QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will work on the new Canadian National Railways terminal at Montreal be discontinued?
2.	Wliat has been spent to date on this work :or land and construction, and what work has already been done?
3.	Wliat work remains to be done, and at what estimated cost?
4.	Will all reports and other data be tabled for the information of the house?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Government policy will be announced in due course.
2.	In accordance with the provisions of the Montreal Terminals Act, chapter 12, 1929, report has been tabled showing expenditures made and work done to December 31, 1939.
3.	Construction of certain sub-track space, station facilities, streets and bridges, portions of viaduct, elevated railway and grade separation, between station area at Dorchester street and Victoria bridge, and works in Point St. Charles, as well as signalling, interlocking and electrification. Estimated cost to complete, above present contracts, $5,950,000.
4.	Yes, in accordance with the provisions of the Montreal Terminals Act, chapter 12, 1929.


Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	What contracts have been let since January 1, 1940, by Canadian National Railways for work directly, or indirectly, connected with the construction of the terminal on Dorchester street, Montreal, and the rearrangement of the terminal facilities in the Montreal area?
2.	What are the names of the individuals, or firms, to which each of these contracts have been let?
3.	What is the contract price for each contract?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Name of contractor; type of work.
Angus Robertson Limited; excavation.
Duranceau & Duranceau; construction of third stage of track structure-reinforced concrete.
The Kennedy Construction Co.; viaduct, Smith-Brennan streets. Superstructure, reinforced concrete.
Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd.; Lachine canal bridge-fabrication, delivery and erection of steel. Superstructure-new vertical two-track lift bridge.
Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd.; Dorchester street station-structural steel framework fabrication, delivery and erection.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	It is not the policy of the management to disclose contract prices. Tenders were invited in each case, and contract awarded to the lowest tenderer. All such matters may be discussed before the select standing committee on railways and shipping.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-GUARANTEED BONDS OR DEBENTURES
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	Have the guaranteed debentures or bonds
on the following lines of railway of the Canadian National Railway in the province of Alberta, which matured on the 25th February, 1939, been retired and cancelled, namely: Alsask to Munson junction, 132.33; Calgary to Munson to Camrose to Bretona, 249.21; Vegreville to Haight junction, 21.59:	Demay junction to
Camrose junction, 24.93; Morinville to Athabasca, 72.06; Wye to Vegreville, 0.47; Tofield to Barlee junction, 23.39; Mile 57.70 Camrose sub. near Duhamel to Calgary, 166.77?
2.	If such securities, the date of maturity of which was February 25, 1939, have not been retired and cancelled, what is the situation at present in connection with the said securities?


Mr. HOWE:: 
WAR VETERANS BATTALION
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the Minister of National Defence give consideration to the formation of a battalion for the second or third division to be manned and officered entirely by veterans of the great war from coast to coast, to include, where available, veterans from every city, town, village and township in Canada?
2.	Would the minister kindly request a survey on this, and later give the house information?


Mr. ROGERS:: The approved government
policy is that so long as N.P.A.M. units are available these are to be used as the basis for the formation of C.A.S.F. units.
Veterans will now have the following opportunities for service, which in my opinion will absorb the bulk of those who are suitable for
Questions

military service: (a) With mobilized and immobilized units, depots, and training centres, provided they can comply with the physical and age requirements, (b) With veterans' home guard companies, (c) Various appointments for officers and other ranks at national defence headquarters and headquarters of districts as a result of the general expansion of our war effort.	_
In the circumstances, it is felt that a unit such as is suggested should not be authorized at this time.


*CANADA-WEST INDIES TREATY
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1 When does the government intend making a revision of the Canada-West Indies treaty.'
2. If so, when, and will the government take into consideration the loss of our market tor fish and potatoes in Cuba, and endeavour to have these markets available to producers or these products in the maritime provinces'


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: An answer to
this question would involve a statement of government policy. The government's policy with respect to the matter referred to will be made known in due course and not in answer
to a question.


UNSOLD PORTIONS OF 1938 AND 1939 WHEAT CROPS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1 How many bushels of wheat crops for each of the years 1938 and 1939 remained unsold.
2. How many bushels of the crops of each of the said years are to-day (a) in storage in Canada, (b) in storage in the United btates of America?
3 What amounts have been paid or are payable for wheat stored in the United States of America for each of the months from August, 1939, to May, 1940, inclusive?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	It is not possible to give the percentage of the 1939 wheat crop that has been sold partly because it is merged with the carryover of old crop wheat at July 31, 1939, and also because the regularly published statistics relate to export shipments rather than to sales. The carryover of Canadian wheat in Canada and the United States at July 31, 1939, was 102,161,568 bushels and the 1939 crop was 489,623,000 bushels, making total supplies of 591,784,568 bushels. From this figure must be deducted the estimated domestic requirements for the 1939-40 crop year of 128,000,000 bushels, leaving 463,784,568 bushels for export during the crop year or carryover at July 31, 1940. The export shipments of wheat and wheat flour from August 1, 1939, to May 25, 1940, were 164,545,988 bushels, leaving a balance of 299,238,580 bushels for export or carryover on May 25, 1940.

2.	(a) Canadian wheat in store in Canada on May 24, 1940, 261,663,967 bushels (b) Canadian wheat in store in the United States on May 24, 1940, 20,577,807 bushels. Amounts of 1938 and 1939 crops in store are not compiled separately.
3.	No wheat owned by the Canadian wheat board is stored in the United States.


INTERNMENTS IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Of the 47 internees released between January 25, 1940, and March 26, 1940, how many were resident of or domiciled in Saskatchewan ?
2.	How many alien enemies domiciled or resident in the province of Saskatchewan have been released from internment from September 15, 1939, to date?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: 1.	15.
2.	30.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-TANKS

['Buffalo national park was transferred to the Department of National Defence for the duration of the war to be used for military purposes.\n\nQuestions as Orders for Returns']
Mr. BRUCE:: Have there been any discussions between the British government and the Canadian government in respect to manufacture of tanks by Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Answered by the minister, on pages 300 and 128 of Hansard.



Mr. FAIR:: Is the government in a position to give an outline as to the future use of the Buffalo national park at Wainwright?


Mr. CRERAR:: Buffalo national park was transferred to the Department of National Defence for the duration of the war to be used for military purposes.

Questions as Orders for Returns



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-DEPARTMENTAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Who are the present members of the executive committee of the dominion Department of Munitions and Supply?
2.	What positions did they hold prior to their appointment to the munitions and supply board?
3.	What remuneration does each receive: (a) salary, (b) living allowance?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	W. C. Woodward, Lt.-Col. W. A. Harrison, R. A. C. Henry, Henry Borden, K.C., Hon. Gordon W. Scott, C. A., and E. P. Taylor.
2.	W. C. Woodward, president of Woodwards Stores Limited, Vancouver and Edmonton; Lt.-Col'. W. A. Harrison, managing director of T. H. Estabrooks Limited, Saint John, N.B.; R. A. C. Henry, general manager of Beauhamois Power Corporation; Henry Borden, K.C., barrister, senior partner of Borden, Elliott, Sankey & Kelly, Toronto; Hon. Gordon W. Scott, C.A., partner of P. S. Ross and Sons, accountants of Montreal; E. P. Taylor, president of Canadian Breweries Limited, Toronto.
3.	(a) and (b):
W. C. Woodward: No salary; he pays his own expenses.
Lt.-Col. W. A. Harrison: No salary; receives his actual out-of-pocket expenses.
R. A. C. Henry: No salary; receives actual out-of-pocket expenses.
Henry Borden, K.C.: No salary; receives actual out-of-pocket expenses.
Hon. Gordon W. Scott, C.A.: No salary; receives actual out-of-pocket expenses.
E. P. Taylor: No Salary, pays his own expenses.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-TRUCK AND CAR RENTALS


Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Did Colonel Harrison make a visit to England during March of this year?
2.	If so, what was the purpose of the visit?
3.	Did Colonel Harrison make a report to the minister of the result of this visit?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	It is not considered in the public interest to disclose the purpose of this visit.
3.	Yes.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What was the tonnage and value of pig iron, scrap iron and copper exported by Canada to Germany, Russia, Japan and Italy, for each of the years 1935 to 1939?
2.	How many tons of coal of all kinds were imported into Canada from Germany and Russia respectively, annually from 1934 to the end of 1939?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled.


FIRST DIVISION-TANK AND MECHANIZED CAVALRY REGIMENTS
Mr. COCKERAM:: 1.	Were two tank regiments and one mechanized cavalry regiment mobilized in September, 1939, as part of the 1st Division, C.A.S.F.?
2.	What training has been received by these units, and with what equipment have they been trained ?
3.	What has it cost to maintain these troops since mobilization?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Return tabled.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-DOLLAR A YEAR MEN
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How many one dollar year men are now connected with federal government departments, including the Department of National Defence?
2.	What living allowance is each of these men receiving?
3.	What was the address and former occupation of said men before entering the service?

Releases from Internment Camps


REGINA AIRPORT
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Have tenders been advertised for during the past four months in connection with the construction of or delivery of supplies of any kind for the airport at the city of Regina?
2.	If so, when?
3.	What date was stipulated therein for the opening of the tenders or the award of the contract or contracts?
4.	What were the particulars of the requirements for which tenders would be received?
5.	Were any tenders received? If so, what ire the particulars of each of said tenders?
6.	Were the said tenders duly opened on 'he stipulated date?
7.	Was a contract or were contracts awarded on the basis of said tenders, and, if so, when?
8.	Was there any delay in the awarding of contracts?
9.	If so, what is the explanation for the delay?
10.	Have any contracts been awarded for the construction of said airport, or any work in connection therewith, or for the delivery of supplies therefor, and, if so, w-hat are the particulars thereof?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Herbert Alexander Bruce: For a return of the survey made by Lieutenant-Colonel Ogilvy, of the Department of National Defence, relating to the engineering, machine and metal-working shops of Canada, in which was set out the capacity of these shops which are now being used for munitions, as well as their maximum capacity.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have already pointed out to the house the impossibility of bringing down the information desired because of its volume, and since no supplementary question has been asked I ask that this motion be now dropped.
Motion dropped.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-MANUFACTURE OF TANKS IN CANADA

Mr. STIRLING:: For a copy of all correspondence, cables, telegrams, memoranda, notes of telephone conversations, and any other papers or documents passing between this government and his majesty's government in the United Kingdom and/or any agent or authorized representative of either government, and between this government and persons or corporations, relating to the manufacture of tanks in Canada since January 1, 1938.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Stand. A search is being made for the relevant documents, but I have not received the documents themselves.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before this order of business is passed might I call the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to a motion of the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden):
For a return showing a list of all persons released in 1939-40 from internment camps in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Ontario, together with the dates of release and reasons therefor.
The motion appears at page 438 of Hansard of June 3, 1940. The minister on that occasion, after some interchange between him and myself, undertook that this motion should stand with the amendment I suggested. I find that it does not appear in the orders of the day for June 4, having been dropped from the order paper; neither does it appear among the motions for production of papers on to-day's order paper. It does seem to me that some explanation is due from the minister. The motion should be restored to its proper place.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: My attention was drawn to this matter by the hon. member for Yorkton. I have no objection to the motion being reinserted, but I must say I woidd have objection to its being carried. Perhaps it would be better to wait until the motion comes up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With the amendment suggested.


Ernest Lapointe: Even
with the amendment. I discussed this matter with the officers who have charge of this matter and we have come to the conclusion that it is not fair to the individuals who may have been interned on mere suspicion and subsequently released after investigation that their names should be published all over Canada and they become branded in their own community as suspicious characters. Some people were interned purely as a precautionary measure merely on a report from somebody, and the police themselves did not insist on these people being kept in custody if there was nothing against them. We believe that it is not fair to give out the names of these people. However, I am willing to consider the matter again.

Defence-Illegal Organizations



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the order for government notices of motion:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend the leader
of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) asked me yesterday just when the government would take up the motion that appears in my name respecting the defence of Canada regulations. If it would suit the convenience of hon. members I would introduce the motion on Monday next.
May I say that the word I wished to have with my hon. friend about the motion was this. The motion is for the appointment of a committee to consider the defence of Canada regulations. At and prior to the time the motion was drafted the government was being criticized for having gone too far in its regulations. Since however the motion was placed on the order paper most of the criticism has been the other way, namely, that the regulations do not go far enough. In the circumstances I should like to amend the resolution before presenting it to the house so that it will cover the broad question of whether the regulations go too far or not far enough. With that in mind I will have the resolution appear in revised form on the order paper for Monday. The debate will take place on the motion as thus revised on Monday next.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The regulations are printed and
available, are they not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes, they
were printed at the time they were passed.


Grote Stirling: Have they been distributed in one volume, or have we received them from time to time over the months?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My recollection is that they were distributed at the last session of the last parliament in the form of a red book, and further copies have been distributed since.


Mr. CHURCH:: Will the committee also
deal with the motion I have made?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. What
my hon. friend wished to have investigated will come within the scope of the revised motion.



AMENDMENT OF DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS DECLARING CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS ILLEGAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house copy of order in council amending the defence of Canada regulations by adding a section which I consider very important. It declares illegal certain associations, societies, groups or organizations in Canada. Perhaps I might read the list:
The Auslands Organization of the National Sozialistisehe Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
The Deutsche Arbeitsfront.
The Canadian Society for German Culture (Deutseher Bund fur Kanada).
The National Unity Party.
Canadian Union of Fascists.
The Communist Party of Canada.
The Young Communist League of Canada.
The Canadian Labour Defence League.
The League for Peace and Democracy.
The Ukrainian Labour Farmer Temple Association.
The Finnish Organization of Canada.
The Russian Workers and Farmers Club.
The Croatian Cultural Association.
The Hungarian Workers Club.
The Polish People's Association.
The Canadian Ukrainian Youth Federation.
This order will be published in the Canada Gazette and from the date of its publication any person who is a member of any of these organizations will be guilty of an offence.



PROTECTION OF PROPERTY IN NIAGARA PENINSULA-FACILITIES FOR ENLISTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I gave previous notice of these questions to the government, or to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers) as he was primarily concerned. I assume I may be permitted just to explain that these questions arise as a consequence of letters and telegrams which I am receiving continually.
1.	Will the present military guard, only recently established at the hydro power plant at Queenston, be maintained on all power plants in the Niagara peninsula?
2.	Will authority be given the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to increase substantially the present guard on the Welland ship canal?
3.	What steps are being taken to concentrate and control the distribution of large quantities of explosives being shipped into che Niagara peninsula?

Defence-Protection of Property
4.	What precautionary measures have been taken to check all persons and cars, entering the Niagara peninsula from the United States, at the four or more entry points in that area?
5.	Are main line railway and other important bridges being guarded in the Niagara peninsula?
6.	To what extent are, or will, qualified war veterans be utilized or permitted to implement the protective units in the Niagara peninsula?
7.	What facilities are being provided in the Niagara peninsula -for enlistment and when will these facilities be provided?
I would appreciate having this information so that I can reply to numerous inquiries.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of National Defence): As some of these questions refer to measures which may be taken by the Department of National Defence, may I suggest to my hon. friend that he place his questions on the order paper? I have certainly not received from him any such questions as all of these which he has presented this afternoon. My hon. friend did discuss the protection of the Niagara peninsula and the Welland canal, and, as he is aware, I took measures at once to deal with that situation and have it studied. As a matter of fact the district officer commanding that district is making the necessary recommendations in that regard.
As far as the other questions are concerned, they affect a number of departments, and I suggest they should be placed upon the order paper.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: May I be permitted to supplement what I have said? In answer to the Minister of National Defence-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member would be out of order. He has asked his questions and the minister has replied.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Thank you very much.



WAR REFUGEES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL HOMUTH (Waterloo South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) or to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers). A few days ago a nation-wide call went out through the whole country for blankets. It was generally presumed that they were for the Red Cross. I have had some correspondence and some calls with regard to this appeal which indicate that the blankets

are not for the Red Cross but for refugees, soldiers and hospital patients. A great many patriotic people and organizations got busy and went out and purchased a lot of blankets and paid the retail price for them. If the facts are as I understand them, it is the government's responsibility to supply these blankets. The people are really paying too much for them. I would ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply or the Minister of National Defence to clear this matter up.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I happen to have some knowledge of the matter, quite by accident, because my wife is associated with Red Cross work. An appeal was sent out by the Red Cross for blankets for refugees either in France or elsewhere on the continent, and neither the war supply board nor the Department of National Defence nor any department of government had any part in the matter at all.



CANADIANS IN ENGLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers) a question, based upon a cable dispatch in the Canadian press of yesterday. Can Canadians who were domiciled in England at the outbreak of war enlist over there in the Canadian forces as they did in the great war? The same question was raised in the British house yesterday morning. Will the minister look into the matter and give a reply at his convenience? In the last war it was very easy for Canadians living over there to sign up.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of National Defence): I shall be very glad to take notice of the question. I may say at the moment that authority has been given for the limited enlistment of Canadians overseas for special purposes.


Thomas Langton Church: Have they to return to Canada to enlist?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No. But the authority is limited at the present time.


Thomas Langton Church: A little too much "status."


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister enlarge a little on the question of the limited authority for special purposes? -because apparently that, after all, is very much limited.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will take notice of the questions and answer them later.

Privilege-Mr. Bruce



PRIVILEGE-MR. BRUCE STATEMENT AS TO FACILITIES FOR MANUFACTURE OF TANKS IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege.
My attention has been called to a statement made in the house on May 28th by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) in replying to a reference made by me earlier in the day to a Canadian factory's ability to make tanks. The minister stated, as reported in Hansard on page 309:
So when a man stands up and makes reckless statements about two firms in Hamilton that can build tanks-
And so on. I wish to tell the minister that I am not in the habit of making reckless statements.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. THORSON:: The hon. member should state his point of privilege.


Georges Parent: The hon. member has raised a question of privilege. He must state his point.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I will explain it all in a
moment.


An hon. MEMBER:: State it now.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: My whole training and habit of life have been to observe scientific accuracy, and I resent the minister's accusation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: If the minister will refer to
page 302-


Georges Parent: The hon. member may state his question of privilege and invite an answer, but he must not make any statement other than an expression of opinion or statement of fact in asking the privilege of the house to deny or affirm a statement which has been made. I will ask the hon. member to be as brief as possible in making his statement.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I will make this as brief as possible, Mr. Speaker. If the minister will refer to page 302, he will see that I based my remarks upon a statement made in another place by an hon. member of high standing, to the effect that there were " two factories in Hamilton, one of which could produce two hundred and fifty tanks a month." I did not then qualify that statement, but surely the minister would understand this to mean that this factory could produce the tanks specified only after receiving the order and when it has got into production. When, in answer to the
question, the Minister of Munitions and Supply made the statement in the house on May 28-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I protest. I did not mention the hon. gentleman's name in connection with that remark. There is no question of privilege.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister might possess himself in patience for a few minutes.


Ernest Lapointe: But he is right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is the question of privilege?


Georges Parent: The hon. member might state his question of privilege, and make his denial. I think that can be done very briefly.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Speaker, it will be necessary for me to say a few words in order to show that I was not making a reckless statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I do not think it is sufficient simply for me to deny having made a reckless statement.


Georges Parent: I wish to give the hon. member every consideration. He is asking on a question of privilege to make a denial of statements having been made, or of motives which have been attributed to him. If he will state what has been said and make his denial, he is then exercising his right of privilege. The hon. member might accept my suggestion that, on a question of privilege, he is entitled if he wishes to defer the matter and have the question of privilege stated to-morrow. I suggest that he do that.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I will accept your decision.



VETERANS HOME GUARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: On June
3	the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers) was kind enough to say that he would answer a question I then asked as to when the veterans home guard for military district No. 2 would be established and who would be the senior officer in charge. Will the minister now give that information?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of National Defence):	I can give my hon.
friend the greater part of the information.
Civil Service Superannuation

Instructions were issued to Brigadier R. 0. Alexander, D.S.O., District Officer Commanding, Military District No. 2, for the organization of two companies of the veterans home guard in his military district, and the organization is now proceeding under the auspices of the district officer commanding. Major Charles Bethune Lindsay, D.S.O., has been appointed to command No. 2A company. Information is not yet available as to the command of No. 2B company.



NATIONAL REGISTRATION


[Stage Direction]
On'the orders of the day:
Hon. W. EARL ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: In view of the steadily increasing crisis inside as well as outside this country, will the government state whether they will give consideration to the advisability of an immediate national registration of every man and woman in Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That question is one
which will be duly considered.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 4, consideration in committee of Bill No. 28, to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924-Mr. Ilsley

Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Order in council to have force and effect as from the 11th of August, 1939.
Richard Burpee Hanson: As 1
understand it, this bill arises out of one of the recommendations of the house committee on superannuation, of which there were twenty-eight, and is one which would not involve large expenditures of money, to paraphrase what the minister said on a previous occasion. I am wondering whether the method of approving an order in council by legislation, one which I have not seen adopted before, is the proper mode of procedure. Should it not be in the form of an ordinary bill to amend the Superannuation Act and containing the various provisions set out in the order in council? I throw that out as the first suggestion. Such a bill could be expressed as being retroactive to August 11, 1939, the date on which the order in council became effective. It is merely a matter of procedure. It is not a matter of great consequence but it is a thought that has occurred to me and I pass it on to the minister for what it is worth. I would
TMr. Rogers.]
assume that the minister and the officers of his department, or whoever has charge of the operations of the Superannuation Act, must have given consideration to the method.
The second point which I desire to direct to the attention of the minister has perhaps a little more meat in it. Is there any statutory authority enabling the governor in council to approve the provisions contained in the order in council of August 11, 1939, P.C. 2261? In the brief time at my disposal I have endeavoured to go through the Civil Service Act and amendments and I must say that I have not been able to find any such authority upon which such an order in council could be based, and I am inclined to think that there is none; otherwise this confirmatory legislation would not now be before the house.
The third point is this. The order in council purports only to give effect to such recommendations of the House of Commons committee on civil service superannuation-which committee, I understand, sat through two years-as could be approved by order in council, but the recommendations given effect to by order in council and approved by this bill are:
(a)	An increase in contribution, for salaries exceeding $1,200 but not exceeding $1,500, from 5 per cent to 5J per cent. That, I believe, is in accordance with the recommendation. Salaries in excess of $1,500 are to pay 6 per cent. I need not labour that.
(b)	Only lhat service for which contribution has been made shall be counted as service for superannuation purposes. In other words, no more free service is to be counted. That is the intent, I think.
(c)	Active service overseas during the great war shall be counted, with certain restrictions, as service for superannuation purposes.
(d)	Contributors appointed other than by the civil service commission shall be required to furnish a certificate of health before being permitted to come under the act.
Of course, there were a great many other recommendations in the report of the house committee. These recommendations were unanimously approved by the house, I am informed, on May 24, 1939 and no action has been taken to give effect to them, for the reasons suggested by the minister. I think the reasons given are good ones, having regard to the situation in which we find ourselves- that is to say, that a good many of the recommendations would involve the payment of large sums of money which the treasury could not sustain at the present time.
But some of these recommendations would not entail any substantial contributions from

Civil Service Superannuation
the treasury. For instance, there is a recommendation that provision be made to enable temporary employees occupying positions of continuing indeterminate duration to come under the act. This provision appears to have been made by order in council P.C. 2262. Why is this order in council not approved by this bill? What statutory authority exists therefor?


Mr. ILSLEY:: What recommendation is
that?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That provision be made to enable temporary employees occupying positions of indeterminate duration to come under the act. Provision is made for that under P.C. 2262. Order in council P.C. 2261 is the one attached as an appendix to this bill; I am referring now to P.C. 2262, which was passed in pursuance of the recommendations of the house committee with respect to provision being made to enable temporary employees occupying positions of continuing indeterminate duration to come under the act. Why is this order in council, P.C. 2262, not approved by legislation? What is the existing statutory authority for passing that order in council? It may be that it is quite in order, I do not know; I am simply asking for information.
I am not going through all the list of the twenty-eight recommendations that were made. There is, I think, ample reason why the government should not have taken action at this time, notwithstanding the unanimous approval given by the house a year or so ago. I should like the minister to answer the two questions: What is the statutory authority for passing P.C. No. 2261; and if statutory authority was required for the passing of that order in council, why is P.C. No. 2262 regarding temporaries not approved by this legislation, or is there statutory authority in the latter case and not in the former?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall take the last question first. There were two committees; one dealing with the Civil Service Act, and the other dealing with the Civil Service Superannuation Act. There were two orders in council. One order in council is that now being ratified, which appears as an appendix to this bill. The report of the law officers now is that the government had not the authority to do some . of the things that the governor in council last August attempted to do under this order in council, and that is the reason for this legislation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think that would be quite apparent; that is why the minister brought down this bill. Prior to the enactment of P.C. No. 2261, did the
government have a legal opinion as to the legality of the procedure in that order in council?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. The officers of the treasury board had the officers of the Department of Justice draw up the order in council. The officers of the treasury board felt that it was within the powers of the governor in council to pass it, and they were not corrected on that point by the officers of the Department of Justice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The question of legality did not arise at that time?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was not squarely faced at that time; no opinion was sought. There seemed to be an assumption that this could be done. The matter was perhaps not considered with great care because of the fact that agreements were taken from contributors by which they undertook to accept these provisions, whether they were authorized by statute or not.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury) That is, there was protection by reason of taking these agreements?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Now that is the first one.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman wants me to continue about the other. No question has arisen as to the other order in council or any part of it being beyond the powers of the governor in council. I must say I have not examined its provisions with care from the legal point of view, but the other order in council, I am informed, is passed under powers conferred on the governor in council by the Civil Service Act. It is not an order in council purporting to deal with matters arising under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, and no one has ever questioned the legality of its provisions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am wary about giving legal opinions in parliament; in fact I am not going to do that; I am not paid to do it. But I wish the minister would give consideration to that aspect of the matter. I do not want to hold up this bill; I have no such intention. I quite realize that ini the first case attention has been drawn to the doubt that does exist under present statutory authority as to the power to pass the order in council that the minister is now having ratified. I wish that before third reading the minister would consider the question whether there is statutory authority for the passing of the other order in council to which I refer. If there is statutory authority, of course that settles the matter; but the query
Civil Service Superannuation

arises because of the doubt that must have arisen, with which I find myself in agreement, as to the authority of the governor in council to pass the order in council which we are now ratifying. I am not questioning the principle of the bill. The minister will consider the question to which I have referred, and let us know before the third reading?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Mr. NEILL:: I call attention to what I assume is a typographical error on page 2 of the schedule, in the table of contributions. Evidently the amount of salary in the first line of that table should be SI,200 instead of $200.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Then on the same page it says that contributors will be required to furnish a certificate of health before coming under the Civil Service Superannuation Act. Does that mean such a certificate of health as would be required by a person applying for life insurance? I take it that it means a reasonable expectation of life at the person's age. This act will apply almost entirely to more or less elderly people, people over fifty, or between forty and fifty. No man at that age is as thoroughly sound as one at twenty, and probably could not pass an examination for life insurance. I take it the spirit of the legislation is to require only such a certificate of health as shows likelihood of continuance of the civil servant in his occupation for a reasonable number of years, according to his age, not that he must be thoroughly sound in every way.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Civil Service Act provides that civil servants before they become permanent, certainly at one stage, must, as a condition precedent to that, pass a medical examination. That applies to all civil servants appointed under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. I do not know whether the standard of physical fitness is as high as would be required of persons applying for life insurance, but whatever the standard is, it is applied to persons who by virtue of this order in council are admitted to the benefits of the superannuation fund, or come under that fund. It is not limited to elderly civil servants or to a class of civil servants of whom the great majority are elderly. It extends, for instance, to all the employees of the income tax division, none of whom was appointed by the civil service commission. After this order in council was passed, all those employees who were permanent or who were seeking to become permanent were obliged to pass a physical examination before they were

admitted to the benefits of the superannuation fund. The reason is apparent. It would not be fair to the fund to place upon it persons whose expectancy of life is short.


Alan Webster Neill: The answer to that naturally is that those who come in now as elderly people are those who have survived; the weaklings have been weeded out by sickness or death. To these men the minister's argument would apply under ordinary conditions. But the minister must remember that these men who come in now must pay for the whole of their past period of service. The fund will be benefited by the fact that these men coming in now will have to pay some twenty or thirty years' arrears at six per cent-not five per cent-and the fund certainly will not suffer in that regard. Those on whom the fund would lose through their falling out at an early age have been eliminated. What the minister says about the income tax branch of the civil service is true, yet this bill is in great part retroactive. It provides a method of coming under the superannuation fund for people who have not enjoyed that privilege in the past, and there is no doubt that the great majority of these people will have to make contributions covering a considerable period of time. If they are going to be held down to a strict medical certificate of health, just as though they were entering the service at the age of twenty-five or thirty-five, I am afraid very few will qualify. The inspection can be as strict as is desired when men first enter the service; but when we are doing what we consider to be a retroactive act of justice for these people, I do not think it should be so narrowed down that they must qualify in absolutely every way by passing a strict medical examination. If it is, a great many people whom the legislation is intended to benefit will miss out.
While I am on my feet there is another matter I should like to mention. I see provision is made that these people will be allowed to count their war service, but only until November 11, 1918; and they have to pay their back premiums for that period, as is quite proper. But I know cases have arisen of men who, after November 11, 1918, were sent into Germany and to other points, and continued in active military service. They were not asked if they wanted to go; they were sent, and some of them did not get back [DOT] to this country for perhaps a year or eighteen months after November 11, 1918. Under this provision these men will have to pay six per cent on the average salary during their first three years of service in the department when possibly they were getting only $1.10 a day overseas. In such cases I think it is hardly

Civil Service Superannuation
fair that they should have to pay six per cent on perhaps $150 a month for a period of twelve or eighteen months when they were kept in the army and drawing very much less pay than that. I should like the minister's reaction to that point.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am informed that all these matters were gone into fully by the parliamentary committee which dealt with the question. I am not prepared to argue the case for accepting the rates of pay during the first three years of service as the basis, but in many cases it would operate to the benefit of the contributor rather than against him.


Alan Webster Neill: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. I am quite satisfied with that basis, but my point was that they should not be required to pay six per cent on that average for the period of time they were still in the army, receiving perhaps $1.10 a day. I suggest they should be taxed six per cent of their average salary during the first three years of service but not for the period when they were actively at war, either before or following November 11, 1918.
I should like to mention one other matter. I am not making very much headway, but I consider it my duty to bring up these points. The minister said that these matters were carefully considered by the committee. That is so, but we have often seen this house and the government, in their good judgment, make substantial changes in policies laid down or suggested by committees. We have only to look at this very recommendation now under consideration, which is only one of twenty-eight. The government saw fit, and perhaps quite properly, to pay no attention to the other twenty-seven recommendations. So it does not follow that it is the law of the Medes and Persians just because a committee recommended it. I would suggest that all our legislation should be dealt with on its merits rather than in view of the fact that some committee recommended this, that or something else.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or a royal commission.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes; the same thing applies to royal commissions; we do not always carry out what they recommend.
I should like to mention one other matter to the minister, if I could get him in a generous humour. It affects very few men, perhaps not more than a dozen, who were working on boats of the Department of Fisheries which were taken over by the navy. Some of these men were compelled, because they were members of the reserve to go with the boats while others volunteered to serve
their country, and surely they should get all credit for doing that. According to the departmental interpretation, from letters I have before me, these men will not be eligible to come under this superannuation provision, because at the present moment they are not servants of the fisheries department but servants of the navy, and of course for the time being the navy is making provision in case of death on account of war service. The point is that the year within which they must decide lapses next August, and after that they will not be able to take advantage of this provision.
I certainly think something should be done so that when these men are released from the navy they may have the privilege of coming under the superannuation act. It seems to me that would be only following a basic principle of justice. Even to-day the navy will not take care of them if they contract some disease which is not attributable to war service, and in the meantime they are out of luck. I have before me correspondence which in effect says, "We do not regard you as being our employees any longer, and we accept no responsibility." I also have a copy of a letter from the Vancouver office stating that these men are on leave of absence, loaned to the navy, presumably for the duration of the war. That being so, they are still employees of the Department of Fisheries; and, being employees of that department, either now or when the war is over they should be allowed to obtain the benefits of this act. Instead of that, we have a section here which states that unless they make their choice within one year from last August, they will not be able to apply at all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman spoke to me about those employees of the Department of Fisheries who are now members of the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, if that is the branch to which they belong-


Alan Webster Neill: Not all of them; some
volunteered.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I made inquiries in that regard, and the information I receive is that the question of giving these employees permanent status is now under consideration by the fisheries department, which is prepared or disposed to consider-I would not presume to make too definite a statement-that these employees will be regarded as on leave from that department without pay, while on active service. If the department can do that legally, and does it, I think it meets the hon. gentleman completely.


Alan Webster Neill: Then they would be eligible when they returned to the service?
Civil Service Superannuation


James Lorimer Ilsley: If these men are regarded as fisheries employees on leave without pay while on active service, then they come within the terms of another order in council which provides that they can continue under the superannuation act, and their period of war service will count. There was an order in council passed on September 7, 1939, covering all permanent civil servants on leave without pay.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister let me have a copy of that order in council?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But what is the position with regard to the other question raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, respecting those who were on active service in a theatre of war after November 11, 1918? It may be that there are none, but I assume there are a few. Some were serving in Siberia; some went to Murmansk. The hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) I believe was sent up there. Some consideration might be given to these men. I have not been asked to speak about the matter, but I hope they will be treated fairly.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Many of these men were not discharged until many months after the armistice, and I do not think a set date was considered. It seems to me there is discrepancy here.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is certainly open to argument that it should be the date of discharge rather than November 11, 1918. But it is not so stated in the order in council, and I should not like to change the order in council now. We consider it rather important not to open up this superannuation question.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: There may be cases of discrimination.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is not much discrimination. Will the hon. member consider what is being done? Men who were not working at their ordinary duties in the civil service, but who were overseas, are being allowed to count that time as though they were in the service. There have always been two quite strong opinions as to whether that should be done at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is generous treatment; there is no doubt about that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It may be that this cut-off date of November 11, 1918, was decided on because of the knowledge that there were two opinions about the matter. It may be that for that reason this date was selected instead of the date of discharge.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the date of discharge would have been a better date.


James Lorimer Ilsley: A more logical date.


John George Diefenbaker: Are penitentiary
guards eligible to benefits under this act?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are some penitentiary guards who have a permanent status, and they would come under the act.


John George Diefenbaker: Are they subject to removal by the minister?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think so.


Ernest Lapointe: The officers and guards in the penitentiaries were taken away from the civil service commission some years ago when Mr. Guthrie was Minister of Justice. At that time I agreed with him because I felt that qualified men could not be appointed to positions in the penitentiaries by means of competitive examinations or boards of the civil service commission. The work in the penitentiaries is to some extent, similar to military operations. Surely you would not have a soldier appointed by the civil service commission. This work is not at all similar to that done by clerks, stenographers and other members of the service.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They may be eligible for the benefits of the fund just the same. The appointment is not the important thing. They may be permanent and therefore entitled to the benefits of the act.


John George Diefenbaker: They still receive benefits?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If they are permanent.


Mr. COLDWELL:: If the civil service
commission is not qualified to appoint warders, who is qualified to make the recommendation?


Ernest Lapointe: The
superintendent of penitentiaries, the inspectors who know the deputy wardens and the superior officers in the various penitentiaries, and the Minister of Justice, who of course consults these officials.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This may not be germane to the discussion, but I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if the man best qualified to appoint a guard is not the warden under whom he is to serve?


Ernest Lapointe: I agree with that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Other
things being equal, I think his recommendation ought to govern.

Civil Service Superannuation


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Sometimes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps
not always. I know the man down in the maritime provinces and there has been no trouble there.


Ernest Lapointe: He is a good man.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There have been no riots in his institution. I would be prepared to take his recommendation in the selection of a guard. I do not think there would be any political significance in that. I hope the minister does not intervene too much.


Ernest Lapointe: I have not intervened at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister said that in the final analysis it came back to him.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree with most of what my hon. friend has said. The warden in a penitentiary is better qualified than anyone to make a choice of a man or decide who is to be promoted. There may be exceptions to all rules, but generally speaking my hon. friend is quite right.


John George Diefenbaker: Upon whose recommendation are dismissals and demotions made in the penitentiary service?


Ernest Lapointe: The
wardens and the inspectors who visit the penitentiaries and who may make reports concerning certain officers. Any action taken by the minister is based upon the recommendation of the superintendent.


Mr. McCANN:: There has been some discussion of this revision in the method of counting active overseas service for superannuation purposes. I was the seconder of the motion that the final report of the special committee be concurred in. The recommendations of this committee appear in Hansard of May 24, 1939, and I should like to quote from page 4455 as follows:
Recommendation No. 4 asks that provision be made for counting active service overseas during the great war, which cannot now be counted, subject of course to certain restrictions. Certain men who left the civil service of Canada on leave at the beginning of the war were given credit for their service overseas. At a later date that terminated and many men who had been in the civil service before the war are not now eligible to count their time overseas for benefits. New employees who joined the service after the war have not been able to receive credit for time overseas. All organizations of returned men have made representations for many years urging that such service be allowed as a matter of fair play and justice,
the principle of which is established in connection with the mounted police and, I believe, one other branch of the service; and your committee has decided to recommend that a change be made.
The different service organizations who made representations before the committee were of opinion that the most equitable date was the date of armistice, November 11, 1918. Some men were discharged prior to that date, while others were discharged a considerable time afterward.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was a compromise.


James Joseph McCann: It was entirely a matter of compromise. In making this recommendation I feel that we met the wishes of the different service organizations who appeared before the committee. I offer this in explanation to the hon. leader of the opposition who raised the point.


Mr. MacINNIS:: What is meant by "free service," referred to in paragraph (b) of the schedule?


James Lorimer Ilsley: After a civil servant became permanent following service as a temporary for some years, half his period of temporary service was allowed to count, without contribution, towards superannuation.


Angus MacInnis: Do employees who have been in the civil service for some time as temporaries and have been made permanent now contribute in respect of their whole time as temporaries in order to get superannuation covering the period of temporary service?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They pay for the whole period of their temporary service.


Robert Fair: Has the government taken steps to suspend promotions in the civil service for the duration of the war, or do promotions still go on as in the past?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I hesitate to open up this broad field, but if it is not going to precipitate a long debate, which would be quite out of order, Mr. Chairman-


Robert Fair: A yes or no answer is all I want. I had heard a rumour to that effect.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The whole matter has been very carefully covered by order in council. Generally speaking I might tell the house that the service is divided into war staffs and those concerned with peace-time activities. The war staffs are eligible for reclassification but they are not eligible for permanent service, and they are warned when they enter the service that they are temporary and can never be anything but temporary during the period
Civil Service Superannuation

of the war. That is to prevent them from acquiring a vested right to a continuance of office after their services may no longer be required. A deduction of five per cent is made from their salaries and will be repaid to them with interest when their services are no longer required.
With regard to staffs other than war staffs, they are being asked to make some sacrifice in that their positions are not to be reclassified during the war. On the other hand, they will be eligible for promotion within the rules laid down by the governor in council regulating promotions. Promotions are different from reclassifications. Promotions can take place, but I would not like members to make any mistake about what promotions are. Promotions are advancement to vacant positions. They do not increase the total establishment or the total expense to the treasury. Reclassifications do. Reclassifications are a revaluation, usually upward, of existing positions, and after an extensive reclassification takes place the cost to the government is considerably greater than it was before. Reclassifications are to cease during the period of the war so far as the peace-time staffs are concerned.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: As time goes on if the war continues there is going to be a considerable increase in the cost of living, rents and so forth. Has the government decided upon a policy in that regard? Naturally the civil service will expect increased remuneration because of the increased cost of living. Will that be done by increasing the salaries or by a bonus system? I suggest that it be done by a bonus system, which is the practice a great many industries are following. The employees understand that the bonus will be taken off when the war is over and things get back to normal.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a matter for consideration, but not under this bill.


Mr. REID:: Have steps been taken regarding superannuation for civil servants who enlist?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, that is covered by the order in council to which I referred and of which I promised to give my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) a copy. I shall be glad to give my hon. friend a copy.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
(Mr. Ilsley.]


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works) moved the second reading of Bill No. 29, to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 4, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. McLarty-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance _ in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress out of moneys appropriated by parliament, and for such purpose to supplement the measures taken by the provinces towards providing assistance to those in need, establishing unemployed persons in employment and training and fitting suitable persons for productive occupations, and also to provide financial assistance to the provinces by way of loan, advance or guarantees out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, and for the appointment of necessary officers, clerks and employees.
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. McLARTY:: I wonder if my hon. friend would allow me a few moments to place on Hansard certain information I was asked for yesterday. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), in the course of the debate last evening, asked me two questions which I promised to answer. He referred to the words in the resolution, "training and fitting suitable persons for productive occupations". I would point out to him that this resolution does not deal with youth training, but only with the training or retraining of older persons. He also asks to have placed on Hansard the amount of the dominion contributions under this act to the various provinces over the period of five years. The statement is a somewhat lengthy one. I wonder if I could obtain the permission of this committee, rather than read all the figures which it would be difficult to follow, to place the statement on Hansard without reading it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The statement is as follows:

Unemployment Reliej-Mr. McLarty
Dominion disbursements to the provinces under relief legislation from and including the Relief Act, 1935, to the close of fiscal year 1939-40
1935 Act	1936 Act 1937 Act 1938 Act 1939 Act	Total$	$	$	a	$	a	P.E.I	286,925	00	291,415	89	125,190	90	81,010	59	39,568	93	824.111	31N.S	1,295.367	51	1,110,450	00	588.761	48	340.740	35	367,499	62	3,702,818	96N.B	1,059,703	21	910,451	93	509,516	99	351,956	61	549,960	10	3,381,588	84Quebec ..	7,502,517	00	11,451,968	75	6,919,792	84	4,959,865	93	2,540,901	08	33,375,045	60Ontario ..	16,208,843	56	13,982,923	94	7,186,305	02	7.283.936	30	7,519,534	66	52.181,543	48Manitoba	3,563,153	71	4,536,843	09	3,073,634	02	2,014,923	77	1,972,322	36	15.160,876	95Sask	8,738.156	17	9,243,943	92	6,213,757	90	2.886,637	27	3,033,022	85	30,115,518	11Alberta ..	1,780,658	72	2,633.676	27	2.325,049	51	1.450,480	79	1,119,099	07	9,308,964	36B.C	2,282,530	71	3,500,009	11	2,678,562	55	1.949,544	84	2,398,188	72	12,808,835	93Yukon &	N.W.T..	. 10,452	78	10,452	78Total ..	42,728,308	37	47,661,682	90	29,620,571	21	21,319,096	45	19,540,097	39	160,869,756	32
The youth training programme during the years 1937-38 and 1938-39 was carried out under the relief legislation then in effect, namely, the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1937, and the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1938. Since April 1, 1939, the youth training programme has been carried out under the Youth Training Act, enacted at the 1939 session of parliament. The expenditures for youth training under the 1937 and 1938 relief legislation which are included in the foregoing statement are shown below together with expenditures under the Youth Training Act, 1939.
Dominion disbursements for youth training April 1, 1937, to close of fiscal year 1939-40
The	The
Unemployment Unemployment and Agricultural and Agricultural The
Assistance	Assistance	Youth TrainingAct, 1937	Act, 1938 Act, 1939	Total
Prince Edward Island.. ..
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
9,093 65 58,212 90 35.521 22 102,936 73 110,335 51 73.393 30 50,183 51 54,141 45 89.555 47
14.141 38 62,189 79 75,504 35 159,865 93 70,571 80 105,043 99 98.651 55 94,757 13 153.395 81
9,056 30 47,797 52 70,892 74
158,12136 105,911 88 104,402 08 100,261 97 116,007 28
32,291 33 168.200 21 181,918 31 262,802 66 339,028 67 284,349 17 253,237 14 249,160 55 358,958 56
Total
583,373 74	834,121 73
712,451 13	2,129,946 60


Gordon Graydon: I do not propose to consume a great deal of the time of the committee this afternoon in a discussion of the points which come to my mind with regard to this resolution. I had rather hoped last evening that the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) would take the splendid opportunity which he had to deal at the opening of this debate with some general principles of policy that would govern his actions in connection with the work contemplated under this resolution. I feel the committee was entitled to some general enunciation of policy, the details being reserved to be given upon the second reading of the bill to be founded on the resolution.
As all hon. members know, the resolution deals not only with the question of unemployment in Canada, but also with the question of the alleviation of agricultural distress. For a good many years I have from time to time listened to debates in this house in connection with agriculture. As I come from an
agricultural riding, those debates naturally aroused a good deal of interest in my mind, and sometimes not a little concern, because there seems to be an idea abroad in the dominion, perhaps also in the minds of some hon. members, that the distress among agriculturists generally does not extend to Ontario and to other eastern Canadian areas. May I therefore point out to the Minister of Labour, although perhaps it is a matter more directly within the purview of the Department of Agriculture, that distress among farmers is not confined to any one part of the dominion.
Speaking of Ontario, because I know more about that province than I do about other parts of the dominion, let me say that the Ontario farmer has felt for many years that he is the forgotten man in Canadian agriculture. I am not going to discuss this afternoon whether that is a proper view for him to take. But it seems to me, as it must appear to every hon. member who comes in contact with agriculture in Ontario, that the farmers of that

Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Graydon
province are experiencing a degree Of distress which I believe hon. members will readily agree is not in the best interests of the industry as a whole.
One of the things I want to point out in this connection to the minister is a seemingly entire lack of plan on the part, of the government to regulate agricultural production and supply. Most of the people on farms in Ontario find difficulty in recognizing any sort of plan proceeding from the government. They are allowed from time to time to raise different kinds of produce, but without any real scheme to prevent overproduction and accompanying collapse of prices. This criticism applies even more particularly in time of war than in time of peace. The lack of plan so far as governmental action in connection with eastern Canadian agriculture is concerned, is altogether too well known.
May I say to the Minister of Labour, although, as this is a matter of opinion, I do not express any personal view regarding it, that evidently he is one of the dozen or so men whom the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) regards as the best brains in Canada. If that is the case-and I am not contradicting it at the moment, because after all it is a matter of opinion-


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member is not
charging him with it either.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member from
Dufferin-Simcoe says I am not charging him with it. Absolutely, I am not charging him with it.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Did the Prime Minister
say that?


Gordon Graydon: Yes, the Prime Minister said that, and my regret is that he did not include the hon. member for Davenport.
With all we have in the way of government in Canada, surely it is not too much to ask that they have at least some plan for the benefit of Canadian agriculture. It is all very proper for us to deal from time to time with the question of marketing on a domestic basis. But allow me to point out that while we are considering the problem from a domestic point of view, we are permitting imports from the United States of farm products in competition with our own, of a magnitude which almost appals one when one looks at the figures.
I intend only to mention one case; I realize that this is a matter which can come up later in debate. On the question of fruits and vegetables, in which many people in my riding are intensely interested, during 1939 nearly $10,000,000 worth of fresh fruits and vegetables, of a class or kind which we in this country produce in our orchards and gardens,

were imported from the United States of America. That figure is entirely exclusive of all citrus fruits, such as oranges, lemons and grapefruit, which, no matter what argument may be put up, must be regarded as displacing to at least some extent the products which we grow in our own farms and gardens.
The agriculturists of this country are ready to do their part in this war, but they want some real leadership and guidance from the government. We have heard time and again of the lack of leadership on the part of this government in respect of military matters, also of economic matters. But I charge the government this afternoon with an entire lack of plan, to an extent even worse than in other directions, as regards eastern Canadian agriculture and agriculture in general. It must be apparent to everybody whether they come from the farm or the city, that until the Canadian farmer gets a larger share of the national revenue there will never be a real economic balance in this country either during peace or war.
So much for agriculture. I want to deal for just a moment with the other phase of this momentous resolution, namely, unemployment. I wonder whether the government and hon. members realize that there is a war on. Persons who knew very little about legislation might well wonder why a bill was being brought in to deal with unemployment in Canada. It is taken for granted that we have many unemployables, but may I say that scores of thousands of men in that category could give and would willingly render really important service during this war-time period. As regards those who are able to work, there seems to be little excuse why they should not be working to-day. The question is being asked all over the dominion, at every street comer and wherever men congregate, why, if we are taking this national war effort seriously, are so many people out of work? Why are so many single men coming to members of parliament trying to find out where they can get in the army, whether they can enlist in the air force, whether they can find a job in some kind of plant, or any sort of job at all? More people have called on me in the last six months looking for employment of some kind-whether they thought that I was in a position to give them jobs or not, I am sure I do not know-than have ever come to see me for the same purpose in any comparable period during the whole of the five years I have been a member of parliament. There are transients here and there, young men, and men in many walks of life looking for employment. It is inconceivable- I say this sincerely, and I am sure the Minister

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Coldwell
of Labour himself recognizes it-that such a condition should exist in Canada when we are supposed to be putting our best foot forward in an effort to win the war. That is the great question mark that will stand out in connection with our war effort until unemployment is cured once for all. The question is, why?
Last night I was looking into the totals given through the national registration of direct relief recipients. The figures will be found in the blue book known as the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act of
1939.	We have not the figures for April and
May but I will give those that are available. I suggest that perhaps there is an answer to this, but it does not seem to be very good on the surface. Here is the situation. In the month when war was declared by Canada, in September 1939, there were, according to this report of the commissioner, 539,000 people drawing direct relief in Canada. I will leave out the odd numbers. In	October-and
remember, we were still at war-that figure had crept up to 543,000 and in November it had gone right up to 585,000.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I did not catch what the hon. member said. Did he say that was the number of the unemployed or of those receiving relief?


Gordon Graydon: I am quoting directly from the pamphlet issued by the commissioner giving the total number of direct relief recipients in Canada. Coming to December -and we are still at war-we find that the number has crept up to 629,000 and in January of this year it was 714,000. That was the number on direct relief in January of the present year, and in February that number had gone still higher to 753,000. In the last month for which figures are available, March
1940,	when the war situation was approaching a crisis, we find the staggering total of 768,000 people on direct relief. Every month since the war began the figures have mounted instead of coming down. I leave these figures with the minister for one particular reason. I believe that, coupled with the fact that we are at war, they are a challenge to democracy and to Canadian parliamentary institutions generally, and I make that statement with every bit of emphasis and with all the seriousness at my command this afternoon.
If we cannot reduce the number of direct relief recipients in Canada during a time of world-wide conflagration in which we are supposed to be giving our best in an effort to win the war, then I ask, what sort of future shall we have in time of peace? The very foundation, -the rock-bottom of democracy is our ability to keep our people at work

and to maintain some semblance of national prosperity in the dominion, and I conclude these brief remarks with this observation to the Minister of Labour. It is not too late for him to see to it that we shall be preparing in Canada, not for unemployment but for work for everybody, for every man and woman, because we are going to need the labour of every last man and woman before this war ends in victory for Canada and the empire.


Major James William Coldwell: I find myself in agreement to a large extent with the hon. member (Mr. Graydon). It has been something of a surprise to many members that the government at this stage has not seen fit to come before parliament with some constructive policy and some proposals to meet the unemployment conditions and the condition of agriculture with which this resolution deals. For ten years now, as the records show, we have been dealing with resolutions of this description, and so far no solution 'has been found to these problems apart from the amelioration of the condition by means of direct relief. In the past, in peace time, we have had no public works programmes of the sort that would give work to the unemployed on any large scale, and we have been content year after year to follow a relief policy. We have failed very largely because parliament has not yet recognized that unemployment and poverty are a part of the normal working of the present economic system. It is obvious that recent legislation in Great Britain and in New Zealand foreshadows conclusively the end of the unplanned, undirected economic system which has brought us to this pass in times of peace and fails to solve it even now when we are at war. The sooner we recognize that the system we have known, which was obviously breaking down before the war, has collapsed and that the conditions which we shall face in the future will be different from those that we have faced in the past, so much the sooner shall we arrive at a solution of the problems that confront us.
Many of us are realizing for the first time to-day that the secret of the recent success of the Germans is the fact that they have consciously planned their economic structure. True, they have planned with diabolical intent, but they have planned with an end in view. We have failed to make any plans or to give any direction to our economic system for the worthy purposes for which we ought to have been planning in the past. I think that much of the discontent that we find here and there throughout the country to-day is due to the fact that people who are alleged to be subversive are not really subversive at all-I mean



Unemployment Relief-Mr. Coldwell
the common people; the people who are agitating among them may be consciously subversive. But subversive activities would be easily met were it not for the distressed condition of many of our people across Canada. I regret that the government at this time apparently have no constructive policy to offer the house and the country. Last autumn when the war broke out we took a definite attitude in regard to the aid that Canada might give. We believed then and believe now that Canada's principal function in the war ought to be the provision of economic aid to the allies without profit to ourselves or to any persons in Canada. I thought that to some extent that was going to be done. I anticipated, and I remember saying so in my own constituency last autumn when I conducted a series of meetings there, that by the middle of this summer if we carried out the programme that most of us thought was then in view there would not be an unemployed person in the Dominion of Canada. Indeed I thought that by about this time skilled artisans would be coming into Canada to find work in the war industries that would be necessitated by the effort which many of us thought was going to be made.


William Earl Rowe: We were told that by the government.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, that was what we were led to believe. Instead of that, as was shown by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, in spite of the large number who have joined the army, there are tens of thousands of men unemployed, and there are tens of thousands of men, women and children on relief in this dominion.
I submit that Canada can solve her problem to-day. Not by doing as we are doing in this house at the present time, largely rehashing the very arguments that to my knowledge we have discussed for the last five years, and as the records show largely for the last ten years. There is the need, and we have the means, if we will organize, to end to a very Large extent the unemployment which now confronts us. I read this morning, as many other hon. members undoubtedly did, the courageous speech made in the British House of Commons yesterday by Mr. Churchill. I should like to quote one paragraph. He said:
Against this loss of over 30,000 men we may set a far heavier loss certainly inflicted on the enemy, but our losses in material are enormous. We have perhaps lost one-third of the men we lost on the opening days of the battle of the 21st of March, 1918, but we have lost nearly as many guns-nearly 1,000 guns-and all our transport and all the armoured vehicles that were with the army in the north. These losses will impose a further delay on the expansion of our military strength. That expansion has

not been proceeding as fast as we had hoped. The best of all we have to give had gone to the B.E.F. and they were a finely equipped army. Here is this further delay. How long it will last depends on the exertions we make in this island.
I contend that Canada to-day can aid the people there in providing the equipment that is needed with which they may combat the enemy.
What do the allies lack? When the war broke out many thought that large numbers of men would be required by the army. We took the view then and take it now that material aid is of greater importance as far as we are concerned. We should not have any unemployed in the Dominion of Canada to-day had we organized our economic resources as we ought to have organized them. The lack to-day is of mechanized equipment of every sort, of ships and of food. True, the transportation of food and material is a difficulty which has to be faced. But Canada has shipyards, Canada has men who can build ships, as was shown in the last war and has been shown throughout the years in the maritime provinces. We have the materials, we have the men, and we ought to be organizing the entire economic resources of this country immediately in order that we may render the maximum aid possible.


Mr. POTTIER:: Is it the suggestion of the hon. member that in the last war the government went into the shipbuilding business?


Major James William Coldwell: No, I did not suggest that. I stated that during the last war Canada built ships. I would say in reply to my hon. friend that under the conditions that exist to-day the government of Canada should introduce legislation of the sort that has been introduced in Great Britain and New Zealand, and take over the entire economic resources of the country and organize them under public enterprise; without profit or profiteering we might give material aid and also end the present unemployment. There are in Great Britain to-day unequipped soldiers by the thousands. The need, let me repeat, is for equipment. We constantly hear it suggested that we ought to be recruiting -more men for our armed forces. I believe we shall have to give some attention to the defence of our own shores before many days have passed, but the present need is the mobilization of our man power to assist in the production of the material goods that are so urgently required.
This afternoon the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) asked the Prime Minister whether a registration of man-power in Canada had been considered. I would say

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Coldwell
that a far more important thing is the mobilization of our industrial strength, our economic power, in order to give the aid that is so badly needed overseas at this time.
The unemployment problem that we face to-day is a blot upon this House of Commons, this government and the Dominion of Canada. We should have been preparing these many months to organize and mobilize our economic resources in order to be ready to meet this challenge. Now that the challenge is right upon us, no matter what we may have thought in days gone by, in this house we are a unit in desiring to give the maximum aid that we can render. We have the man power, much of it idle. We have the factories, some of them idle.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A good many of them.


Major James William Coldwell: We have the material. What we lack is initiative, the plan and the driving power to put that plan across. I say that now, while it is not too late, we should repair our mistakes-and let us all admit that we have made mistakes; I am not accusing the government of having made all of them. I suppose there is scarcely a man who believed that what we have seen happen during the past three weeks was possible. No one thought that Germany would have the driving power that she has shown, and be able to reduce nations as rapidly as they have been reduced. But let us revise our judgment; let us face the facts now. Instead of wrangling over past errors and over this particular problem; instead of talking about unemployment, let us try to end it at least for the duration of the war. In doing so never mind the contracts; never mind private interests. Let us take over every power plant, every mine, every factory, every shipyard that we need, not all at once but as we need them; let us organize our labour force to give the material aid our allies need. I venture to say that if we mobilize our economic and industrial strength, the labourer in the factory and the farmer on the land will be glad to cooperate, provided they see that the economic strength of this country is being exerted to the maximum, without a profit being made by any private concern out of the necessities of war or out of their labour.
I submit that this is the way to end unemployment at this time; this is the way to end profiteering and, what is equally important, this is the way to help win the war. In this planning of our productive effort, in this planning to end unemployment, let us keep in mind that in order not to encourage subversive activities that may confront us 95826-35J
when the war ends we must see to it that we maintain our standards of living and that the conditions under which labourers work and farmers produce are conditions worth fighting and making sacrifices for. That will involve, of course, guaranteeing the producers a fair return for their products, labour fair rewards, and the consumers fair prices for the things they buy.
These things can be done if we have the courage to do them, and in doing these things we can meet the very problem, both on the farm and in the industrial centre, that we are discussing this afternoon. I scarcely dare think of the alternative. It is the delay of victory, in any event, perhaps even the risk of defeat, and the continuance of distress which provides a fertile field for fifth column activities. This afternoon the Minister of Justice declared a number of organizations subversive. No doubt he has the evidence which caused him to make that declaration on behalf of the government. I am not criticizing that action, but I am going to point out once more that subversive organizations and activities arise largely out of discontent. If there is no poverty, no misery, no want and no discontent, then subversive organizations cannot thrive in the community.
So I say we can end unemployment and farm distress and at the same time serve a good cause. I think we should consider this problem in terms of the dire need of this nation and of our allies. As a matter of fact I believe that the situation which confronts us is a challenge to the representatives of the people and to the democratic institution of parliament itself.	If we cannot solve this
problem; if we cannot meet the demands that are made upon this institution, then there will arise in our midst, even as there have arisen in other countries, organizations which will endeavour to supersede this parliament. I am one of those who believe that in spite of all its defects, in spite of its sometimes slow movement, no institution can give democracy a better representation than the age-old British institution of parliament. But this is our challenge. We have the power now, if we will use it, to bring about a restoration of the respect of parliament in the eyes of the people of this country from one end of it to the other.
In conclusion I want to say that as a first step the government should mobilize immediately all the factories and industries that are capable of producing war materials. Never mind the difficulties about taking them over; compensation and all the rest of it can wait until the war is ended. I am reminded that even now the Minister of Munitions and

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Shaw
Supply has certain powers which would enable him to do that very thing. All food resources and war materials should be taken over. Those who produce them should be given an adequate return, that they might live decently and not be the prey of subversive organizations in our midst. In this way I believe the veiy problem we are discussing this afternoon could be met. So far as we in this corner of the house are concerned, as we said at the very outset we are prepared to facilitate government business and to give the government the right of way in every particular. We have tried to cooperate in every sense of the word. We are prepared to continue that cooperation in order that we may meet this domestic problem of unemployment and agricultural distress and assist in the organization of our country to meet the shock of war and the post-war conditions that will follow.


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak to this resolution I propose to be direct and brief. As a new member of this house it was my intention to remain silent and learn. Probably I should have remained silent if this question of relief had not come up. Considered at its very best, relief is degrading, demoralizing and soul-destroying, and I should feel that I were shirking my responsibilities to my constituents if I remained in my seat at this time and failed to express their feelings.
The resolution states that it has been deemed expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress. If it were universally agreed that unemployment and agricultural distress were impossible of solution I should be able to look upon this resolution in a much happier state of mind. But since it is not universally believed or agreed that these problems are impossible of solution I cannot look upon this resolution happily at all. How much better it would have been if it had been deemed expedient to bring in a measure to cure unemployment and agricultural distress. For a moment I should like to refer to a statement made yesterday by the leader of the official opposition, as reported at page 509 of Hansard:
I well remember the first bill dealing with unemployment relief which was brought down in the house in the session of 1930. There was not a man in this chamber then, and I doubt if there was a thinking man in Canada, who ever had the idea that this problem would not only be with us for ten long years but grow to the magnitude it has reached.
He goes on:
If we had conceived at that time that it would become a problem of national magnitude, we might have-I do not say we would have- dealt with the problem ab initio from a different point of view; but there was not a
[M-. Coldwell.l
man among us on either side of the house who had any conception of the extent and character of the problem that was confronting us or that it would be with us for these ten long years.
I must say that I cannot agree with that statement of the hon. leader of the official opposition. I contend that ten years ago the people were sufficiently enlightened as to the rapid developments which were taking place in our scientific and industrial fields to know that the machine age was rapidly creeping upon us. Furthermore, many of us knew even at that time that, labouring as we were under an orthodox system of finance which was slowly but surely crushing us, it was quite possible that no solution to this problem would be found under orthodoxy and that we should have the condition which is upon us to-day.
I do not know whether the hon. gentleman made his statement in order to cover up the actions of the Conservative party between 1930 and 1935 with respect to unemployment. I should like to reminisce for a moment. In 1930 unemployment in Canada had reached a figure in excess of half a million. The committee will pardon me for using algebraic terms but I would say that a figure of half a million plus x would probably be nearer right, because we have at all times a great number of unemployed who for some reason or another do not register.
Just before the election of 1930 the Conservatives were in hysterics. They said that there was absolutely no reason for the unemployment that existed. They contended that in a rich country like this fair Canada of ours with its potential resources and small population there was no reason for the condition that existed at that time. They told us that if they were elected they would solve the unemployment problem, that they would provide jobs for the unemployed. The people were a little gullible. Apparently they believed that statement; for they returned that party to power. We must give them credit for having kept the wolf from the door, but the wolf was dangerously close. If I may characterize it as such, their policy consisted of prayers and palliatives. Like our friend Micawber they seemed to be waiting for something to turn up.
From the election in 1930 until 1935 the unemployment problem became steadily worse.
The Conservative government of that time, labouring under an orthodox system of finance, found themselves in a position where they could not possibly handle the unemployment problem. When 1935 came along the Liberals had a new slogan. This will be quite familiar to our hon. friends on the other side of the house. They said: If elected we will take

___________Unemployment Relief-Mr. Shaw
control of currency and credit and issue it in terms of the public need. That sounded fine to the unemployed because they realized, as our group realizes to-day, that if that policy, were carried out there would be an immediate end to the unemployment problem.
The people elected that Liberal government. As -has been shown already by the speaker who preceded me, since 1935 the unemployment problem has become steadily worse. The Conservative government tried for approximately five years to correct the evil, but working under the orthodox system of finance they found they could not do it. Personally I have no faith in the alternatives announced by the present Conservative opposition, because they are still just as orthodox as the government. Since 1935 the Liberal government has tried to solve the unemployment problem. I think it must be admitted, even by hon. friends opposite, that they have not been entirely successful. But we must give them credit for having done their best to solve this problem under orthodox finance.
Unemployment cannot be permanently cured as long as we work under the existing orthodox financial set-up. I do not care how you try to do it, it cannot be done. Therefore we must seek some method of reform. We suggest the adoption of the method advocated by our group. This must be done in order to clear up, if I may use that term, a most unsatisfactory condition. A previous speaker stated, in effect, that the Canadian people believed that when Canada became an active participant in the terrible European conflict the question of unemployment would shortly cease to be a national problem. After approximately nine years of warfare-


An hon. MEMBER:: Months.


Frederick Davis Shaw: It seems like nine years. After approximately nine months of warfare we are forced to the conclusion that war does not provide a solution to the unemployment problem. In our unemployed we have a vast reservoir of man-power which is seeking to serve without success. We are faced with the tremendous cost of keeping these unemployed, we are spending vast sums of money which under better circumstances could be used to fight our war abroad. Please do not misunderstand me; I am not advocating that we should cut off the relief allowances to the unemployed. What I am trying to convey is that even under the orthodox system of finance there is no reason why our people could not be absorbed into industry, provided industry is speeded up to the proper point, without its being necessary to take anything out of general revenue and set it apart, for their keep.
Under the present set-up the government depends upon income from taxation and upon borrowings from the bank, which is simply a more vicious type of taxation. But we find that the taxes imposed come out of the pockets of the millions of people who to-day are themselves on the very borderline of unemployment; and if we increase our taxation in order to raise money to meet the unemployment situation and our other problems, we shall be defeating our very purpose because as fast as we secure money for relief or rehabilitation of the unemployed, we shall be forcing the borderline taxpayers into relief. It is high time, therefore, that we realized that we are living in a different age from a decade ago, and it is vital that we get a clear-cut view of the situation as it now exists. I say to the government-and perhaps this is because I have not been a member of this house before-that if they were prepared to take control of currency and credit and issue it in terms of public need as they said they would do before the election of 1935, let them tell us definitely why they have not done it and why they do not intend doing it. The actions of the government in trying to meet present-day problems by orthodox methods of finance remind me very much of the actions of a witch doctor, and needless to say the results accomplished are about the same in both instances.
In conclusion, may I say that there is no reason in this world for members of the old orthodox school of finance to sneer at reformers just because they advocate monetary reforms which we know are bound to come and which hon. gentlemen opposite know are bound to come in spite of them.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Chairman, in discussing the resolution before the committee, I should like to confine my remarks to that portion providing for assistance in the alleviation of agricultural distress. I hope the members of the committee will not consider me provincial in my outlook if I confine my remarks to the province of Saskatchewan and the constituency which I represent.
I hope that the minister (Mr. McLarty) will not be a party to any changes which will force upon people on relief and the unemployed the acceptance of a lower standard of living. I have just received a dispatch from Canora, Saskatchewan. An article appeared in the press of May 23 to the effect that the relief committee consisting of Councillors Lawson, Shore and Wicwicki, had resigned as a committee at the regular meeting of the town council that week, on account of
550	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Nicholson
the fact that government assistance had been cut off and the committee had no funds with which to carry on.
Hon. members, realizing that food for hungry people is involved, should think carefully before being a party to any action which in this land of plenty will result in people going hungry.
I have here some snapshots which I took myself in my constituency a number of years ago. They were sent to a friend of mine in the city many years ago because I told him of the poverty which existed in northern Saskatchewan. My deskmate (Mr. Gillis), on seeing these pictures yesterday, said that nowhere in the coalfields of Nova Scotia can you find poverty such as these pictures portray. I have never had the pleasure of meeting the hon. Minister of Labour, but I judge him to be a man who, if he knew about the matter, would not want to see a single person in Canada go hungry.
I hold in my hand a picture of a returned soldier who, with his wife and eight children, went to my constituency under what was known as the $300 scheme. The provincial government, the federal government and the city of Regina each contributed $100, and with this amount the family was supposed to become self-supporting. They were allowed $50 with which to build a house, $100 to purchase farm stock and implements, and an allowance of $10 a month for foodstuffs. This picture was taken when snow was on the ground. It shows five children without any footwear. These people did not dress for the picture. Like most of us they wished to appear in their best, and in the picture they are shown in their very best clothing, and without any footwear. I would be pleased if the minister would try to imagine himself in the environment of this returned soldier. Under the northern settlers reestablishment plan, the standard of living has been improved considerably, and the homes that are being built are superior to the one occupied by this man.
I have in my hand another picture showing a family in similar circumstances. I recall a conversation that took place after I took the picture. The father came out. He was rather philosophical in his outlook. He said to me, "No doubt you are saying to yourself, 'There is no excuse for people being dirty. We have read a great many stories about such and such a family being very, very poor but very, very clean.' You can take it from me," he said, "that poverty and cleanliness do not go hand in hand." He asked, "Have you ever tried washing without soap?" I had to admit that I had not. He said, "Well, this morning I thought I would have a wash

for a change, and I said, 'Mary, where is the soap?' She said, 'We haven't had any soap in the house for ten days'." This man said to me, "I do not use tobacco; I do not use liquor. When I get my relief allowance, if there is a five cent piece that has not been spent, I tell the storekeeper to put in another cake of soap or another spool of thread." I wonder if hon. members can appreciate what it means to have a large family and no soap, to have ragged children and no thread in the house to mend their clothes. Hon. gentlemen across the way smile, but I should like them to try living under conditions which prevail in northern Saskatchewan. Think of this man who gave his best between 1914 and 1918, living with his children in poverty, with five children in the winter time without shoes or stockings. It is no laughing matter.
This is a letter I received from one of my constituents on April 14:
We are in need of clothes very badly. We have only had one clothing order for $18 since we moved to the Block, and as you know that will not buy very much clothing. My husband is wearing his felts and rubbers, which are rather warm just now, and we are in need of lots of other clothing. We need a clothing order of $20.
I replied, advising her to consult the relief inspector for the area, and this is the reply I received after she had done so:
I have made my application for clothing, and he says rve cannot get clothing orders at all. So it looks as if we are to go nude out here. They also cut down our grocery order because we lost our little boy. We have no milk or potatoes, or hens to give us eggs.
I have another letter from one of my constituents dated April 27. This has to do with mothers' allowances. I know that does not come under the direct administration of the federal government, but hon. gentlemen have heard me read two letters describing conditions in northern Saskatchewan and they will understand how closely the problem of mothers' allowance is tied up with the problem of relief which we are discussing. This man writes as follows:
I have been disabled from work for the last ten years. Not able to do my work on the farm, my wife is getting a mother's allowance of $36 per month. We have to buy clothing for a family of fifteen (father, mother and thirteen children) out of it, and buy books for the children out of it, and it is very hard to make a living, so I wish you could help us to get my wife's allowance increased a little.
So, Mr. Chairman. I wrote to the superintendent of the bureau of child protection for Saskatchewan. This is his reply:
Dear Sir,
I have your letter of May 21 before me. In reply must say that the $36.00 Mrs.-

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Nicholson
I shall not give the name.
-receives is the maximum allowance paid in Saskatchewan for eight children under sixteen years of age. Mrs.	has ten children under
sixteen years of age, but as the last two were born after the allowance was first granted on account of the physical incapacity of Mr. , they cannot now receive a mother's allowance. Mrs.	must look to the rural municipality
for such additional aid as is absolutely necessary.
The allowance of $36 a month is for a father, mother and thirteen children. What will happen if they appeal to the relief officer, or the rural municipality as the case may be? They will be told that $36 a month for fifteen people is a good deal more than they' would be allowed if they were on relief, and I venture to say that no increase will be granted even if they accept the advice of a man who signs himself "Superintendent, Bureau of Child Protection." An hon. gentleman asks, what is his salary? I am certain it will not be $36 a month.
This is another letter which I have recently received from a returned soldier. I will read a part of it:
It seems to me as though the time has arrived when everything that can be done by everyone should be done, and regardless of my age-
I have written to find out this man's age; as I recall it, he is over fifty.
-I should be able to fill the post of recruiting officer or some such similar post, which must surelv be needed.
Listen to his first letter to me:
The provincial government have reluctantly condescended to allow us a relief ticket for $12.00, same having been received for the past two montns to feed eight of a family, with a terse command that they may discontinue even that at any time. ... It has been impossible for me to procure any local work to improve conditions, and owing to my family being young I cannot go far afield to look for work on account of home requirements . . . and well for us that I was about, for one dav last week the shack caught fire and would have burned down had the woman been alone with the small children. Even as it was I had difficulty in saving what I did.
A few minutes of rapid calculation will reveal that this returned soldier, his wife and children are having the extravagant allowance of 1-66 cents per meal; this at a time when Canada faces a national crisis and a father who risked his life during the last war is offering his services again in any capacity.
I have reports from some ten families in my constituency. I am not going to discuss these cases in detail; I will simply say that these ten families report that their total grocery bill for 1939 was $1,575, or $23.16 per person per year, slightly less than $2 per person per month, or 6-34 cents per day, or a little over 2 cents per meal.
As I said before, I believe that if the Minister of Labour really knew that human beings are living under the conditions which I have described, he would be bringing to this committee a report which would offer some hope, a report which would do away with unemployment and with the need for agricultural relief.
Before I leave the question of food, I should like to draw attention to the fact that in appendix 6 of the report presented by the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, attention is drawn to the fact that there is a wide variation in the amounts allowed in various parts of Canada for food. On page 23 of this report the commission say:
Great hardship is caused by a tendency in some places to cut groups of unemployed persons off relief on technical grounds without making any other provision for them.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but he knows that the allowance which is made in each case is determined not by this government but by the provincial government.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Quite so, but I want to point out that it is important that the dominion government place the funds at the disposal of the provincial governments. I imagine that these reported cases of hardship from Saskatchewan have come as a direct result of an intimation from this government that the necessary financial assistance will not be forthcoming.


Norman Alexander McLarty: No such intimation has been given.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: May I ask the minister if there is likely to be any reduction in the appropriation for relief for Saskatchewan for the current year?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I cannot answer that question offhand. There are general reductions under this act. I do not know whether there is any reduction in respect of Saskatchewan, but I might say that all these figures are agreed to between the federal government and the provincial governments concerned; they are not superimposed by this government.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: May I ask the minister if any reductions have been made for, say, the month of May, as compared with the month of May a year ago, in respect to Saskatchewan?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I shall be glad to let the hon. member have an answer to his question. I do not think there is any reduction.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: My information, which comes from Saskatchewan papers, is to the effect that the allowance had been cut approximately in half. Certainly a dispatch such
552	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Nicholson
as the one I read from the town of Canora indicates that the money is not available in Regina; and if the money is not available in Regina, it is because the grants from the federal government have not been forthcoming in sufficient amounts. If the minister will supply definite information, I shall be glad to have it from him.
May I refer now to the problem of education. As everyone knows, education falls within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, but the amount of money made available for relief in a province has a definite relation to teachers' salaries and to educational needs in the province. I have before me some pictures of educational interest. I hold in my hand a photograph of one of the many new schools in my constituency. It was built with a S200 cash grant, no more. Someone has suggested that we should float bonds or sell debentures. There is not a financial institution in Canada which *would consider accepting debentures on these schools. This is a school on which $200 has been spent, which sum had to provide for all the windows, the doors, the brick, the hardware, the desks and equipment. Think of it, Mr. Chairman-* the educational needs of a great country being met in such a manner.
I have before me a memorandum here in connection with one of the schools in my constituency, where the department, in a very generous moment, granted $300. But there were two schools to be built in this district. This is a district in which the people are being reestablished under what is described as an ideal plan. Those from the drought area and from our cities are being reestablished under the northern settlers' reestablishment plan, and the sum of $300 has been provided for the building of two schools.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is it suggested that the dominion government should grant $300?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No. Education falls within the jurisdiction of the provincial government, but the appropriation made available by the federal government for relief assistance has a direct effect on the educational needs of that particular area. Here is a school district where S300 was appropriated for two buildings. The people who have been living in this district since 1937 are being reestablished. The minister laughs.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Was the hon. member referring to me? I was not laughing at anything he was saying.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is no laughing matter


Norman Alexander McLarty: I was not laughing.


Mr. MARTIN:: It is no laughing matter for anyone in this house. Do not take that attitude.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am making serious suggestions and I would appreciate it if the minister would listen.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have been listening most attentively.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In this school district seventy-six children are denied the right to go to school. The matter was taken up with the Department of Education in February, and I have a letter from the department dated May 31 to the effect that the report from the superintendent would indicate that both schoolhouses were then nearing completion and would be in operation at an early date. On May 31 the schools were not in operation.
I have two or three letters from school teachers in my constituency. They give a picture of the problems of the rural school teacher in northern Saskatchewan. One teacher writes that a new floor is needed, that there are no blinds in the school and that books are needed badly, and she cannot get them herself because she cannot get any money. She says that there is no well by the school, nor are there are any proper water tanks. She says:
The teaeherage is very draughty. There is no fire extinguisher in school or house. The chimney in the teacherage is falling to pieces. The four municipalities together owe this school one thousand dollars but the board is unable to collect it.
Here is another letter.


The CHAIRMAN:: I wish to remind the
hon. member of the rule governing debates in committee. I am not trying to limit discussion, but maintenance of schools is primarily a question of provincial jurisdiction; nothing contained in the resolution can be applied to remedying the condition complained of. Therefore any reference to the condition of schools or to hardships of the kind depicted, whether well founded or not, must be ruled out of order as not being germane to the subject matter under consideration.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have already twice
explained that these matters are not under the direct supervision of this house-


Thomas Vien: And therefore the
hon. member is out of order in reading a communication from a teacher complaining of the condition of a school building or its equipment. The resolution is directly concerned with unemployment relief.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman-
JUNE 5, 1940	[DOT]
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Nicholson


Thomas Vien: The hon. member for
Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) has the floor at the moment, and I am pointing out to him the scope of the resolution.


Angus MacInnis: But you are limiting the
discussion unduly, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Vien: I am not limiting the
discussion; I have not called the hon. member to order. It is, however, my duty as chairman of the committee to confine the discussion as far as possible to the subject matter before the committee. The rule is clear. I have been as lenient as possible and I am willing to allow a great deal of latitude, but when an hon. member reads a letter from a school teacher complaining about the equipment of a school, I must rule that the reading of such a letter is clearly out of order.


Angus MacInnis: But there is a point of
order.


Thomas Vien: I have given my ruling; the hon. member is out of order.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have pointed out
that the amount of money voted by the government for relief in Saskatchewan has a direct bearing on the educational needs of the people whom I represent.


Thomas Vien: It is too far-fetched to be in order.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I submit that it is an
indication of distress, and we are discussing distress in Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is distress that we cannot deal with.


Thomas Vien: I am quite willing to
allow considerable latitude, but I must exercise some discretion and keep the debate within reasonable bounds.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In my opening remarks I said that I wished to speak to the resolution providing assistance in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress, and my remarks have been entirely with a view to informing this committee of the problems arising from agricultural distress in my constituency. I submit that if my people cannot receive sufficient relief, their educational needs are greatly affected. I was reading a communication from an area where the people on relief are not able to give their children and the teachers the benefits they should receive, and I thought the minister would like to know about the matter. I understand I am not permitted to read these communications.


Thomas Vien: No; except in so far as they relate to the measures proposed for unemployment; relief that is, the subject matter of the resolution before the committee.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I will not read any further, but I will refer to the living conditions. Let me refer to one home where the people are on relief and where the teacher boards. This lady says:
I have had to put up with various insects, the worst being bedbugs and fleas. I've only wooden boxes to furnish my room and a stool. Have had to wrap myself up in the evenings while reading or doing any other work to keep from freezing.
Before concluding, I should like to discuss another matter that has a direct bearing on the question of agricultural distress. I refer to medical services. I have before me a communication from the deputy minister of public health of Saskatchewan with respect to provision for medical services. He says:
Arrangements will be made with the physicians residing in these areas to provide the necessary medical care to persons requiring the same. However, the people will be expected to pay what they can towards these services, whether it be the whole amount or only a part.
I might mention that this communication has been sent out by the deputy minister to call attention to the fact that necessary assistance with respect to medical services will not be continued in future. The opening paragraph says:
It has been decided that after May 1, 1940, the department will not provide medical services to all relief northern settlers and residents of the local improvement districts in the northern area as has been during the past few years.
He points out in connection with hospital services that they are cutting down in connection with drugs.


Norman Alexander McLarty: What department is that?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The Department of Public Health.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Of the provincial government?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Of Saskatchewan, yes. The concluding paragraph points out that:
It is not the intention of this department to have any person suffer unnecessarily for the lack of medical and hospital care, and this policy is not intended to work a hardship upon the people in any sense whatsoever.
I am sure some hon. members who are members of the medical profession will be interested in knowing what provision is planned for these northern doctors.


Thomas Vien: Again I point out that the hon. member is complaining of certain regulations made by a provincial department of public health with respect to medical or

554	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Nicholson
hospital care. This is strictly within provincial jurisdiction, and it does not come within the scope of the resolution now before the committee.


Major James William Coldwell: On a point of order, I would say the hon. member has a right to place before the committee-


Thomas Vien: My ruling has been given. The only remedy is to appeal from it to the Speaker.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, I am going to challenge that ruling.


Thomas Vien: It is not debatable.


Major James William Coldwell: I am challenging that ruling.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member wants to challenge my ruling, he should do so in writing; otherwise the hon. gentleman has the floor.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I submit that in addition to the northern settlers requiring food and shelter they require medical service, and if this government do not make available to the provincial government the money necessary to provide those services they are failing in their duty. The question of medical services for my people is a very serious matter to me. I was going to mention the provision that is being planned for the medical doctors in my area. They are being provided with a subsidy of $25 a month.


Thomas Vien: By whom?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: By the Department of Public Health of Saskatchewan, out of moneys part of which are supplied by this government.


Thomas Vien: Again I say this matter does not fall within the scope of the resolution now before the committee.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether any money provided by this government is used in Saskatchewan to provide medical services for northern settlers?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Not so far as I know.


Thomas Vien: I point out that the resolution says specifically that it is for the purpose of supplementing measures taken by the provinces towards providing assistance to those in need. Therefore if any complaint is to be made with respect to the measures taken by the province the complaint should be addressed to the province, and does not come within the scope of this resolution.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: May I ask you, sir, to interpret the expression "in need" ? I submit that providing medical service is a matter which does concern this committee.
[The Chairman.]


Thomas Vien: If the action complained of, namely the curtailment of relief by the province, is the matter that the hon. gentleman wishes to discuss, as I assume from his remarks it is, then it is outside the scope of the resolution. This parliament can do nothing to compel any provincial department to adopt any measure. Therefore the hon. member is out of order.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: All I am concerned about is having money available in order that medical service can be provided for northern settlers. According to this dispatch from the Department of Public Health in Regina, money is not being made available. If the provincial government is not going to provide it, I want to see that the money is provided, and I submit that on that allowance of $25 a month to be expected to give medical service to people in widely scattered districts is an insult to any doctor. One doctor said: "As far as I am concerned I can pull up stakes; I can go elsewhere." We have only a handful of doctors serving my constituency, with over fifty thousand residents. That condition is a direct result of the people living there not having the financial resources to enable them to support a doctor. And I submit that if the provincial government has not the funds available, this government should see that funds are supplied immediately.
Hon. members heard the hon. member for North Battleford speak here the other night. She said:
I have known eases where a father or mother, with a desperately sick child at home, has had to travel twenty miles or more in sub-zero weather, not to fetch a doctor but like a whipped dog to beg of a relief officer in an endeavour to obtain a permit to get a doctor to look after that child.
I say it is a disgrace to have a statement like that placed on Hansard without anyone rising and saying it is untrue. No hon. member has risen in his place to challenge the accuracy of that statement. If it is true, hon. members should lose no time in seeing that such conditions are rectified.


Mr. TRIPP:: The hon. member has challenged other members of this house to get up and deny certain statements. I want to deny some of the statements he has made here to-day. I was a member of the legislature in Saskatchewan for eight years, four of them being from 1934 to 1938, and I can say all the statements he has made to-day are not true.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Is the hon.
member proud of the mess in Saskatchewan to-day as the result of the actions of some of his associates?

European War-Petition


Thomas Vien: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


An hon. MEMBER:: No hon. gentleman
has a right to say "sit down" to a member of the committee.


Thomas Vien: Order. When the chairman is standing hon. members must sit down.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Have I not the floor?


Thomas Vien: No. What has just
developed proves the wisdom of following the rules of debate. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Nicholson) who is a new member, has been given much latitude since be began his speech. I interrupted him once or twice because I thought he had exceeded all reasonable bounds. He then challenged other hon. members of the committee. That is out of order. An hon. member when making a speech may state facts or submit argument, but cannot challenge other hon. members. When he does, the result is just what has taken place-other hon. members take up the challenge. I am saying this only for the purpose of calling attention to the wisdom of following the rules of debate. I have been rather lenient to new members in this and other debates in order to assist them and enable them properly to develop their argument. But hon. gentlemen should read the rules of the house and try to adhere to them as closely as possible, because they are based on a great deal of wisdom and experience.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Tripp) said just now that the statements of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) were not true. The hon. member for Mackenzie is now bringing forward evidence to prove the truth of his statements; and since he has made them on his responsibility as a member of parliament. I would suggest that the hon. member for Assiniboia be asked to withdraw his remarks.


Thomas Vien: I am in the hands of the committee, but I suggest to hon. members that we should consider the incident closed. A challenge was made, which was out of order. A few remarks have been made from here and there, which might also be considered out of order, but which were prompted by the challenge. Therefore I think it would be the better part of wisdom to consider the incident closed.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am not pleased at the prospect of having in Hansard a statement to the effect that what I said was untrue.


Thomas Vien: This is a contradiction as to facts.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Exactly, and I am
prepared to support my statement.


Thomas Vien: It is not a direct statement that the hon. gentleman, speaking from his place in this house, said something untrue deliberately to mislead the committee. That would be out of order. But if what is believed to be a fact is stated to the house and its accuracy is challenged by another hon. member, that is a different matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if you are speaking for yourself or for the hon. member for Assiniboia? That hon. gentleman did not say whether he called into question the veracity of the statement or the veracity of the hon. member.


Thomas Vien: The incident is closed, The hon. member for Mackenzie has the floor.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like the hon. member for Assiniboia to have an opportunity either to repeat or to withdraw his statement.


Jesse Pickard Tripp: I suggest that the hon. member was out of order in issuing his challenge. If he will withdraw the challenge, I will withdraw my remarks as well.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Very good; then I
withdraw the challenge.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
Thursday, June 6, 1940