the normal hourly rate.


Grote Stirling: They are not in the
national defence camps, are they? That is what I wanted to make sure of.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, they are not.


James Samuel Taylor: Facing the fact that the Cowichan river is eroding its banks, can relief be obtained under this vote and men put to work to do what is necessary?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think a project of that land would more properly come under the general vote, which we shall shortly reach.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
509.	To provide for development and training projects by unemployed young people:
(a)	Revote for unpaid accounts of previous years, $350,000.
(b)	Statutory, $1,500,000.
Howard Charles Green: What training schemes have been adopted for the middle-aged group of unemployed? The minister said last year that some schemes would be adopted for them.


Norman McLeod Rogers: We have not yet reached that vote. I have no desire to avoid discussion of the question except that there will shortly be before the house a bill dealing with youth training projects, and I would suggest that rather than duplicate the discussion, the bill would be a more suitable time to consider various youth training projects.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is embraced under "(b) statutory, $1,500,000"?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is the appropriation to cover the projects for which provision will be made in the youth training bill, which now stands for second reading.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is Bill No. 94?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And this will be the first year's vote for projects under that bill?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Mr. HANSELL:: If I am not in order in
bringing this matter up under this vote, I shall bring it up later, but I have been asked to bring it to the minister's attention. I understand that some of the students engaged under the youth training plan are doing actual practical work as electricians, or in other trades. They are doing work that is ordinarily done by men in the various trades, who receive employment thereby. But that is not the issue. I would ask whether the government receives any remunation from such work. I am informed that some work is being done on city property. I think it is good thing that young people should have a practical training along that line, but would the city receive the financial benefit of such work, or would the city repay to this government the cost of it?

Supply-Labour


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would assume that there
would be no return to the governments concerned. I might say that any projects of that kind undertaken in Alberta have been submitted to this government by the provincial government; knowing the way in which these projects have been administered, I feel quite sure that every care has been taken to prevent any abuse, and I would assume, on the facts, stated by my hon. friend, that the work was done for training purposes only.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not wish to be misunderstood. I said I had been asked to present this question. It was not the Alberta government that asked me to present it. I was asked by a number of youths who were working on a certain project, because they felt that if some contractor had the job of putting in the electrical equipment, and thereby receive payment, perhaps they themselves, being up against it, might receive some little remuneration for their work.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will take note of the question, and if there is any further information I shall place it before my hon. friend.


Grote Stirling: I do not quite follow
what this rehabilitation work consists of.


Norman McLeod Rogers: We are not yet actually on that item. We are on item 509.


Orvis A. Kennedy: Would the minister give me a break-down by provinces of the $350,000 re vote ?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The figures are as follow:
Nova Scotia.. .. New Brunswick..
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan.. .
Alberta	
British Columbia

There is also added, prior to the 1938 act:
Quebec	
Alberta	
under relief legislation
	 $25,000
	 2,000

These two columns make up the total of $350,000.
Item agreed to.
510.	To provide, in cooperation with the provinces, for rehabilitation of unemployed persons, $680,000.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister now answer my question?


Norman McLeod Rogers: This deals also with the question raised by the hon. member for Yale. Last year this item was inserted for the first
time. I wished to apply rehabilitation projects to the older unemployed persons. It was an experimental vote. As soon as the vote became available, letters were sent to all provincial governments informing them that a certain portion of this vote was made available to them and asking them to submit what they thought would be suitable projects within their own province for the relief of older unemployed persons. The response was not as general as it had been in connection with youth training. One reason given was that the rehabilitation of older unemployed persons presented far greater problems, that it was not possible to get the same degree of cooperation, for example from labour bodies and from voluntary organizations. But I can say that, even in some provinces which have not yet proposed schemes, we believe that schemes are now being developed and that they will be put in operation during the present fiscal year.


Grote Stirling: What sort of plan is
contemplated?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, in Alberta and Ontario proposals have been put forward for placing some of these older unemployed men on very small holdings in the neighbourhood of cities in order that such men might engage in market gardening under supervision. That is being done in an experimental way in those two provinces. In Manitoba a number of men have been placed on farms under what is known as the farm chore plan, and a number also have been given reconditioning work and some training in the White Shell forest reserve. I am not able to say to the committee that the work thus far has been on a large scale. As I have said, the plans have to be developed by the provinces concerned.


Mr. BARBER:: Is there anything from British Columbia?


Norman McLeod Rogers: We have had no plan from British Columbia. I believe it is likely that plans will be submitted this year.


Howard Charles Green: Are any schemes of a different type in contemplation for the coming year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps I should have
added that in Manitoba quite a number of these older unemployed men have been taught to make rustic furniture. That has been done in connection with work in the White Shell forest reserve. I myself have seen some of the work; there was an exhibition of it at the provincial buildings in Winnipeg. It was excellent work; whether it will prove commercially profitable is another question. But
Supply-Labour

our purpose is to take these older men from the hostels and place them in more advantageous surroundings, to teach them something which would enable them to support themselves entirely or conduce towards that end.


Major James William Coldwell: Has the minister any idea of the extent of the problem, the numbers that would fall into these several categories? Has he any idea of. the number of men in this drifter category between, we will say, forty and fifty, or thirty and forty? Have we really any data on which we can go?


Norman McLeod Rogers: All we would have would be the number of those on relief within that age group, and also the number of that age group in the various hostels.


Major James William Coldwell: So that really so far we have not a comprehensive view of the whole problem?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, I would suggest to my hon. friend that certainly the greatest need would be revealed by the figures of those within those age categories who are on relief. I say, the greatest need; I do not say, the only ones in need.


Angus MacInnis: While we are discussing the matter of rehabilitation, which becomes increasingly necessary at this time, has the minister or the department any suggestions for a committee on social research or something of that kind? It must be becoming increasingly clear to the minister himself that, while we have available all the means to produce and distribute goods, there is something which enters in between the material things and the people who require them. Has he given any thought to the idea of setting up a committee on social research to explore ways which up to now have not been tried which would enable the people of this dominion through their cooperative effort to become self-sustaining?


Norman McLeod Rogers: We have, of course, the benefit of such studies as have been made independently upon this question. There is also the experience of other countries with the same problem. What is perhaps even more valuable, we have the experience of the provincial governments themselves who are continually face to face with this question of transferring one group of the population from one occupation to another. I doubt if any additional committee of social research workers could throw any more light upon the problem itself than is now available.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not help both the federal and the provincial governments if honorary advisory committees were set up

in each province to make suggestions with regard to these different plans, not only in regard to youth but for the rehabilitation of the middle-aged group? This government relies too much on suggestions from provincial governments. They are all hard-pressed and have not much time to think up new schemes, and I submit that no government can get the human slant on a problem as well as a group of individuals can. Would it not be possible to set up honorary advisory committees in the various part of Canada, perhaps more than one in each province? I am afraid the governments have reached the stage where they have stopped experimenting because they are holding the fort, so to speak, and are not looking round for remedies.


Norman McLeod Rogers: We have honorary advisory committees set up in most of the provinces in connection with the youth training program, and we have also a small national advisory committee, which I hope will be broadened shortly, now that we are able to put youth training on a three-year training program. There was great difficulty in arousing interest in youth training plans when they were on an annual basis. I quite agree that there might be an advantage in having such committees act in connection with these rehabilitation plans. Some of the plans now in operation in Manitoba have been greatly assisted by these committees.


Howard Charles Green: Business people and citizens in all walks of life in each community are only too anxious to get at the problem. Honorary advisory committees worked well under the home improvement plan; they might also be tried in connection with the employment agencies; we might get some valuable suggestions with regard to the employment service.


Angus MacInnis: Is the Department of Labour making any effort to get complete-registration of those unemployed as distinct from those actually on relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend's question comes under item fill.


Mr. QUELCH:: I should like to get some information with regard to small holdings. How successful has that scheme been; what does the scheme comprise; how much assistance is given the settler after he has settled on the land, and so on? Is the scheme carried on for a number of years?


Norman McLeod Rogers: 
Victor Quelch: What percentage of failures has there been?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The number of abandonments was given in the previous discussion. There are about 20 per cent of abandonments in that type of settlement. The other plan is more recent, and we have not enough experience to say whether it will prove successful, but the government of Alberta presented to us not long ago a plan whereby some families could be placed on small holdings near the larger cities.


Victor Quelch: That is a smaller scheme.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


David Spence: Are we to understand definitely that the individual provinces have to initiate the scheme if they wish to get assistance?


Norman McLeod Rogers: What we have done in youth training and in connection with the rehabilitation of older unemployed persons is to indicate broadly the type of project which we should like to have submitted, and in doing so we follow the recommendations of the national employment commission. Then we ask the province to decide, with its more accurate knowledge of the possibilities of reestablishment, what projects are most likely to succeed.


Thomas Miller Bell: This problem of the rehabilitation of unemployed persons is to a large extent, although not wholly, of course, a problem of the transients.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I agree.


Major James William Coldwell: As was revealed in the discussion, a great many of these men cannot establish residence anywhere. The weakness of this whole rehabilitation plan is that it is provincial. To my mind we are getting closer and closer to the point where we must assume direct responsibility federally for some of these matters, and this is an activity that ought to be regarded as a national problem. I am sorry to hear that this experimental vote has not been taken advantage of to a greater extent than it has been, but the vote is well worth while, and I should like to see consideration given to at least this phase of the unemployment problem with a view to bringing it directly under the federal department.


Harry James Barber: The minister said that he intended to set up another committee. Would that be similar to the committee set up under the Purvis commission?


Norman McLeod Rogers: What I had in mind was that there would be provincial advisory committees which would assist both in directing the governments concerned to suitable projects of youth training and, later, in the placement of those who had received training. In so far as the national advisory committee is concerned, that will consist of representatives from the various interests, who would most probably assist the government in its broader program of youth training.


Harry James Barber: Would there be one set up in each province?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member's colleague from Vancouver South (Mr. Green) made that suggestion, and I told him that in some provinces these committees were set up on a wholly voluntary basis. I emphasize that. If there is to be a broadening of the national advisory committee, as I hope there will be, it will be on a voluntary basis.


Howard Charles Green: That is what I had in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
511.	Amount required to provide for administration expenses generally, including salaries and travelling expenses:
Unemployment relief branch, $250,000.
National registration, $110,000.
Youth training, $60,000.
Comptroller of the treasury's office for field examination of accounts under relief legislation, $100,000.
Orvis A. Kennedy: Does any part of this go to the province?


Norman McLeod Rogers: This covers the staff of the unemployment relief branch of the federal Department of Labour.


Orvis A. Kennedy: Does the same apply to the $60,000 for youth training?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: Is any attempt made to register the actual number of persons unemployed as distinct from those actually on relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As perhaps my hon. friend is aware, we have discussed that question here previously. In the United States, an attempt was made, under the direction, I think, of the president of the American Rolling Mills, to take what was called a census of unemployment. It was done in cooperation with the Post Office Department; it was organized as
Supply-Labour

efficiently as could be under the circumstances; but when all the figures were in, the director admitted that he did not know whether the figures as assembled were within 1,500,000 or 2,000,000 of the actual total. In other words, from the time the study was commenced to the time the figures were in and assembled there had been a vast change in the unemployment situation in the United States. That is the great difficulty in a situation of that kind.


Angus MacInnis: That was probably the most important part of the work which was supposed to be done by the national employment commission.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, the commission
reached the same conclusion.


Angus MacInnis: Then we have reached the conclusion that it is next to impossible to get definite figures as to the number of unemployed at any time?


Norman McLeod Rogers: We might require under
penalty that every one who was unemployed should report, say at a post office, on a certain day. But there is no reason to believe that even that would provide us with more than a knowledge of the situation on that particular day. One would need some kind of continuous machinery in order to get the continuous trends. In England they get their figures through the unemployment insurance. If we had a national system of unemployment insurance we would get these figures as far as insured groups are concerned. The English figures are most accurate because their insurable groups cover a large proportion of the working population.


Angus MacInnis: Then the nearest information as to the actual number of unemployed is the figures furnished by the bureau of statistics?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, which, as my hon.
friend knows, are always put forward as an estimate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
512.	Contingencies, $1,000,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: What is included in contingencies?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is really a bulk item to enable us to meet an immediate and unforeseen situation in some part of the country, if necessary.


Angus MacInnis: What was the amount of contingencies last year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It was $750,000.


Angus MacInnis: How much of that was spent?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Practically all of it.


Harry James Barber: Where was it spent?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Some $632,000 was spent. Perhaps I could give a number of typical items. Material aid to fishermen in Prince Edward Island; a situation arose there that had to be dealt with. Special aid to transients. Special assistance in northern Ontario-no, that was under governor general's warrant. Also transfer to Department of Mines and Resources for relief in park areas, and, I think, relief to Eskimos. And relief settlement for which sufficient provision was not made in the item for that purpose, an amount of almost $200,000. Those are typical.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister given consideration to the recommendation of the Canadian welfare council in connection with these non-residents, that there should be created a central registry bureau at all probable centres of heavy concentration of non-resident or migrant persons, and that provision should be made for special credential cards which would enable the bearers at all times to prove their place of established legal residence or their interim status while acquiring residence?


Norman McLeod Rogers: These and other suggestions of a similar kind are being considered and discussed with the provinces almost continuously. The suggestion which is made by my hon. friend is not a new one. It raises the whole question of registration, and as I pointed out to one of his colleagues the other day it is the opinion of those who have looked into this question rather carefully that registration to be effective could not be confined to a particular group of unemployed, it would have to cover the entire population.


Howard Charles Green: Are the provinces willing to cooperate in some such scheme?


Norman McLeod Rogers: We have no indication yet that all the provinces are. Some provinces have suggested a limited registration, I know of no province which has suggested a general registration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
513.	To provide for federal contributions to material aid or contributions to improvement projects, $27,000,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: With this item and those we have passed in the last hour we shall have appropriated something over $35,000,000. While the minister has given us the best information he can, and perhaps we have not asked for more, after all it is a pitiable amount of information in relation to an expenditure of that magnitude. 'Has the time not come that we should follow some such plan as is followed in England and the United States

Sup-ply-Transport-Marine
where committees composed of members of all parties survey the estimates coming before the house? This would expedite the passage of estimates through the house, for then all parties would know beforehand how the estimates were made up. In England they have their select committee consisting, I believe, of about twenty-eight members from the various parties, who make a careful survey over some length of time, if I understand correctly, so that when the estimates come into the committee of the whole they go through in a much shorter time than here.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will permit me on that point, the legislation itself provides that all expenditures made under the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act are presented through the Canada Gazette or, while parliament is sitting, through the tabling of all orders in council for such expenditures. In fact, we can proceed only by order in council. So the information is available if hon. members desire to study it at any time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What I was going to say on this item I shall defer to some other item.


Major James William Coldwell: Might we have an outline of what is contemplated under this huge expenditure?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As I answered previously, this provides for the 40-40-20 division of the cost of material aid, and also contributions under the arrangement whereby 50 per cent of direct labour costs is contributed to approved projects.
Item stands.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.

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


DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
Marine service.
434. Marine signal service, $95,000.
James Samuel Taylor: Do beacons and other marine aids come under this item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, this is a communication service extending from Cape Race up the. St. Lawrence and through the great lakes as far as Port Arthur.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service.
435. River St. Lawrence ship channel-contract dredging in the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour including cost of administration-capital, $3,229,040.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Under this item I should like to say a few words which I would have said before six o'clock, had there been time or a proper opportunity to do so. In all the years I have been in the house I do not believe I have ever seen an estimate reduced in amount, nor has there been any invitation by any minister at any time to reduce one. I do not know how estimates are made up. However, here is a large item amounting to more than $3,000,000, an amount about $300,000 greater than last year. It is an item which appears in the estimates every year, always more or less the same size, to pay for the dredging at Montreal.
When Premier Hepburn recently introduced his estimates into the Ontario legislature he immediately invited hon. members in some way to cut them down. Is it out of the question to have anything like that in this house? This is my tenth session, and I have never yet been asked, either by this government or the previous one-yes, I used to protest to them, too, about not being able to change estimates-to change an amount. That seems to me ridiculous. Here we are, considering an estimate, but we cannot change it one dollar, because the minister will see to it that it goes through in its present form, and he has the majority behind him to put it through.
If what the premier of Ontario has proposed to cut down expenses of administration is good, then it might be a good plan to try it here. I do not know how these estimates are made up, but, as I began to say before six o'clock, in the old country a committee of all parties consisting of twenty-eight members of parliament survey the estimates and they change them, as I understand. I may be wrong, but that is the way in which I interpret the book I read on the subject. Nothing like that is done in this house. It is all one-sided. Whichever party is in power brings in the estimates, and they have to go through in that form.
In the United States they have what I believe is called a budget committee, made up of members of the two main parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. I inquired carefully into that fact while I was in Washington, and that was the information I got. The information given me may not have been correct, but that is what I was told. In that committee they discuss the items before they are brought into the chamber.
Sup-ply-Transport-M arine

If that sort of procedure will cut down costs of administration, then I say we ought to begin doing it in this house. Certainly every year the cost of administration is up, up, up, up, up-never down. Never at any time in the ten years I have been in the house do I remember the cutting down of an estimate. Is it against the law of the land to cut down an estimate? It would appear to me that it must be. There is nothing we can say about an estimate which would change it. But, if a committee consisting of Liberals, Conservatives, Cooperative Commonwealth Federation members, and members of the Social Credit party quietly looked over these estimates while sitting round a table, they could decide whether or not this one should go up or that one should go down.


Abraham Albert Heaps: They should go to a committee.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am trying to show that anything we do in committee of the whole cannot change an estimate one iota. I have never seen them changed while I have been here.


Abraham Albert Heaps: They might be, if they went to a committee.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If we followed the plan which is adopted elsewhere we would bring the estimates to the house after they had been surveyed, and after the decision had been made as to whether the expenditures were really necessary. Any pork-barrel item could be wiped out-but not in this house. Every item goes through here.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is misinformed as to the practice elsewhere. It is my understanding that under the British form of responsible government the government of the day must take full responsibility for the amount of supply it asks the House of Commons to vote. More often than not it has been my experience in the House of Commons that members of other parties have asked the minister to increase votes-


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am asking the minister to cut them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have had ten speeches urging an increase of votes to one urging reductions. Does my hon. friend suggest that a minister should permit any member of the house to increase a vote the minister brings down? If that were so, how would the Minister of Finance be able to prepare a budget?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister does not understand me.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I understand fully. The hon. member thinks this particular vote should be reduced.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, I did not confine my comment to this vote.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no British practice which permits any committee of the House of Commons to change an estimate introduced into the house. It is considered that the responsible minister has studied the matter thoroughly, with the assistance of all the resources of his department. The government stands or falls on being able to have passed the estimates it brings to this house. I think that is the practice in Great Britain just as it is here.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have told the minister that is not the practice.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Instead of the estimates being referred to a committee of the whole house in Great Britain, it is quite true they are referred to a select committee, just as in Canada the estimates affecting railway expenditures are referred to a select committee of this house. But it has never been my understanding that it was the privilege of a select committee in Great Britain to change the amount of an estimate brought down by a responsible minister.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I did not refer to changing them after they are brought down. I was referring to considering them before they are brought down. The committee in Great Britain is called the select committee on estimates, and I understand it is made up of members from the different parties. They sit round a table and consider the estimates before they are brought into the house. May be I misunderstood the account.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. In Great Britain, the select committee which examines the estimates is analogous to a committee of the whole house that examines the estimates here. These estimates are not prepared as the result of any one man's judgment. They are considered by the cabinet as a whole and by committees of the cabinet. A tremendous amount of study is given to these estimates. Once they are brought into the house, whether they are to be considered by a select committee, as in England, or by a committee of the whole house, as here, the practice is exactly the same.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When estimates are brought before a committee of the whole house the discussion is more or less formal, but if they were brought before a special committee we could go into them in detail in a way that

Suppl y- Transport-M arine
we cannot here. As the minister knows, in connection with the Canadian National Railways estimates the officers of the railway are present and then is given to hon. members information which it is impossible to give in committee of the whole. I feel quite sure that if some of these estimates, not necessarily the one we are discussing, could be sent to a special committee, hon. members would be able to obtain a much more intelligent understanding of the work of the departments. Such a procedure would mean less discussion in committee of the whole, but certainly more discussion in the special committee. There would appear before that committee experts from the various departments who had had a hand in preparing the estimates. I do not know very much about this particular vote; if it were SI,000,000 or $10,000.000, I would not be any the wiser, except for what little the minister might divulge to the committee. I do not think it is an intelligent way to pass such huge appropriations of money when no one in the committee, outside the minister and the officials who are present, can possibly know anything about the items.


William Hayhurst: I am in accord with what has been said about the method of dealing with estimates. I think it would be much better if the members could be better informed before these items were passed. I notice that over $400,000 more is being asked for contract dredging, and I should like to know why it is necessary to increase this vote.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The department is engaged
on a program of deepening the St. Lawrence river channel to thirty-five feet over a definite period of years. An interdepartmental committee was set up to study this matter, and a large amount was appropriated to cover the cost of studying the development of the St. Lawrence. That committee reported on a program to complete the channel at a cost of about 811,500,000. This government decided that the economical way to do this work was by contract rather than to continue to use inadequate and obsolete equipment owned by the government. Under the arrangements by which this equipment was sold we gave the purchasers of it an estimate that this work would be carried on at the rate of approximately $3,000,000 a year. The amount spent in the last two years fell below this estimate, last year $2,933,000 being spent on contract dredging and a somewhat smaller sum the year before. This year we decided that we would get back to the agreed program, and
the amount that this is above the $3,000,000 is the amount that we have fallen behind in previous years. It is intended to bring the work back to the schedule of $3,000,000 a year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is that much more work going to be done?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly. This program
is within the program laid down by the committee. My hon. friend knows a good deal about that committee because it functioned in his day, and I know he takes a great interest in this type of work. We are following the recommendations of that committee as to the work to be done, and the program being followed will bring about the completion of the deep water channel in 1943.


Thomas Miller Bell: How many contractors
were there, and how many contracts does this represent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is just the one contract, but there are several contractors.


Thomas Miller Bell: Did they all bid?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe this contract was
entered into in 1930. It was open to competitive tender and was awarded to the lowest tenderer of that day. It was extended twice by the previous government and once by this government. A contract of this size attracts all the suitable plant in the country. One could not hope to have real competition for a job which requires plant of a certain class and which represents about all the plant of that class in Canada. The last contract was negotiated at the time of the sale of our equipment. In many instances we have lowered the unit price, and in no instance has the unit price been increased over the price which prevailed during the previous five years.


William Hayhurst: As I understand it, the ultimate object is to deepen the St. Lawrence river channel from Montreal to the sea to a depth of thirty-five feet, in order to allow practically any vessel to come to Montreal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is the object.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Not any boat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Empress of Britain draws thirty-three feet, and she would hardly come up a thirty-five foot channel because the margin would be too small. She might get up to Montreal by watching the tides carefully, but I do not think this deepening will permit the Empress of Britain to come to that city.


James Alexander Marshall: I find myself in complete accord with what hon. members have said with regard to these estimates being
Supply-Transport-M arine

considered by a committee. It is difficult to connect the auditor general's report of last year with the vote of this year. The auditor general's report gives the details of vote 91 which covers:
River St. Lawrence ship channel dredging: To provide for the maintenance and operation of the government ship channel fleet and the government shipyard while engaged in the ordinary maintenance of the existing ship channel, including all necessary repairs and reconditioning.
The amount of the vote was $438,400, of which $394,488.29 was spent, leaving $43,911.71 not used. It is difficult for anyone to connect those particulars with the present vote. I should like to know how much of this vote is really a revote.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am afraid my hon. friend
is confused. In the days when we owned the shipyard at Sorel, and had a fleet, we had an item in the estimates to cover the cost of maintenance. The shipyard was sold some two years ago, and 1 assume the details in the auditor general's report cover the last year the shipyard was operated, probably 1937.


James Alexander Marshall: This is for the year
ended March 31, 1938.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We had no such item in the estimates for 1939.


James Alexander Marshall: That would be to the end of March, 1938.


Grote Stirling: To what point has the dredging actually reached now? My recollection is that when the minister took over the department the thirty-five foot channel was completed to a point just east of the most easternmost pier of the harbour, and was then approaching the area of the harbour itself into which the piers protrude. Has the deepening of the harbour proper, and consequently of the berths within the piers, been started?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the principal berths of the harbour have been deepened to thirty-five feet, and the channel of the harbour has largely been dredged to that depth. There are areas of the harbour in which deepening is still in process. The work this year is in the vicinity of the southern pier, grain elevator No. 3. The harbour work is well advanced. My hon. friend is mistaken in saying that two years ago the channel itself had been deepened to thirty-five feet.


Grote Stirling: Four years ago, in 1935.
Mr. HOW'E: The channel to-day is about 31i feet of usable depth. The work has never been brought to a point where there is a 
depth of thirty-five feet for any considerable portion, based on the 1935 data. WTe have never had a thirty-five foot channel to the entrance of the harbour at Montreal, but work has been proceeding on the areas which require improving. A large portion of work was undertaken last year in the vicinity oi Three Rivers. We have been working on two bars below Quebec, and that work has been completed. The work in the vicinity of Three Rivers has also been completed. The main contract this year will be for work round Sorel island, widening and deepening the cut there.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the cut through rock?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it is clay.


Grote Stirling: Where is the western end of the thirty-five foot channel that starts in the gulf of the St. Lawrence? How far up is that thirty-five foot channel now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would say to about the foot of lake St. Peter. I think the work opposite Three Rivers is practically completed. If so, we have a thirty-five foot channel to the foot of lake St. Peter.


William Allen Walsh: Would the minister explain the kind of contract under which this work is now being done?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a unit price contract, covering various classifications of material and specifying various localities. Unit prices are slightly lower now than at any previous time since the contract was signed in 1930. The contract was revised in 1935, and previously it had been extended twice, retaining the original unit prices. There is a long list of unit prices applying to various localities. The contract has been brought down in the house at least twice, but I shall be glad to bring it down again if my hon. friend cares to see it.


William Allen Walsh: What kind of supervision does the government exercise over the work for which unit prices are paid?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government has a ship channel branch, for which there is a vote in the estimates. We have a considerable fleet of boats engaged in inspection and an expert staff whose duty it is to supervise all dredging work on the St. Lawrence.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Are these contracts given on a mileage basis or by the yard?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think dredging is done by the mile; it is usually by the yard.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I mean, can the contractor do as much work as he likes within the year, or is he limited to doing a certain job?

Supply-Transport-M arine


Clarence Decatur Howe: The contract as originally
awarded covered certain areas of the St. Lawrence and a certain maximum yardage. That contract was extended in 1932, and again at the end of 1934 or early in 1935. It was further extended by this government in 1936. To-day the work covers what is required to complete the channel in accordance with the interdepartmental report. The units are yards of material removed, and the prices are as set out in the contract. The work is the work recommended by the report of the engineers, which goes into a great deal of detail as to the areas to be dredged, and the only changes made are slight modifications which a detailed study of the work indicates to our engineers to be desirable.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Then the only limit is
the contractors' capacity to do the work? There is, in the contract, no limit as to yardage? The contractor can just go ahead, and the more he can do during the season, the more he gets paid; is that it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Each extension of the contract sets a definite limit on the yardage. The limit which the contractor can do in any season is set by the vote we are now considering. When that is used up, we take our inspectors off and say: "We are through; tie up the dredges." The contract covers more than one season's work, and we let the contractor proceed in any one season until we have used up the amount appropriated for that particular year.


William Allen Walsh: I understand that the price for dredging rock is higher than for other types of material. Is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the rock price is in the vicinity of five dollars, while certain classes of material are excavated for as low as sixteen cents a cubic yard.


William Allen Walsh: How does the government
supervise the work in order to determine the exact quantity of rock, sand, clay or other material removed, because the prices vary with the materials excavated? How close a supervision is exercised by the government, or does the government rely mainly on the contractor?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have a very considerable St. Lawrence ship channel staff, amounting in the summer to perhaps forty or fifty men, some of whom are highly trained engineers. We have men on the dredges to check the material; the yardage is also checked, and the bottom measured before and after. We have crews of men constantly checking up before and after the dredging is done. The work is done
as scientifically as the engineering profession have been able to devise for that class of work, and I believe their work is very accurate indeed.


William Allen Walsh: It is not the material actually taken out that is measured and paid for, but what the engineers determine should be taken out at a given point. Is that it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We measure the amount of material before the dredging starts, and measure also the amount of material removed. That is called place measurement. We measure the prism of material that has been excavated. Of course the yardage in place is less than the yardage that has been taken up and put in the scow.


William Allen Walsh: I understand that there is a government inspector on each dredge; that a great deal depends upon his honesty and integrity; that he in the final analysis is the judge as to what amount of rock is excavated and what amount of clay is excavated, and that upon his report the contractors' price is established. My information may be incorrect, but I am trying to find out whether it is correct or not, because if iwe are so dependent upon an inspector appointed by the government, a political appointee-I have not in mind this government in particular; he might be appointed by any government-it is rather a dangerous procedure to spend such a heavy amount of money upon the recommendation or the voucher of an inspector who, in the first instance, was not particularly well qualified, perhaps, for the position, but just happened to be placed there by the government which was then in power. I am concerned to find out whether the check-up was close enough, or whether the contractor was able to get prices for rock and clay excavated from the ship channel in quantities which were probably not as great as those recommended in the voucher.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is entirely mistaken, first, as to how the work is measured, and, second, as to how the contract is paid. It is true that we have an inspector on the dredge. He is there to report any interiuptions of the work, any movements of the dredge, and also as to any change in material, although the latter seldom happens. A totally different class of equipment is required for working in rock from what is used for working, for instance, in sand or clay.
The inspector on the dredge is not the man who determines the classification. The classification is agreed upon by our engineering staff and by the contractors for the various localities, depending upon the bearings made
Supply-Transport-M arine

by our own staff and upon our own check-up. So far as measurements are concerned, they are place measurements. If anybody doubts the correctness of a measurement he can go back months afterwards and re-check it. It is taken toy determining by actual measurement the level to which the dredging has been brought, compared with the original levels before the dredging was undertaken. These are checked and re-checked. If my hon. friend would care to visits the offices of the ship channel staff I am sure they would show him the checks which are made of that class of work. I might add that I have had to do with work of this kind for a great many years, and I have never seen a more complete set of records or a more complete check than is carried on by our ship channel staff.


Mr. NEEDHAM:: I understood the minister to say that when this job of making the thirty-ifive foot channel was first undertaken, the estimated cost was $11,500,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The work of improving the St. Lawrence channel has 'been going on for a great many years. In 1932 the late government instituted an investigation fay departmental engineers, experts in this type of work, to recommend a program for the completion of the St. Lawrence ship channel as far as developing the thirty-five foot channel is concerned. That committee studied the subject for three years. They went into elaborate studies of the hydraulics of the channel and the amount of dredging required; they took a great many bearings, and investigated the channel most thoroughly. The report, which I believe was brought down in 1936, advised that an expenditure of $11,500,000 in the manner definitely recommended by the report would complete the St. Lawrence ship channel; that is, from the point of contracts then outstanding. There was at that time some work contracted for and not completed, but the report of the engineers recommended a further expenditure of $11,500,000, and that is the contract under which dredging is being carried on to-day.


Joseph Needham: If this expenditure of
$3,000,000 per annum has been going on since 1936, and the minister expects that the work will be completed in 1943 at an expenditure each year of $3,000,000. the total will be very much more than $11,500,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The agreement covering this
work was not signed until 1937, and at that time there was certain unexpired work which had been contracted for in 1934. The sum of $11,500,000 was the expenditure required after

the work then contracted for had been completed. I believe this is the second year that we have been working on this contract, but the first year was practically all taken up with work on the contract previously entered into.


David Spence: A minute or so ago the
minister made the statement that it cost from sixteen cents to five dollars a cubic yard to take out clay and stone. Is there any solid rock at all at the bottom of the St. Lawrence at the present time? Are the contractors dredging solid rock, or what is there in the bed of the river?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Dredging is done considerably below solid rock; for instance, in the harbour of Montreal at least six or seven feet of solid rock excavation is required to get down to the depth prescribed. Beyond Quebec we struck a bar of solid rock, and that is being excavated at thirty-five feet below low tide, which means some forty-three or forty-four feet below high tide.


David Spence: Is it not the duty of
inspectors to measure the quantity of cubic yards of earth that are on the dredge which takes the material away.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


David Spence: Then how is the number of yards that are taken out of the bottom of the river arrived at? The material must be measured after it is taken out. Of course it could be measured up in the first place, but I should think it would be difficult to measure it up at the bottom of the water.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Place measurement is much
more accurate than scow measurement.


David Spence: At the bottom of the
river?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly. That is where
we measure it.


David Spence: Engineers must have good
imaginations. I have been mixed up in a good deal of that kind of work.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How many miles of this
ship channel have been completed and how many remain to be excavated. I should also like to know whether, after certain portions have been completed, they fill in through the action of the current and so on as time goes by, so that more work is required.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know just where the channel may be said to start. It begins well below Quebec, that is where bars have been taken out, but I do not know how far down the gulf one would say that the channel

Supply-Transport-Marine
starts. It has been completed up to the foot of lake Saint Peter, which is a little above Three Rivers. That part has been completed to thirty-five feet. Three Rivers is, I suppose, about sixty-two miles below Montreal, so that we are working to-day in the sixty-two miles of channel between Three Rivers and Montreal. If the hon. member knows the St. Lawrence river, he knows that there are deep parts and shallow parts. It is not as though one went out on the prairie and dug a trench. I have forgotten the other question.


Grote Stirling: Does the channel silt up?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Fortunately there is
very little silting in the St. Lawrence. The committee will notice that a little further on we have a small maintenance vote. I believe that maintenance costs about $200,000 a year, which is very little for a channel of that length.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What is the estimated cost of the final completion, over a period of years, of the channel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, it is $11,500,000, less
the work we have done under this contract. I cannot say how much of the work done in the last three years was under this contract or under the contract which was let previously, but I should say the cost still to be met is about seven or eight million dollars.


William Allen Walsh: Including the present contract, what is the total amount that has been expended on developing the ship channel to a prospective depth of thirty-five feet in order to make Montreal harbour available at that depth?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The total expenditure to
March 1, 1938, for dredging, plant, shops, surveys, et cetera, was $73,087,695.31.


William Allen Walsh: Then we have to add the balance of the present contract to that, whatever the balance may be?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


William Allen Walsh: So that the total expenditure on that ship channel so far will be over $80,000,000?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is to complete it. .


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Does not the continual dredging and deepening of the channel progressively lower the water? Does the minister contemplate the construction of weirs to take the place of this continual dredging? The dredging lowers the water so that it will become necessary to put in weirs to maintain the water at a desired level.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The report of the engineers, to which I have already referred, went into that matter fully. There have been suggestions that the water be raised by a series of dams and locks and that an attempt be made through weirs to raise the level and thus avoid dredging. The report in question was of the opinion that no further remedial works were necessary and that the dredging required to complete the channel would not lower the water level in the harbour of Montreal sufficiently to warrant further compensation. There are a number of weirs already in the St. Lawrence and they are being maintained. We have a vote this year to repair some scouring on the weirs to top them out, and that work will be carried out.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Two years ago the minister took a drastic step when he disposed of the equipment at Sorel which belonged formerly to the government. I did not know at the time whether the move was a wise one but we readily accepted the minister's assurances inasmuch as he was an engineer and more or less an expert in matters of this sort. He thought the deal was a good one as far as the government was concerned. The matter has caused a good deal of feeling among the people of Sorel because I get letters from them still bemoaning the fact that the government no longer owns the plant and equipment. It is about two years since they were disposed of. Will the minister now give the committee his opinion on the question as to what advantages have accrued to the government from the sale of the plant and equipment? Is it now used by the company who have the contract for dredging in the St. Lawrence?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No one connected with the department has any doubt that the dredging is carried on with vastly greater efficiency now than previously.


Abraham Albert Heaps: More economically?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. We are satisfied that we get a greater yardage for the same expenditure than we obtained when we took out a part with our own fleet. In disposing of the shipyard we disposed of an operating problem that had been a nightmare to the department for many years, and we are of the opinion that no great hardship has been caused the citizens of' Sorel because the work is still done from that point by private contractors. The men formerly engaged in our work now work for private contractors. Perhaps they are required to work a little harder, but that is not very serious. In any event there is no question that the efficiency of the work has been greatly improved. We also
Supply-Transport-M arine

had to face the fact that with the completion of the channel, which is now only a few years distant, that plant would be a drug on the market. I am sure we did well to dispose of it at what proved to be the peak of the market for that class of equipment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the same class of equipment now used for dredging the channel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very little. There are two or three dredges being used, but the work performed by the old government fleet is less than 20 per cent of the total work done by the contractors.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: In view of the fact that it is unnecessary to do any dredging whatsoever in certain ports where national harbour boards operate-and I have in mind particularly the port of Halifax-may I ask whether any part of these millions of dollars is chargeable against the operations of the national harbours board, or whether any interest is chargeable to the operations of the national harbours board controlling the St. Lawrence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think that is in the same position as capital in the port of Halifax. We can charge it all we like, but we cannot collect interest on it. It is not charged directly to the port of Halifax.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The point is this. The overhead, I understand, takes account of the operations of each of these ports. Separate statements are now required, and it is only fair that if there is a charge running into millions against certain ports, for their development, a proportion of that expenditure should be assessed directly to each of the particular ports affected. On the one hand, we have between $73,000,000 and $80,000,000 spent on dredging to assist the shipping of three ports on the St. Lawrence, and on the other we find practically not a dollar spent on dredging in the harbour of Halifax; nevertheless those using that port have to pay dockage charges and harbour dues, on the same scale 'as those who use other ports where millions of dollars have been spent to improve them and make it possible for them to carry on their business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The development of the St. Lawrence is not a matter of developing individual harbours. It is the development of a great inland waterway which goes from the sea to the head of the great lakes and serves a very considerable part of Canada and the United States. It is regarded, and quite properly so, as work for the benefit of all Canada. Expenditures for harbour improvements in

any of the harbours of the St. Lawrence, are, of course, capitalized for the harbour, just as they are in ports and in the maritimes and on the Pacific. But as regards the inland waterway, it is charged to the country as a whole.


René-Antoine Pelletier: This is a very large item inasmuch as it involves an expenditure of over $3,250,000, and I find in the special supplementary estimates further sums of $400,000 and $200,000 provided for exactly the same type of work. In addition, this is only a portion of a very large contract which altogether may amount to some $11,500,000. A great deal more information should be given to the committee before an item of this kind should pass. For example, I believe it would be in the interest of all concerned if the minister would tell us what company purchased the equipment which formerly was owned by the government at Sorel.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend gave the committee a great deal of information on that subject last year, and I gave my hon. friend a great deal of information, including that for which he has just asked. Does he want me to carry on that discussion again?


René-Antoine Pelletier: I cannot see the point. Here is an item before us involving some $3,250,000, and apparently the minister does not think it of sufficient importance to warrant giving information to the committee. It is a large sum, and I think we are entitled to the information. I should like to know who purchased this equipment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the hon. member will look at his notes of last year it will be obvious to him.


René-Antoine Pelletier: That is not the answer I should like to get. I think the committee would like to have the information. I wish to know what company purchased this equipment.


An hon. MEMBER:: Look at last year's
Hansard.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I do not intend to look at last year's Hansard. The minister has plenty of time, so have we. Here is an item of $3,250,000 plus $600,000 in the supplement-aries, and we are refused information about it. The minister says we got the information last year, but I am under the impression that there has been a change in the name of the company since the contract was signed. I should like the minister to tell us the name of the company which purchased this equipment at Sorel, that formerly belonged to the government.

Supply-Trcimport-M arine


Clarence Decatur Howe: If it will help my hon. friend I may say this company is Marine Industries Limited, formerly General Dredging Contractors Limited.


René-Antoine Pelletier: How much money has been paid by Marine Industries Limited on account of the goods purchased from the government by them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Every payment has been
made on its exact due date. I cannot give the amount offhand.


René-Antoine Pelletier: That does not answer the question. I did not ask the date of payment. I asked how much money has been paid.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not that information.


René-Antoine Pelletier: If the minister expects the committee to pass an amount of $3,250,000 which will be paid to this company that got the equipment by purchase from the government, he should be prepared to answer questions. I believe it is part of the contract that the company which purchased this equipment from the government are not paying for the equipment until they receive some money out of the contract which they have * been given by the government. I should like the minister to inform the committee on that point.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend did his muckraking on this subject last year. I do not know that I care to take very much more of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He made all sorts of statements accusing me of dishonesty. I went into the subject fully last year. I do not know why I should have to do so again.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I rise to a point of
order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I will not sit down.
I am speaking to a point of order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am on my feet at the
moment.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I did not accuse the minister of dishonesty at any time, as the minister well knows, and I think he should withdraw that statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member certainly
did accuse me of dishonesty.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I should like to have a ruling on that point of order.


Frederick George Sanderson: What is the point of order?


René-Antoine Pelletier: The point of order is that the minister states that I accused him of dishonesty. I did no such thing and I should like him to withdraw that statement.


Frederick George Sanderson: I did not hear the minister make any statement charging the hon. member with dishonesty.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Well, I am bound to abide by your ruling, but I am inclined to think that the muckraking is at the bottom of the St. Lawrence river and not in this committee. However, if the minister does not want to give that information, perhaps there is other information he can supply. I realize that the sale of this equipment was undertaken on the recommendation of a certain engineer of the department. I notice that the chief engineer who recommended the sale is a gentleman named J. E. St. Laurent. I should like to know how long he had been appointed before he made that recommendation to the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To my knowledge, Mr. J. E. St. Laurent has been in the service of the federal government for more than thirty years. He was transferred when we lost two senior engineers, one by retirement and the other by sudden death. Mr. St. Laurent was then placed in charge of that work. I think he had been there for some eight or nine months before he made the report. What is my hon. friend insinuating anyway?


René-Antoine Pelletier: I am not insinuating anything. I think that is unfair.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We went into the sale of this equipment very fully last year. I do not know that I am prepared to go into it again.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I am not here to defend the minister, but if the hon. member has anything to insinuate let him establish his facts.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am of the opinion that bringing up this matter, which was discussed very fully last year-I think for hours if my memory is right, and now the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) wants to go into the same debate again-is out of order.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I think
the attitude adopted by the minister is unsatisfactory to this committee. It does not make any difference what questions the hon. member for Peace River asked last year, he has not forfeited any right to ask questions this year, and the minister is bound to answer those questions as far as he is able, without regard to what was said last year. I think the minister is doing himself an injustice, and I say this just as much to protect the minister
Supply-Transport-Marine

as to see that the hon. member for Peace River has his rights. The minister should ignore what was said last year. If he feels that what the hon. member for Peace River said was not justified, no blame attaches to the minister about the matter, and to say that because the hon. member for Peace River said certain things last year the minister is not going to answer his questions this year is not good enough for this committee. The minister is unjust not only to the committee but to himself.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is enough;
sit down.


Angus MacInnis: I know when I have said enough and I will sit down when I have finished.


An hon. MEMBER:: This is a free parliament.


Angus MacInnis: The minister has no more right here than I have or the hon. member for Peace River has, and I am going to exercise my right regardless of what hon. members opposite may say. I have never had anything but the most harmonious relations with the Minister of Transport; I am speaking now just as much in his interest as in that of the hon. member for Peace River, and any fair-minded member of this house, I do not care what side he is on, will take that position. The hon. member for Peace River is entitled to an answer to his question in so far as the minister has the information, without regard to what was said last year.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Let the hon. member for Peace River make his charges here and substantiate them.
. An hon. MEMBER: There is no charge.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for Peace River is not, I understand, making a charge. Although the minister may not like the question, he should answer it because, as has been pointed out, this is a free parliament; the minister is responsible to parliament, and members of parliament have a right to this information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To what information?


Major James William Coldwell: Whatever information is asked for by hon. members.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Let the hon. member make his charge.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not know what the hon. member for Peace River is after or is getting at, but he has a right to an answer to his question.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Matters have come to a pretty pass when a member cannot rise in his place in this committee and ask a civil question of the government without being told he is making a charge. I submit that this item has not been discussed yet. It was not discussed last year, because we are now considering an entirely new amount of money which it is proposed to spend this year, and what we have before us now has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of money that was spent last year. I do not understand why the hon. member should say I have a charge to make. All I am asking for is certain information I should like to get-


An hon. MEMBER:: What is it?


René-Antoine Pelletier: I would certainly
appreciate getting the information from the minister. I was referring to the chief engineer on the St. Lawrence waterways; and I wanted to know how long he had been appointed before he recommended to the government that the dredging fleet at Sorel should be sold, and the minister replied that it was seven or eight months. I should like to know if the minister is sure, or if he is stating that from memory.	,


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Will the hon. member give the date of the recommendation which he has before him?


René-Antoine Pelletier: I will give more than that. I will read the letter recommending the sale of the shipyard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a point of order; I see nothing in this item before us which refers to the sale of a shipyard. No part of this appropriation is for that purpose. I should like to know whether or not this discussion is in order. I tabled all the information I had last year, in full-everything the hon. member asked for. I cannot carry this in my mind, from year to year.


Frederick George Sanderson: On the point of order raised by the Minister of Transport, in my ruling given a few minutes ago I had that same thought in mind, that to bring back the whole debate which went on last year concerning the equipment that was sold, and to bring it up on the item now before the committee, is out of order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Chairman, I protest against that ruling.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down, Waterloo!


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Just a minute-


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order.

Supply-Transport-Marine


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I want the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, who referred to me in that iway, to withdraw.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will the hon. member for Waterloo South resume his seat?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the other fellow?


Frederick George Sanderson: I have already made my ruling, and it is not debatable.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order to draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the interruptions from the other side of the house are discourteous and undignified in any public institution such as parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that so?


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I will leave the matter of the letter, 'because there is other information I should like to have. Have the government now any equipment available 'by the use of which they could undertake to do this work, instead of giving it out by contract work?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have no dredging equipment in the ship channel organization. We have certain stone lifters, certain inspection boats, and certain equipment used in maintenance, but we disposed of our dredging fleet.


René-Antoine Pelletier: If that is so, I should like to know what balance of the contract is yet to be performed in connection with this matter, and if any equipment which was sold by the government is now being used by the contractors doing the work?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I answered that question a few moments ago. I said I thought two or three dredges were there. I said I did not think it was 20 per cent of the actual fleet engaged in the river. I have given. an approximation of the dredging to be finished; I cannot do more than that.


René-Antoine Pelletier: In this connection I should like the minister to understand that certain things took place before this St. Lawrence ship channel was ever under his charge. I understand this was formerly an item which came under the Department of Public Works, and that for some reason or another it was transferred to the Department of Transport-undoubtedly there was good reason. Nevertheless there are certain things which took place while it was being administered by the Department of Public Works, and which I think this committee is entitled to know.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just to put my hon. friend straight, the St. Lawrence ship channel contracting has been administered by the Department of Marine for a great many years.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Perhaps so; nevertheless last year when I asked the minister for certain information he told me that this was not the concern of his department, that it referred to the Department of Public Works. Then, last year just at the time I was about to quote certain examples of contracts given out for dredging the St. Lawrence river, I was interrupted on a point of order. I believe the point of order was taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who told me that the matter had nothing to do with the Department of Transport but referred to the Department of Public Works.
For instance, I was giving examples of contracts where the contractor had proceeded to begin work of dredging fifteen or twenty days before the contracts had ever been signed. Of course I was not allowed to proceed at that time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon. friend give me a specific example? If these are contracts for the St. Lawrence ship canal, I will give him information. If they are not, it is obviously out of order.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I do not believe we knew this item was coming up to-night. For that reason I have not before me information which I could give the minister. But I definitely know that there have been contracts which were begun days and days ahead of the time that any contract was signed. If the minister would be kind enough to allow the item to stand, I think I can bring before the committee an example of what I am stating.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


René-Antoine Pelletier: No; I have asked a question.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Are payments for the equipment and payments for the work that is being done set off against each other; is that the method by which payment is being made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer is that the payments are not in any way set off against each other. The sale of this equipment was negotiated by a document quite apart from any other document. It provides that the equipment shall be sold at a certain price, and that payments shall be made as follows: One-fifth cash, and four equal instalments in four

Supply-Transport-Marine

successive years. I think three payments have been made to date-exactly what is due. The contract for the sale of the fleet has nothing to do with the contract in hand, so far as the payments for either are concerned.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Was the contract for the sale of the dredging fleet by tender?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; I explained fully last year why it was impossible to do that. The dredging fleet was sold by negotiation, and at what we considered a very attractive price.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Are those contracts for dredging made by tender, and if so, how many companies tender on the contracts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have answered that question four times to-night. I said that the contract was made in 1930 by tender. I said that some six or seven companies tendered, that the government which preceded this one renewed the contract twice, and that this government has renewed it once.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Is there any clause in the contract referring to employees? I have before me a letter written by General Dredging Contractors Limited, who are now known as Marine Industries Limited, addressed to the Minister of Transport. It is dated at Montreal, June 5, 1937, and reads in part as follows:
The prospective improvement in shipbuilding leads us to believe that we will be able to care for a large number of the former employees of the government yard and to purchase some of the shipyard machinery should you decide to close the yard down.
The question I should like to ask is this: Was this clause not embodied in the contract, and if so, by what method have the contractors carried out their undertaking? Then, what is the present condition of the former employees of the shipyards at Sorel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The contract contains a clause by which the contractors undertake to employ the maximum number of government employees in work, either on the dredging fleet or in the shipyard. I checked up the information. I think the agreement covered only the year in which the sale took place, which I believe was 1937. I may say that I have not had a single complaint-at least, I do not recall a complaint. I looked up the files. Certainly there was nothing to attract my attention in connection with complaints from employees who claimed a grievance on account of the transaction. So far as I know, on the dredging fleet especially all our employees were absorbed into the contractor's work, and I think that is generally true of the shipyard.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Mr. Chairman, that does not answer the question I asked. I should like to know what method the government employs in order to determine whether or not the contractors are carrying out the agreement which they undertook in this particular clause. What method is being used to see that they are carrying out their part of the contract? The minister says he has not received a complaint. Perhaps so; nevertheless, in order to be sure there should be some method by which the contractor could be compelled to give some account as to what is happening there, so that they might be forced, as a matter of fact, to carry out the provisions of the clause to which I refer.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the item carry?


René-Antoine Pelletier: Just a moment, please. The minister said that if I would bring forward examples in connection with the dredging contracts on the St. Lawrence he would be glad to give them consideration. I replied that I did not have this information before me because I did not expect this item to come up this evening. If the minister would be good enough to allow the item to stand, I could get the information-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


René-Antoine Pelletier: -to support the contention I made a moment ago that contractors had started work at various places in the St. Lawrence river ten or fifteen days before the contracts had been signed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon. friend suggesting that contracts covered by this vote were started beforehand?
(Mr. PELLETIER: I am not suggesting that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The St. Lawrence ship canal is a work extending from Montreal to the sea. In the St. Lawrence river are many small harbours where dredging is done by the Department of Public Works, either with its own dredges or under contract. This work is carried on in a manner similar to the work in the great lakes or on both coasts and has nothing to do with the ship channel work. If my hon. friend has in mind any action taken by the Department of Public Works at any time since confederation, it would have nothing to do with the ship channel which we are discussing this evening. I do not think my hon. friend should discuss contracts entered into by the Department of Public Works, of which neither I nor any official in my department would have the slightest knowledge. We are discussing the estimates of the Department of Transport.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I was careful to point
out that this transaction occurred in another department before the work was taken over by the Department of Transport. We did not have any opportunity at the time to ask these questions, but now that the dredging of the St. Lawrence has been given to the care of another department-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I pointed out to my hon.
friend that the St. Lawrence ship channel has been the charge of the Department of Marine and its successor, the Department of Transport, for a great many years.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I understand this work was first commenced in 1932, and the contracts have been renewed from time to time. Was it the minister's department that awarded the original contract?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Marine,
which was merged into the Department of Transport, was the department that awarded the contract for the dredging of the St. Lawrence ship channel.


René-Antoine Pelletier: This work was commenced under the previous administration, I believe in 1932, and the department has simply .continued it. Since that time this government decided that it would be to the best advantage of the country to dispose of the government equipment at Sorel. My criticism is that the government has lost a considerable sum of money in the disposal of this equipment. I understand that an official appraisal was made by a company in Montreal, the Canadian Appraisal Company, which was called to appraise the value of the fleet. I would point out that one dredge which had been built recently cost the government- this is according to a return brought down by the minister-more than the estimate of the value of the fleet by the Canadian Appraisal Company. That is why I say the sale of this equipment has resulted in serious loss to this government.
I tried to point out last year that the auditor general's report did not show the equipment we had on hand. There seems to have been some confusion among the officers of the Department of Transport, myself and the auditor general, but the fact remains that the amount of equipment on hand at the Sorel shipyards was not shown for certain years. The gentleman who recommended the sale of this equipment is Mr. St. Laurent, and the minister now tells me that he was appointed some eight or nine months before he made this recommendation. The minister said that Mr. St. Laurent had been in
71492-194i
Supply-Transport-Marine
the employ of the government for the last thirty years, but I should not like the impression to get out that he was employed by the Department of Transport during that time. I understand he was in the employ of the Department of Public Works. I should like to know why the engineer who had always been in charge of this work was not asked to make the recommendation to the government. A man who had been newly appointed was asked to write a letter to the minister recommending the sale of this equipment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: While this discussion is
wholly out of order, I will answer the question. I may say that I am not going to answer any more questions unless they pertain to this item. The former chief engineer, Mr. McLean, was retired from the service after three extensions had been made after he had reached the age of sixty-five years. The assistant chief engineer died quite suddenly at about the time Mr. McLean was retired and the former was about to be appointed to the position of chief engineer.


René-Antoine Pelletier: So the engineer who-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I must remind the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) that I gave my ruling about fifteen minutes ago. I think I have given him considerable latitude since then, but he has been out of order. I must ask him to confine his remarks to the item under discussion.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Of course I bow to your ruling, and I realize that it will be impossible for me to discuss this matter. I merely wanted to point out that we are dealing with the expenditure of $3,229,040, with another $400,000 in the supplementary estimates. This is an item which will recur time and time again, because no one can tell when the dredging in the St. Lawrence river will be completed. Quite often members from eastern Canada complain about how much money is being spent in western Canada and how the people of western Canada are always living off the taxes paid in Ontario and Quebec.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member is out of order. Shall the item carry?


René-Antoine Pelletier: I agree that I am out of order on that point, and I bow to your ruling. I submit that under that ruling I am no longer able to discuss this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service.
j36. River St. Lawrence ship channel-operation and maintenance, including any portion of contract dredging chargeable to maintenance,
Supply-Transport-M arine
John Ritchie MacNicol: This has to do with the maintenance of the channel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. This item covers the cost of operating the department's own equipment. The department handles the sweeping of the channel, the removal of the odd boulder and the inspection of the contract dredging. The amount of maintenance dredging in this item is $200,000, of which $50,000 is a revote. Last year there was one item of maintenance dredging which did not seem to show sufficient accumulation to warrant a contract, and we decided to let it go for another year and pick up the extra dredging this year. The average cost of maintenance dredging is $150,000 a year.


Angus MacInnis: Is this work done by contract?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The dredging is done by contract, but the removal of obstructions and the sweeping of the channel is done by our own equipment.


Angus MacInnis: Are tenders called for?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is carried out under a clause in the general dredging contract. The reason, of course, is that we can use nearby equipment to carry out the work.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Has any cost-plus contract been issued in connection with this work?


Clarence Decatur Howe: None whatever, except that there is an item providing for something unexpected such as a sunken wreck which may have to be removed, but I do not think any such expenditure has had to be made in the last year or two. There is, however, provision in the contract for something unusual of that kind, on a cost-plus basis.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: What amount has been expended on a cost-plus basis under that provision?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not remember any such expenditure, but there is provision made for it, for removing a sunken wreck or something similar.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: But there was nothing of that kind done to the minister's knowledge last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


James Alexander Marshall: I have already asked two other ministers a similar question, and I ask the minister now to explain this appropriation not required for 1939-40, $200,000. It does seem to me to be entirely out of place in this item. Would the minister explain why it is there?	.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That, I think, was an item for repairing weirs, was it not?


James Alexander Marshall: I really do not know.
I want to know why it is there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is an item for repairing weirs. The amount was not expended last year, and it has not been included in the main estimates this year.


Harry James Barber: It appears in the supple-mentaries.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When the main estimates were being prepared we had not decided whether we would do the work this year because the question requires a great deal of study. We did not spend the money last year, and we did not put the item in the main estimates this year, but I believe it is in the supple-mentaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service.
JtSS. Steamship inspection and the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, $206,290.
Clarence Decatur Howe: This item was discussed thoroughly before, but not passed.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Has any decision been
reached as to whether the regulations respecting hours of work for seamen are under provincial or federal jurisdiction?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a provincial matter, although some two years ago there was drawn up at Geneva an international convention which we have not yet ratified, nor has Great Britain. We are studying it, but its ratification would mean drastic readjustments.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I had representations from organizations of seamen on the Pacific coast, representing particularly men employed on tugs and barges who have to work exceedingly long hours and get very little consideration from their employers. To what authority should they apply to have certain matters rectified? I am informed that on occasion they applied to the federal department and were told that it was a provincial matter; then they applied to the provincial authority and were told that it was a matter for the federal government to deal with under the shipping act. I would ask the minister to what authority I might refer them for settlement of their difficulties.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Any grievance of men on tugs or barges would obviously foe a provincial matter.


Charles Grant MacNeil: They operate in coastal waters.

Supply-Transport-Marine


Clarence Decatur Howe: But within the boundaries of British Columbia. The only seamen whose wages would be covered by international agreement would be seamen on deep-sea vessels. As I understand the situation, even if we ratify the Geneva convention, it might not affect the type of vessel to which my hon. friend refers.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has this vote also to do with the inspection of the Plimsoll line and markings on the ship as to draft and so forth?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, it covers all inspectional work under the Canada Shipping Act, including load-lines.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I was referring to vessels which are subject to inspection by the department, and the masters and mates of which must secure certificates to operate in coastal waters. I am referring not to minor waters but to coastal waters. These boats often put out to sea and ply back and forth between coastal points. The organization of these men has been informed that their difficulties are strictly a federal matter because these boats are subject to inspection by the federal department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My deputy informs me that there is nothing in the Canada Shipping Act with respect to wages. We issue certificates, of course, as to the competency of the officers.


Charles Grant MacNeil: But there is nothing as to hours of work?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Mr. McIVOR:: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister what two captains at the head of the lakes give me as authentic information, namely, that they are much pleased at the great improvement which has been made through the installation of radio and life-saving apparatus for the protection of life on the larger and smaller boats coming into the ports at the head of the lakes. I just want to sound this note as the other side to what we have been hearing here, something in praise of the efficient work the minister has 'done for the protection of life on the boats at the head of the lakes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does that come under this item, Mr. Chairman? The item deals with safety of life at sea.


Angus MacInnis: I have received communications along the same line as those received by the hon. member for Vancouver North with respect to hours of labour and working conditions of the men on the boats on the Pacific. I think the chief complaint is with regard to the hours of work. The contention is that
sailors in Canada have longer hours of work than sailors in almost any other country that has a considerable marine service. From all the information I have been able to gather, Great Britain and the United States have an eight-hour day for sailors. I think it is time not only for us to ratify the Geneva convention which the minister mentioned, and in other years I have asked him several questions in regard to that convention, but we should have legislation putting the eight-hour day into effect for seamen. No class of people works under worse conditions than the seamen on board our ships, especially the ships plying along the coast.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is well aware that wages and working conditions right across Canada come within provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has no control over these matters. But with respect to seamen outside provincial jurisdiction the international labour office has approved a convention which would apply to all countries ratifying it. The Department of Labour has given a great deal of study to the matter; and there, again, the department is somewhat doubtful as to the question of jurisdiction under the British North America Act. I am told that as yet Britain has not ratified that convention. We hope that some progress in the matter of jurisdiction can be made so that there will be an advance towards the eight-hour day, in which, of course, everyone in Canada believes.


Angus MacInnis: I can not say definitely whether Great Britain has yet ratified the 1936 conventions which were adopted at Geneva. I went to Europe in the fall of 1936 and came back in the early winter, and between the time I went over and the time I came back an eight-hour day had been put into effect on the liner on which I sailed. That does not mean, of course, that these conventions were adopted. They covered quite a number of items besides hours of work. I hope the minister will give this matter further consideration and be able to let us have something more definite with regard to the conventions adopted by the international labour office than he has yet been able to do.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This is a problem in which, I have no doubt, many other hon. members are interested. Although not many ships go out of the port of Winnipeg, I have become acquainted with many of these people. It seems anomalous that men who live in one province and work on ships plying between two or three provinces come, so far as their conditions of labour are concerned, entirely under provincial jurisdiction. For instance, a boat may ply between Toronto and Montreal,
Supply-Transport-Marine

that is between Ontario and Quebec; another will ply between Quebec and Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. In such instances it is almost impossible to have purely provincial regulations to cover conditions of labour. Is there not some way whereby, through government regulation, something can be done to protect these men against long hours of labour? In committee a year ago we had illustrations of how long some of these men have to work.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that the Department of Marine, predecessor to the Department of Transport, and the Department of Labour worked together for many years and tried to arrange something which would accomplish some control of labour on ships, but they have not been able to devise any system which would be within the British North America Act.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Have they tried to work in conjunction with the provinces and get the provinces together in order to enact legislation of some kind whereby all provinces would be subject to the same law, or have the provinces enact similar legislation, as has been done in connection with other matters?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know whether they have gone that far, but they have given the matter a good deal of attention.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the department not work along that line, getting together the provinces mainly affected to see whether something could not be done in that direction?


Frank Exton Lennard: I assume this inspection applies mainly to boats of Canadian registry?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. LOCKHART:: The minister was good jnough to suggest the other night when this item was up that he would get me some information with regard to boats plying between Toronto and Port Dalhousie. Would the minister also be good enough to get me the date on which the sister boat of the Northumberland was built, and some information as to its carrying capacity. Some peculiar statements have been made to me, and I should like to check their correctness.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have written to the secretary of the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway for the information, but it has not yet come to hand. Much to my surprise I find that my hon. friend is getting fairly close to my own bailiwick. I believe that this company is a subsidiary of the Canadian National Railways. I should be glad to send my hon. friend the information as soon as it comes to hand.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I want the date of the construction of- the sister boat, the Dalhousie City. The other was built in 1891.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service.
418.	Marine service administration, $17,980.
Charles Grant MacNeil: On what item may we discuss wharfingers?
(Mr. HOWE: I believe that we are holding item 424 until my hon. friend is prepared to discuss that. We can take it now if he wishes. We shall come in a minute to item 424.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service.
419.	Administration of floating equipment, $26,885.
Harry Gladstone Clarke: I notice that there is a decrease of $1,950 in the administration of floating equipment. Is that on account of a reduction in salaries, in the number of employees, or otherwise?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The decrease is as a result of the abolition of the position of chief clerk, which has been replaced with temporary assistance costing $1,080. One chief clerk was dropped out of the branch.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service.
422. Construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $1,948,665.
James Samuel Taylor: Under this
item I assume we can talk about beacons?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


James Samuel Taylor: I understand
that the lighthouse board meets once a year. Am I correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


James Samuel Taylor: I was informed that last year it met in January. When is it proposed that it shall meet this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The lighthouse board has
not been called1 together this year, but it will meet within two or three months. Two or three members have been laid up with quite serious illnesses, which delayed action, but they will meet in a month or two.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask when the
conical buoy at the entrance to Port Credit harbour is likely to be completed? As the minister knows, it was destroyed last fall.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be replaced as soon
as possible after the opening of navigation, probably a week or two from now.
Supply-Transport-Marine


Charles Grant MacNeil: Would the minister please indicate the name and address of the official in British Columbia to whom reference should be made in emergent matters regarding navigation aids?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The agency either at Victoria or Prince Rupert. The name of the agent at Victoria is Mr. Willoughby; the agent at Prince Rupert is Mr. Stamford.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Have these officials authority to replace, without reference to Ottawa, beacons carried away or destroyed by storms?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They have the authority,
and it is their duty to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service.
424- Maintenance and repairs to wharves, $7,500.
Charles Grant MacNeil: On this item I wish to
make another appeal to the minister for some action which will clear away our difficulties with regard to the appointment of wharfingers along the coast of British Columbia. I do so because at a number of points representative committees have made complaints to me and asked that something should be done, and I have endeavoured to lay the matter before the officers of the department and before the minister.
Under the act the minister has the power to avoid any difficulty, because, after all, section 6 provides that the minister may appoint such officers, clerks or labourers as he may think proper. That authority is permissive and not mandatory. But as soon as the wharfinger is appointed, it does become mandatory to collect top wharfage tolls and side wharfage dues. The wharfingers receive on the tolls collected a commission of 50 per cent for amounts up to $200 and 15 per cent for amounts above $200. In the majority of the communities with which I am familiar there is a great protest because the wharf is the only means of access to the outside world, and the people see no reason why they should be penalized by a special tax. They cannot understand why the government should do what is equivalent to erecting a toll-gate across a road. It is as obnoxious as a toll-gate would be.
The minister has advanced the reason that it is necessary to collect revenue. Sessional paper No. 155 shows that revenue is collected only from a comparatively small number of wharves. The wharves and piers in Canada under the control of the department number 1,899, and of these 267 were in British Columbia as at December 31, 1938. Some still remain
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works, but the wharfingers appointed on such wharves in Canada number 632, there being forty-nine in British Columbia. That is to say, out of 267 wharves in British Columbia, forty-nine have wharfingers and only forty-nine communities pay top wharfage tolls. The residents of these communities pay not only top wharfage tolls but the dues and tolls on goods shipped to them from the port of Vancouver.
The question of revenue does not seem to be as important as formerly. According to the return brought down, the gross collections of top wharfage dues in Canada for 1937-38 amounted to $222,531. The commission to wharfingers amounted to $33,487, and expenses amounted to $14,194. The net collections were, therefore, $174,849. Gross collections in British Columbia amounted to $34,923 and commissions paid were $4,677, expenses being $10,919. Net collections were, therefore, $19,326.
I asked in my question for the returns of side wharfage tolls, because it was brought to my attention that in the case of some wharves where the residents paid top wharfage tolls the steamship companies do not pay side wharfage tolls. I am informed that the Union Steamship Company, whose ships visit the great majority of these points, pay a monthly commutation rate for only a given number of points, and at some points where they do not pay side wharfage tolls the residents pay top wharfage tolls. In the rates set for the carriage of goods to and from these communities many pay twice, because these rates are set to include tolls in and out of the port of Vancouver.
The minister should give consideration to the principle involved. Even though he may desire to collect revenue to reimburse the department for expenditures in connection with administration of wharves, this is an additional tax upon the residents of the communities, over and above the tax they pay for general service facilities, and it is a most serious handicap on them, particularly on producers who bring in hay and feed or in communities that ship out canned or fresh fruits for the outside market. The toll, however small it may be, is a hardship and is certainly a great inconvenience.
I realize that it is difficult to get men to accept the post of wharfinger because very few men of the right calibre are willing to undertake responsibilities that bring them into public disfavour. It is a job which few men want because sentiment runs high against the appointment in many of these communities. If, however, a man is appointed and is
Supply-Transport-Marine

empowered to collect dues from the residents, then it is good business to have businesslike regulations governing the performance of his duties. On that point I have received a great number of complaints in the past year. The wharfinger appointed is usually a man who does other work, and very often the wharf is some distance from the village. He has no regular hours of work at the wharf. He is there during the hours in which the boat docks, and then he goes on to perform his other duties elsewhere. He carries with him the key to the freight shed of the wharf. Shippers in that community come sometimes during the day, if the boat docks in the evening, as it very often does, and they have to search for the wharfinger all over the community before they can get their goods out of the freight shed. In one community it has been the custom to leave the key of the shed at a nearby store, but that offered no protection to the public with regard to their goods, and the practice was discontinued.
In some communities this is a serious inconvenience especially in view of the opening up of logging operations. The logging operators are bringing in gas and oil and are shipping equipment in and out, and it is a great inconvenience when they cannot get their goods readily. If they send a truck driver to pick up goods on the wharf he has to search through the whole community to find the wharfinger before he can get goods unloaded from the boat the previous day. Surely it should be possible to issue instructions to ensure that the wharfinger is on duty during hours that meet the convenience of the public.
I suggest that the minister should institute a careful check upon the manner in which funds are collected in this way. I do not know what the procedure is, but as far as I can ascertain the wharfingers are not required to give receipts, nor does it appear that they retain any duplicates which are open to inspection by the department. I mentioned the other evening that fishermen in distress, tying up at wharves, were charged in two instances the sum of fifty cents. The minister was kind enough to look into the matter. I had intended to secure affidavits when I found that the wharfinger who had violated the regulations in regard to these fishermen had died.
There is no protection in this regard, and we hear rumours, which need to be verified, that some wharfingers levy extortionate charges upon fishermen. Clearly fishermen plying their trade are exempt under the regulations. I would urge that receipts be issued. Motor-car dealers shipping cars in and out of these communities have been unable to obtain

receipts. It may foe only forty or fifty or sixty cents for unloading a car, but the man handling the car for his client is unable to show a receipt. A truck driver or a taxi driver going to receive goods is required to pay a toll on the goods, and he cannot collect from his client because he cannot produce a receipt.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I interrupt? It is entirely illegal for a wharfinger to collect any money, no matter how small, without giving a receipt. Is my hon. friend able to give me the names of the wharves where these things happen? After all, he is making serious charges against the whole staff of wharfingers.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I trust the minister does not misunderstand me; I am not making charges.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, the hon. member is saying that illegal practices go on, because it is distinctly illegal for any wharfinger to collect any sum without giving a receipt, and the hon. member says it is done frequently. I think it is only fair to the officers of the department that he should name the localities where this occurs.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am reciting facts brought to my attention.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does the hon. member think it is fair to pass them on without some verification? He is slandering a large class of people, because we have a great many wharfingers on the Pacific coast.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Well, the complaint was made to me that in some instances the wharfinger was unwilling to give a receipt, and I was unaware of any practice in the department that required the retention of a duplicate receipt.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The wharfinger is required
to make it out in quadruplicate, four copies.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I thought that referred
only to bills of lading. I am glad to have that information from the minister. Other complaints have reached me. For instance, at another wharf the wharfinger is a little autocratic in the performance of his duties, he has assumed power to regulate motor-car traffic on these docks. This happens to be a summer resort with a considerable number of people embarking and disembarking-


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask the name of that dock?


Charles Grant MacNeil: This is Roberts Creek. Sometimes in the summer the boat may be tied up at the dock for forty-five minutes, and if the wharfinger decides that he is not going to allow any taxis or motor-cars on that
Supply-Transport-Marine
wharf at that time it puts elderly people and invalids to serious inconvenience. Again I am not making any charge, but definite instructions should be issued so as to safeguard the convenience of the public.
Again, in another community it is reported that the wharf is a mile from the village and the residence of the wharfinger. The freight shed is locked except prior to the arrival of the boat. The shipper has to make out his own bill of lading, and the users of the wharf have felt that no more actual service is rendered now than in the years before the wharfinger was appointed.
In another instance a shipper was shipping a few boxes of apples by the mail boat; he put them in a rowboat and rowed them to the boat; the wharfinger made out the bill of lading, the shipper had to load the fruit on the boat himself, but the wharfinger made out his bill and got his share, getting extra money from his accommodating neighbour. My informant says that if you multiply these instances a number of times you get a large sized grievance. I submit something should be done to remove this penalty from these small communities. The permanent residents at these points are making a struggle, and the general policy is to encourage settlement in these areas to enable people to produce goods and ship them to the markets and thus keep off relief. In some instances the collection of these tolls is just enough to make the difference between success and failure. I hope the predicament of these people in regard to this matter will receive the sympathetic consideration of the minister, particularly because it can be demonstrated that in the great majority of cases very little revenue is secured and no service is rendered to the public in connection with the handling of goods over the wharves.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The department simply carries out the legislation. I was mistaken when I said that the legislation was mandatory that a wharfinger must be appointed. That is not so, because a great many of the docks handle only fish or business that is exempt from wharfage. The branch handling these wharves recommends to the minister that certain wharves have a revenue for which a wharfinger is required, and recommends the appointment of a wharfinger at that place. Where the department makes that recommendation, under the act it is the duty of the minister, as I conceive it, to endeavour to appoint a wharfinger. I believe it is well worth while for any community to have a wharfinger. It is impossible for the department to give proper service to a dock and to keep it in repair unless there is someone looking after 71492-195
it, and it is impossible to do the writing and that sort of thing unless there is some little revenue. The Government Harbours and Piers Act provides that no funds can be spent except funds collected in the operation of the dock. W7e are not able to spend any of the funds of the department in operating any dock under the Government Harbours and Piers Act. Obviously, if there is a warehouse at the dock, someone must look after it or it serves no useful function. We try to appoint wharfingers as well located in respect to the wharf as possible, but of course sometimes a wharf is some distance from the settlement. I think that on the whole our wharfingers take their work seriously, endeavour to give service to their public, and that in the great majority of communities they have overcome the first prejudice which existed against anyone charging for the use of government property and have built up goodwill. I could name many communities in which the wharfinger is highly respected for the work he does.


Harry James Barber: Do any of these wharves
remain under the public works department, or are they taken over by the Department of Transport as soon as constructed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the intention. Sometimes the department carries them for a year or so before they are turned over; they usually wait until there are several and turn them over at one time.


Mr. NEILL:: The minister says he knows
wharfingers who have collected, I think he said, or stirred up a considerable amount of goodwill. Well, it is not in the district I represent. I could tell him of a great deal of ill will that has piled up. The village wharfinger is about as popular in some places as Hitler. There may be places where the amount of business justifies placing a wharfinger to give the attention necessary, and in those places I think the minister will find there is no objection, because some service is given. Personally I would rather pay the very small fee required and be able to go down next day and get my freight and find it is there, instead of having to turn up at one or two o'clock in the morning when the boat comes in. But in these small places the people resent bitterly having to pay; they claim that the wharf is their substitute for a road, and that they should not have to pay a toll-gate fee. We know that very large sums, if my memory is right, running into millions, have been spent on the canals in the east, and I do not know that there is any toll collected on them. These people have no roads, this is often their only

Supply-Transport-Marine

means of access. Apart from that, as I have so often, submitted to the minister, the revenue that the dominion government gets out of it after paying the expenses is so utterly out of proportion to the irritation that it generates that it seems a mistake not only from a business but a political point of view.
The charges are very small, so small that you can hardly get any man to take the job. I have again and again received requests from the minister-I remember one day I got nine letters from him asking recommendations as to appointments of wharfingers at various places, and it has been more or less a nightmare to me for the last two years. Where people were willing to do this work, I sent in the names, but it is not a case of political advantage, because most often you cannot get people to take the job as a gift. In many instances, not being able or willing to get one myself, the minister left it to his official who put up a notice of a rather flamboyant kind suggesting that the revenue was substantial. Then he got some wretched man to take the job, and after the man found what his revenue was he promptly threw it up. I wrote a letter the other day to the minister's deputy asking him how many of the appointments made by the minister's official still existed, and there was not one. They would take it on for a week or two, and then throw it up.
Let me give an idea of what is in it for this man who perhaps lived, as my hon. friend says, a quarter of a mile, half a mile or a mile away from the wharf. Bill Jones comes down in the morning after the boat has left, and he wants a barrel of flour, which is 196 pounds and upon which the government wharfage is two cents, of which the wharfinger gets one cent. He gets 50 per cent of all collections up to $200-which is a mere figure of speech, because he never arrives at that amount.
Bill Jones has probably had to go out of his way to get this wharfinger. He takes him down to the wharf. He doesn't feel like having to take him back again. He gets the barrel of flour, and he pays. Then various forms are made out. A wharfinger told me he had to make four copies, which he sent to different officers, and then he gets a cent out of it. He wanders home again, because the man who has come for the flour won't take him home. He is home half an hour, and somebody comes down and wants a case of coal oil, and the same process is repeated-but he gets only half a cent that time.
Can you wonder that the man, under those circumstances, does not take the job? No

man would be bothered with it-and that is part of the trouble. I would not go so far as the hon. member for Vancouver North when he said it made the difference of profit and loss in business, because the wharfage is so small. It is about ten cents a ton.
Many of these places are post offices as well. People come in their launches distances of two, three, five or ten miles and meet the steamer. They get stores at the same time, get the mail and go home. It makes no difference to them whether there is a wharfinger there or not. Then the government says, "Why can you not get that store man and that post office man to act as wharfinger?" But he says, "No, it is my business to get the mail out, so that these people who are waiting for it can get it." Incidentally, he sells them groceries.
Then there is another point; sometimes the situation is even accentuated. It would be difficult perhaps to understand it, but let me give an illustration like this: A steamer- generally the Union Steamship or the Canadian Pacific boat-calls at a wharf of considerable size. They put stuff off there. But there is a float perhaps five miles away at which the steamer does not call, because it cannot call there. A float is available only for small launches. It is a convenience for some channel or some fiord a distance from the main line of the ship's journey. Then, if this thing is in force he would have to pay wharfage at this main wharf, and then again when he took it ashore at the little wharf in his immediate vicinity. He would pay double the wharfage then.
But the main thing is that the government gets nothing from it worth anything. It is annoying to the public having to hunt up this wharfinger who, in nearly every instance, does not live near the wharf, because the wharf is generally set out on a point where there are no houses. The hon. member for Vancouver North said that something should be done, and I suggest the minister would save us an infinity of trouble if he said there would be no wharf collection, unless the revenue were above a certain yearly sum, say three or four hundred dollars. The wharfinger gets only 50 per cent of the first two hundred dollars collected; after that, it is only 15 per cent. You can figure out what 15 per cent of two cents comes to, and you will have a pretty fair idea of what it is-of how he is practically wallowing in luxury after he has been in the job a little while!
I must support the minister and the law to this extent that there are places where

Questions
steamers call where there have been considerable expenditures by the government, and where the wharves are large and costly, and the traffic considerable. There is no doubt about that. None of these wharves lasts more than from five to ten years, and they cost $8,000 to $12,000. It is quite proper that the government should get some revenue. But in connection with these little places, these small floats, which cost about $1,500, and where the revenue is not at all important, I believe the government should be able to draw a line and say, "Unless you can reasonably expect an income of four or five hundred dollars a year, we will not appoint a wharfinger." That would cut out a great deal of trouble to everybody connected with it.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.08 p.m.
Monday, April 24, 1939